TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- France is banning smoking
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Isn't the ban restricted to public places?

No matter how much I value personal freedom, I fail to see a problem here.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Isn't the ban restricted to public places? No matter how much I value personal freedom, I fail to see a problem here.

Someone who owns a restaurant (which is private property) isn't allowed to allow smoking.

quote:

Originally posted by Ghost Raver *Grabs a cigarette, lights it up and inhales a shit load of cancer into the lungs* Ah it feels so good!

Oh nooooo please dont im so worried about ya....

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi remember that smoking is a choice.

Is it really? :-O

quote:

Originally posted by nchs09 smoking factories? whats that?

I mean places where they make cigars....Come on 09 use common sence

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Isn't the ban restricted to public places?

No, it also applies to private establishments like restaurants.

One might think that "private / public" would be an easy distinction to maintain, but for a long time courts have waffled on what exactly constitutes a "public" place. In one American case, some guys set up a booth at a mall to promote their political ideology. The mall owners ejected them, but then the guys who set up the booth sued and won on First Amendment (freedom of speech) grounds, in spite of the fact that the mall was private property.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au I bet googooly thinks that's pollution

is it not??! O.o

quote:

Originally posted by Googooly is it not??! O.o

It's water vapor.

To be honest i smoke weed every now and again, but I deffinatly know my limits, why the hell would I want to reduce my life time?????!!

I wanna live so many years, so maybe one day I can own a robot as a pet.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles It's water vapor.

just testing


Anyway water vapour is acidic itself, but thats got nothing to do with this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Googooly Anyway water vapour is acidic itself, but thats got nothing to do with this thread.

Uhh, no. Water vapor has a pH of 7, neither acidic nor alkaline.

quote:

Originally posted by Googooly To be honest i smoke weed every now and again, but I deffinatly know my limits, why the hell would I want to reduce my life time?????!! I wanna live so many years, so maybe one day I can own a robot as a pet.

Youre more than welcome to not smoke and to avoid places where people are smoking then 0 Private businesses should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not.

quote:

Originally posted by eROs.au Someone who owns a restaurant (which is private property) isn't allowed to allow smoking.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles No, it also applies to private establishments like restaurants. One might think that "private / public" would be an easy distinction to maintain, but for a long time courts have waffled on what exactly constitutes a "public" place. In one American case, some guys set up a booth at a mall to promote their political ideology. The mall owners ejected them, but then the guys who set up the booth sued and won on First Amendment (freedom of speech) grounds, in spite of the fact that the mall was private property.

I see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree with you.

Smoking is not exactly risk free, and the French government probably has to pay thousands of euros every year because of smokers. So, in that case, smoking (either actively of passively) is not much different from, let's say, drive without wearing a seatbelt. In both cases, the person involved is not only risking their own life but can also affect those around them (in a rather negative way).

"Sure", you might say, "but wouldn't that limit the authority restaurant owners have over their own business?". Well, first of all, they're not as free as you'd expect them to. They have to conform to many rules, and this is just one of them. Also, in this case, if you gave restaurant owners the choice of allowing smoking (or not), most restaurants would choose not to forbid it because they'd lose clients if they did otherwise, and the law would soon turn out to be inefective.

quote:

Originally posted by Elec Youre more than welcome to not smoke and to avoid places where people are smoking then 0 Private businesses should be able to decide for themselves whether to allow smoking or not.

By the right Law NOBODY must be allowed to smoke in publice places, where anyone could be in danger of second hand smoking(private or not private). That law is in force here. Its great!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Smoking is not exactly risk free, and the French government probably has to pay thousands of euros every year because of smokers. So, in that case, smoking (either actively of passively) is not much different from, let's say, drive without wearing a seatbelt. In both cases, the person involved is not only risking their own life but can also affect those around them (in a rather negative way).

Why not just make smoking illegal, then? Along with all the other drugs that allow people to hurt themselves.

Or you can just not go places where people smoke. Lots of restaurants had already banned smoking on their own before governments got in on the act.

quote:

Also, in this case, if you gave restaurant owners the choice of allowing smoking (or not), most restaurants would choose not to forbid it because they'd lose clients if they did otherwise, and the law would soon turn out to be inefective.

This is empirically false. Quite a few restaurants had a "no smoking" policy or a small, sealed-off "smoking" section, before laws started appearing. At least in the U.S., the sustained anti-smoking campaigns made smoking significantly less popular than it used to be, and restaurants adjusted their policies accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Why not just make smoking illegal, then? Along with all the other drugs that allow people to hurt themselves.

In an ideal world, yes. But, unfortunately, this seems not to work.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Or you can just not go places where people smoke. Lots of restaurants had already banned smoking on their own before governments got in on the act.

True but, what if I wanted to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking? Should I have to pay for the choice of those around me? I'm there for the food, not exactly for the air

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles This is empirically false. Quite a few restaurants had a "no smoking" policy or a small, sealed-off "smoking" section, before laws started appearing.

But, they were a minority, weren't they?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira True but, what if I wanted to eat in a restaurant that allows smoking? Should I have to pay for the choice of those around me? I'm there for the food, not exactly for the air

But there are any number of things that might annoy you and put you off your food. A group of obese people could come in and start chowing down, breathing loudly and belching as they shovel food into their mouths.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But there are any number of things that might annoy you and put you off your food. A group of obese people could come in and start chowing down, breathing loudly and belching as they shovel food into their mouths.

Yeah, but the odds of that giving my cancer are nil

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Yeah, but the odds of that giving my cancer are nil

Well, we're back to the point that nobody is forcing you to go to restaurants where people smoke...

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Well, we're back to the point that nobody is forcing you to go to restaurants where people smoke...

Yeah, but, what if I want to eat the food? Even if I pay no attention to smokers around me, my health is affected by their actions. So, it's not the annoyance that I'm talking about, but the health problems involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Yeah, but, what if I want to eat the food?

Then you can order takeout.

Any decision involves some kind of tradeoff. What if you want to eat a steak at a restaurant because you've heard it's really good, but are worried about how the fat will affect your health? Should you be able to force the restaurant to cook a lower-fat version for you? I don't think so. What if you're a former alcoholic and you think the temptation of the restaurant bar might end up being hazardous to your health? Should you be able to force them to remove all the alcohol while you're in there?

"But," you say, "none of those things affects you inevitably in the way that second-hand smoking will." But the effects of second-hand smoke aren't inevitable in any way, either. Most people who breathe second-hand smoke don't get cancer or develop lung problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Most of the states do, and many cities and municipalities are banning smoking in public places.

i still enjoy a smoke in the employee break room

i juste smokeded a clove and i feel alive


trekeck gold?

trekek freedom

quote:

Originally posted by Lira So, in that case, smoking (either actively of passively) is not much different from, let's say, drive without wearing a seatbelt. In both cases, the person involved is not only risking their own life but can also affect those around them (in a rather negative way).

Care to explain how driving without a seatbelt affects anybody else's life in a rather negative way?

quote:

Originally posted by Elec Care to explain how driving without a seatbelt affects anybody else's life in a rather negative way?

If you don't wear it and get in an accident, you're more likely to become a vegetable who does little more than generate huge medical bills.

At least that's the argument I've heard.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.