|
When are they going to pass that non-smoking law? (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
you say i have a right to not enter non smoking establishments. This is true but using that logic dont you think there should be a provision that allows for the right to open a smoking or non smoking bar?
Why not let the owners decide based on the market? If there is a demand for non smoking bars, lets see some non smokers open some non smoking bars instead of using the government to ban it everywhere. Wont everyone be happy then?
For now we have designated smoking rooms where ONLY smokers will go but this isnt even good enough for the ban brigade. They are trying to have these outlawed by 2007.
WHATS IT TO THEM? they NEVER have to go there... EVER!
If this doesnt expose their true agenda nothing will. |
|
|
| Orko |
do the workers(who this law was created to help) not have to go and serve the patrons in this smoking area?
it just creates a more concentrated smoke area. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Did the workers ever get a chance to voice their own opinions before this law was passed in part on their behalf?
No one ever asked me!
I personally like to have patrons ensuring me a paycheque. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
It doesnt. You have the choice whether or not you wish to enter the establishment. A better approach would be for the non smokers to open their own nightclub with no smoking in order to provide a choice for people and then let the market decide.
Wouldnt that be fair???
Oh and your insurance arguement still uses healthcare as a crutch and now you are talking about passing laws to protect people's happiness? Oh man...
Smokers pay higher premiums with private insurance. So its their choice. You smoke you pay and if you dont you pay less. This is a much better approach than "i have to pay your health costs so im banning you from smoking" and same thing goes with seat belts. |
That logic just doesn't cut it though...and it fails to cover the current restrictions on other legal activities, like my examples of sex and booze.
And no, your example is not fair...as a smoker, you can go wherever you want and choose to smoke or not smoke (depending upon your level of addiction, I suppose)...I don't have that option if smoking bothers me or if I want to avoid the harmful effects of secondhand smoke...my choices are therefore unfairly restricted.
Again, this is about a smokers actions *directly* affecting others in a proven harmful way. THAT IS THE KEY POINT that smokers can't refute with anything other than "well, don't go then". Virtually all other behaviour at clubs, bars, public places, or wherever, has no such *direct* impact on the people around them. How about if I bring a whistle with me and follow you around and blow it all night, disrupting your ability to enjoy the music...I guess if you don't like it, you should just go to some club that doesn't allow whistles? Extreme example, but it's the same thing...it sounds silly only because whistle blowing isn't quite as entrenched in our society as smoking ;)
We also have *countless* laws in place that are meant to protect our happiness...the fact I have to debate you in this thread instead of simply beating the crap out of you is a great example, LOL...of course I'm kidding, but you see my point! ;)
The healthcare argument is perfectly valid...People paying more for insurance because they are higher risk doesn't even scratch the surface of the additional costs involved...whether it's smokers (life insurance isn't mandatory, btw, but smokers still have virtually equal access to our "free" healthcare system...a lung cancer patient is not going to be turned away from treatment because they smoked a pack a day for 50 years) or poor drivers (even the exhorbitant facility rates insurers charge don't come close to covering their costs for these people), to use two examples.
The will of the majority doesn't cut it here either...it's a *very* dangerous thing when it comes at the expense of the well being of the minority...so even if there are more smokers than not at clubs, that in and of itself is not sufficient justification for allowing smoking. I suspect if you asked Guv patrons if they'd like to be able to drink until sunrise, the majority would say yes too. The "free market" is not always the best indicator of what *should* be the case...
I see the smokers' side of it...the status quo is changing, and they're not satisfied with the reasoning behind it...fair enough. What's funny is when this is perceived as our city moving towards becoming a restrictive society where we can't do anything...that's nothing more than a slippery slope logical fallacy. It's as ridiculous as the retards against gay marriage saying "what's next, being able to marry your sister or your dog?".
I see no problem restricting smoking in the same way we restrict a myriad of other legal behaviours... |
|
|
| TECHno addict |
| Bring on smoke free clubs. And you thought i was a crazy dancer before, wait til you see a TECHno addict who can actually breathe when he dances. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
You make some valid points. So lets go with your thinking then and say we are for clubs with non smoking.
Explain to me why exactly people are against smoking rooms where non smokers never ever have to venture?
Are we becoming a restrictive society? Of course we are. Take a look around.
As for the healthcare arguement. Does that areguement ever come up in the US when it comes to restricting behaviours? NEVER. Im not saying im for private health care. However, if its going to be used as an excuse everytime some crusader wants to save me from myself i dont want it.
Everytime someone uses health care in this arguement it is nothing but an arguement for private health care. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Did the workers ever get a chance to voice their own opinions before this law was passed in part on their behalf?
|
it was the workers that pushed for it the most. maybe you don't listen to your co-workers.
most of the compliants about smoking were from workers. just cuz you aren't complaining doesn't mean that others aren't. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| it was not the workers. It was the anti smoking zealots. Every single person ive ever seen promoting this has been some bitter middle aged ex smoker. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
it was the workers that pushed for it the most. maybe you don't listen to your co-workers.
most of the compliants about smoking were from workers. just cuz you aren't complaining doesn't mean that others aren't. |
Exactly.
This is how the 1st phase of this whole anti-smoking ban started; by removing smoke from the workplace... |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
I really do not believe she was pointing at cigarettes as the leading cause of pollution. I think she was reffering to generally unhealthy(for the environment) behaviour, and that we must change our general habits to protect ourselves. |
Ah she was making a statement about general unhealthy behavior, how silly of me. Yes, lets save the Earth from all the generally unhealthy behavior we have caused in the past three hundred years or so, because by my sending 20 cents per day to Greenpeace and getting my weekly recycled newsletter every month, I can wish away all the real serious issues that plague this Earth by believing in fairy tales and Captain Planet. Shut the fack up and blow me, both of you. If I wanted general un-intelligable statements I'll go turn the TV on when the questionaire section of a world pageant comes on. World Peace my ass. ***edit*** I just occured to me how someone can complain about how cigarettes polluting the world? Has it ever occured to people that the growing of tabacco also produced oxygen for the world, therefore there is some good this plant does for the Earth? talk about a sense of irony, giver of air and taker of air.
| quote: | | How about not just dieing? All of you are looking at the end result, why not look at how you would get there? Smoking and its related health affects, are not only restricted to death. I have asthama, which means i have restricted lung capacity due to my condition, does the tar which hangs in the air not constrict my breathing? These are side affects of smoking that are not just cancer related. They are real. That stuff a smoker caughs up every morning, is that cancer? no. There are other health side affects which you must understand, please educate yourself. |
This is true, there are many different affects of smoking, that "serious" daily smokers recieve from smoking so much EVERY DAY. I didnt remember the millions of people who died or got asthma from inhaling second hand smoke for going to the club every Saturday for a couple years, why? Because its in impossible, now I know its an inconvienience to those who have asthma, and I am sorry for you the lot of you who do, but to BAN smoking without atleast a compromise for those of us who would not like to freeze our asses off outside for a cigarette (considering how much you sweat in the club from being so hot and are barely clothed, imagine going outside to get your fix? thats a serious health problem waiting to happen) All I thought is thats its rather unfair to not accomdate those of us who do smoke in some way, but like most crusades, its either all or nothing.
| quote: | | They are not taking away your right of being able to smoke, they are restricting the venue in which you can smoke. Yes the gov does not ban driving even though you can kill somebody...Are you allowed to drive in a park, indoors, on side walks? NO. Again they are not taking away the right to drive, but restricting the venue. Its the exact same idea, and if you cant see that, then you are very close minded. They are trying to create safer controlled environments, you can drink but not everywhere. You can do a lot of htings, but they are all restricted to certain areas to keep people safe. |
*stands up and claps* Bravo..Bravo...Ohh Orko used clever wording to make my anology seem less effectful, your really good. Except the fact that car laws were not only made to restrict the venue in which we can use it, but to maintain proper order and avoid chaos from ensuing so I dont use my 2 tons of american steel to plow you over. And why would I drive on a sidewalk or park there? would you walk on a heavy traffic street? NO. Why? Because you dont wanna get run over, and I dont wanna kill someone directly by walking on their sidewalk, I have my place to drive, they have their place to walk. How I see what this law is doing is catering to one half of the healthy, hippie, greenpeace, whale loving yippies who think this will make all the difference in the world. If this was a car law about pollution, death and health significance, it would translate like this, since cars cause too much pollution and kills so much, you can only drive on major roads and highways, and all side streets and small streets must be avoided so that pedestrians dont get hurt or sick. Maybe I am just seeing it differently than you are, because you see second hand smoking as some dreary apocolyptic demise of our future and world, and we must ban it from all NIGHTCLUBS, and not allow anyone a choice. I shake my head in dissapointment.
| quote: | | She was trying to show that there are circumstances where you would not smoke, because it is unhealthy. Those are instances, just as people in a bar or resturant who would like to enjoy a smoke free time. |
You know what pisses me off, is that just because I can respect someones wishes for me to not smoke somewhere, doesn't mean that I dont enjoy having the choice to do it or not (I aruge for the rights side of this, as there are plenty of people who do not enjoy the idea of having to be forced to smoke outside in sub zero temperatures). I like that choice to either put my cigarette butt out in your eye or continue to smoke freely while laughing at your sick/old/stupid ass. Either way, if you dont want me smoking near you, fine, I will move away to somewhere I can smoke and not have to be forced to freeze my ass off while doing it (I know I am beating a dead horse with this, I am just trying to get the picture across). ***this is for the Cali state law response, not directed towards Orko** In California it works, why because its never snows in L.A. or San Francisco, so how can I be that hard to go outside when its never below 30.
| quote: | | there is give and take in every circumstance. This is a democracy last i heard(although you may argue otherwise). Leaders are chosen, choices are made, not all of them correct. Please feel free to contact your member of parliment if you feel so strong about this matter. Obviously there is a section of the population which has chosen non-smoking, and this being a democracy im gonna say they are the MAJORITY |
I agree with you, this was a democracy last I heard, and many choices have been made that are downright stupid and ty (not that I am saying a removal of smoking in a club is a bad one). I always said, it will most likely be much more cleaner and I wont have to stink like an ashtray, and not smoking doesnt really bother me, I mean I wont have to smell it, so I wont have the need to smoke it as much. But I never believed that laws were made to make others suffer in return for suffering that others have had to endure, *some sort of middle ground should be reached*. I guess it just sucks to be someone who is addicted, oh well, guess you smokers are ed now...haha!
| quote: | STOP ATTACKING THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE ARGUMENTS, ATTACK THE ARGUMENTS THEMSELVES!
keep bringing up points, i will keep shooting them down with real arguments, not negative cricicism of the person. |
Nah, why dont you go stick your thumb up your ass Mr.Rogers...I am not in a happy mood and I could care less if my insults weaken my arguement, this is the internet, and I wanna make sure I can laugh while making a point towards someone. You can be nice and ill still give you the ole proverbial pimp slap retort, its all style in my eyes, the argument is still there, you just have to ignore the part you dont like or do it up just as good. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
You make some valid points. So lets go with your thinking then and say we are for clubs with non smoking.
Explain to me why exactly people are against smoking rooms where non smokers never ever have to venture?
Are we becoming a restrictive society? Of course we are. Take a look around.
As for the healthcare arguement. Does that areguement ever come up in the US when it comes to restricting behaviours? NEVER. Im not saying im for private health care. However, if its going to be used as an excuse everytime some crusader wants to save me from myself i dont want it.
Everytime someone uses health care in this arguement it is nothing but an arguement for private health care. |
I actually keep forgetting to mention this...you reminded me...I'm 100% in support of allowing smoking rooms (as a smaller % of the overall space, as is currently legislated). I'm all for people being able to smoke, if they so choose...just not around me if I want to escape it.
I'm not getting the connection between reducing health costs by restricting behaviour and private health care though... |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
you say i have a right to not enter non smoking establishments. This is true but using that logic dont you think there should be a provision that allows for the right to open a smoking or non smoking bar?
Why not let the owners decide based on the market? If there is a demand for non smoking bars, lets see some non smokers open some non smoking bars instead of using the government to ban it everywhere. Wont everyone be happy then?
For now we have designated smoking rooms where ONLY smokers will go but this isnt even good enough for the ban brigade. They are trying to have these outlawed by 2007.
WHATS IT TO THEM? they NEVER have to go there... EVER!
If this doesnt expose their true agenda nothing will. |
Thats what I'm talking about, why not have choice of smoking or not smoking, theres obviously a very good split between the two, not one person can say, one side is larger than the other, so why not cater to both? why BAN it completely from clubs? Or make accomdate in some way those who have addictions to smoking. I wish people could see this further than the stats that people feed you everyday, that are most likely wrong. A work place ban is different than a clubbing ban, because at no one in their right mind should be in a club fourty hours a week, and if they are, they should make that choice whether they want to deal with people who smoke or perfer to not smoke. Its not like the restaurant industry is hurting for people to hire, theyre always hiring in the city. |
|
|
|
|
