|
a modest proposal....
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mr. poopyhead |
so i was at a bar tonight with some friends, and we started arguing about the proposed TOTAL ban on smoking in public buildings...
my position is that bar owners should have the right to make the whole bar a smoking section since non smokers have the right not to go to that bar. but if they're not allowed that, then AT LEAST they should be allowed to keep their smoking rooms (which are slated to become illegal too now...)
my friend says that smoking should be banned outright because we shouldn't have to foot the bill for people getting lung cancer and stuff...
he proposed that all smokers should have to sign a waiver to give up their rights to treatment of any smoking related disease...
my argument against that is that there are many activities that jeopardize health... should they be outlawed too? should obese people sign something to waive their right to bypass surgery once the coronary kicks in? i'm not talking about people with genetic weight disorders... i'm talking about lazy, lard-ass couch potates who eat themselves into an early grave....
everyone kills themselves just a bit to have fun... why should people be on their high horses about smoking?
thoughts? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by mr. poopyhead
my argument against that is that there are many activities that jeopardize health... should they be outlawed too? should obese people sign something to waive their right to bypass surgery once the coronary kicks in? i'm not talking about people with genetic weight disorders... i'm talking about lazy, lard-ass couch potates who eat themselves into an early grave.... |
Man, the pro-tobacco front really has a knack for missing the point.
It's not the fact that they jeopardize the health of the smoker that anyone cares about, it's the fact that they jeopardize OTHER people's health. No government tried to institute these bans before the studies on second-hand smoke - that was what clinched it.
I think your friend's proposal is ridiculous - signing a waiver? How would you even institute that legally? The government can't keep track of everyone who has ever smoked a cigarette, and we'd basically have to throw away all our privacy laws in order to make that possible. But your proposal isn't any better - zoning off the whole club as a designated smoking area? Honestly now, how long do you figure it would take a system like that to become riddled with abuse and corruption? A week? A month? Eventually almost every downtown building would become a designated smoking area and we'd be back to square one. |
|
|
| MarkT |
the problem with allowing a bar to choose...then EVERYONE wants to choose. Why should bars be given the ability to choose and not other businesses? stores...malls...etc. Smoking is associated with drinking, that's the only "logic" behind this request. Forget the "you spend hours in a bar, minutes in a store" argument because there are plenty of examples where that's not true, like a sporting event. Should the Raptors be allowed to "choose" to have smoking allowed in the ACC for their games? no.
I think the health waiver idea isn't viable either...we don't require anyone to sign waivers for anything now...smoking, drinking, sports players, etc. We accept that many legal activities (even illegal ones, like hard drug use) come with risks and our health system is not exclusionary in that regard.
I stand by my post in the big thread...this is an addiction that ought to be restricted as much as possible. The fascilitation of this addiction needs to stop. It's legal, so you have the "right" to smoke...but it's completely illogical to extend that "right" to being able to do so wherever you want.
This is such an inflammatory issue only because smoking is so entrenched in our society on so many levels...the same reason pot will never be "legal"...legalizing, even controlling and taxing it, is too large a step for society to accept, just as an outright ban on smoking altogether is too large a step. |
|
|
| Tordan |
I'm all for this total ban and I'm a smoker. I'm addicted to it so I'm not really making a choice when I pull out a cigarette, I'm merely satisfying a craving. And I can smoke because there is an opportunity to do so. ie. smoking room. Now if that opportunity was taken away from me, sure I'd feel ty about not being able to smoke when I go out. But after a few times of going through that I wouldn't even think even think about it anymore.
Keep in mind that most of us start out as social smokers. I picked up smoking as a teen because most of my friends were smokers and I used to hang out with them in the smoking section at pubs and restaurants etc. If these smoking areas are banned I'm sure a lot less people would pick up this very bad and very addictive habit.
Yeah, so the businesses are suffering because the smokers are going to places with smoking areas. This ban should level the playing field. And if those smokers choose not to go out at all because they can't smoke anymore it's their loss. |
|
|
| dallastar |
i love the no smoking ban in bars; i don't ever come home smellin like an ashtray - whereas we used too! Also what i notice the more you drink the warmer it is outside to smoke, b/c it is pretty freakin' buurrrrrrrrrrr outside now!! arguments suck though - b/c ever one will be head strong - espeically after a bunch of pints!
:o |
|
|
| dallastar |
i love the no smoking ban in bars; i don't ever come home smellin like an ashtray - whereas we used too! Also what i notice the more you drink the warmer it is outside to smoke, b/c it is pretty freakin' buurrrrrrrrrrr outside now!! arguments suck though - b/c ever one will be head strong - espeically after a bunch of pints!
:o
p.s. I am a smoker too!~ |
|
|
| j_spot |
Calgary doesnt have a smoking ban(till 2008) and man do I ever miss toronto.
blah. I stink, my eyes, throat, nose are all sore, its just disgusting. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Why should bars be given the ability to choose and not other businesses? stores...malls...etc. |
Simple. Because clubs/bars/bingo halls are not essential life services, the are entertainment facilities. It is always your choice whether or not to go. Not so with busses, stores, and malls. Number 2. No children are allowed to go to clubs therefore the decision made is purely made by a fully capable adult whether or not to attend. Those are the two main differences between clubs and other establishments.
What the non-smoking zealots fail to realize (or dont care about) is that this newest legistlation is NOT about protecting non smokers. Its gone beyond that. This is about making lifestyle choices for people (smokers) who are fully capable of choosing themselves and are aware of the consequences. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Simple. Because clubs/bars/bingo halls are not essential life services, the are entertainment facilities. It is always your choice whether or not to go. Not so with busses, stores, and malls. Number 2. No children are allowed to go to clubs therefore the decision made is purely made by a fully capable adult whether or not to attend. Those are the two main differences between clubs and other establishments.
What the non-smoking zealots fail to realize (or dont care about) is that this newest legistlation is NOT about protecting non smokers. Its gone beyond that. This is about making lifestyle choices for people (smokers) who are fully capable of choosing themselves and are aware of the consequences. |
Clubs are places of business, just like restaurants, stores, and offices. Simply because their business is entertainment as opposed to food or retail or accounting does not make them an exceptional case.
One could make a case for just about anything being non-essential. If you wanted to, I suppose you could go out to the country, live on a farm, grow your own vegetables and never see another bill or another human being again. Besides which, entertainment is certainly "essential" for the bouncers and bartenders and the people that work there, because that's where they are earning their livelihoods from - don't they count?
I understand your viewpoint here, but what you don't understand is that allowing people the freedom to perform an activity that is harmful to others restricts the freedom of those who value their health. A club in and of itself is not a dangerous place; it becomes one when the place is filled with carcinogenic smoke. You're taking a place and an activity that would be safe under normal circumstances and telling people that even though they are choosing to partake in a safe activity, they do not have the right to their safety because the rights of a small group (smokers) is overriding.
What if we said that it was going to become legal to kick people in clubs? Under the umbrella argument that people who don't want to be kicked don't have to go? Is that any kind of an argument for allowing physical assault? Well then - how is blowing toxic smoke in someone's face any different? |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Besides which, entertainment is certainly "essential" for the bouncers and bartenders and the people that work there, because that's where they are earning their livelihoods from - don't they count? |
When you accept certain jobs you accept certain conditions that come with that job. Nobody forces one to become a bouncer or a bartender. There are plenty of other jobs out there if smoke bothers you. It never seemed to bother them before either. I guess these people should not be subjected to loud noise either? oh yeah i know there are ear plugs available but as if most employees ever use them.
Besides if this is for the employees isnt it funny how many of these employees they are trying to protect potentially could lose their jobs over this? Im a non smoking employee at a club and no one ever asked me before imposing this law. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
When you accept certain jobs you accept certain conditions that come with that job. Nobody forces one to become a bouncer or a bartender. There are plenty of other jobs out there if smoke bothers you. It never seemed to bother them before either. I guess these people should not be subjected to loud noise either? oh yeah i know there are ear plugs available but as if most employees ever use them. |
Are you blind? I'm sorry, but every bartender/bouncer I've EVER seen at a club wears earplugs. Maybe not at the top 40 clubs where the sound system is , but at System, Guvernment, Boa... they ALL wear ear plugs.
That's a truly desperate argument - breathing toxic smoke is not a condition that these employees ACCEPT. It is a condition that they TOLERATE because they have no choice. Go ahead and try to convince us that bouncers enjoy being in a smoke-filled club; I know a few that would disagree from firsthand experience.
| quote: | | Besides if this is for the employees isnt it funny how many of these employees they are trying to protect potentially could lose their jobs over this? Im a non smoking employee at a club and no one ever asked me before imposing this law. |
Evidence, evidence, evidence. It's simply not there.
I notice you also only addressed the most minute issue out of my entire post. I don't see the point in carrying on this debate with you if you're going to ignore 90% of my argument - you can either accept it or debate it but don't act like it's not there. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| No one ever forced bouncers to become bouncers. If i hate the smell of subs am i going to work in a sub shop? NOPE. |
|
|
|
|
