Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom

Submitted by: ozzymandiaas 5 years ago in

Are smoking bans wrong? When you boil the facts down, yes.
There are 166 comments:
Male 12,365
I`ve just wondered if I did something really dumb...and I did.

I read kilometres as miles. Duh!

So I was totally wrong about the claimed range of the 85KWh Tesla S. 480 miles would be a highly implausible claim. 480 kilometres is a reasonable claim.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
So...you`re left with massively upgrading the amount of power the lines can carry (and you`d still be limited by how much you can actually attach to the car) or battery swapping.

Battery swapping could work, if batteries with enough capacity get small enough and light enough to be handled in a practical manner. Drive in, swap discharged battery for charged one, drive out. The battery charges in the station (which can have really heavy duty power lines laid in) ready for someone else later. The functionality is almost identical to refueling an ICE car, so it should be easily accepted if it`s done right. Charging would be a possibly useful extra for when you`re not using the car.

It`s potentially practical...but not right now.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
The really serious downer is that there isn`t all that much scope for improvement in electric motors as they are already very efficient. So we`re not going to see massive improvements in miles per KWh, even if you ignore the actual m/KWh and add in the extra electricity generated by regenerative braking.

So major improvements in EVs depend on getting far more KWh in the car, i.e. far better batteries. That might happen (there are several very promising possibilities in development), but it won`t address the charging time.

A 200KWh battery pack half the size and weight of a current 50KWh one might exist in 5 years time, but it will take 4 times as long to charge using the same power. At Canadian mains, it would take about 120 hours.

The battery might be able to charge much faster (some of the possible future batteries will take astonishing charging rates), but you can`t get around the fact that charging x KWh requires supplying >x KWh.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Re-charging the 85kW battery pack fully on a regular socket (not their dual or 10-socket "invention") can take as long as 10 hours.[/quote]

Where?

Canadian mains is 120V 15A for a "regular socket", right?

That`s 1.8KW.

Charging 85KWh at 1.8KW takes 47.22 hours even if you have 100% charging efficiency (which is impossible). So it would take ~50 hours, maybe a bit longer.

[quote]I`m just saying it`s not THAT bad.[/quote]

No, you aren`t just saying that. You`re hugely exaggerating how good current EVs are, in a way that is extremely easily disproved. So I still say that you`re doing more harm than good when it comes to promoting the use of EVs:

[quote]Claims like this do more harm than good when it comes to promoting EVs. Anyone who learns anything about the subject knows that such claims are ludicrous rubbish and that taints the whole idea of EVs by association. [/quote]
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]@Angilion: theoretically, you could leave the Karma in the sun for days and drive indefinitely without ever having to plug it in. It`s not a good idea, it provides very little energy, and the Karma includes a combustion engine: it`s a hybrid.[/quote]

Being able to drive a few miles every few days if it`s sunny a lot of the time is not driving indefinitely.

[quote]The 85kW battery pack will take you a whooping 480 km on ideal conditions, and ~200 under heavy, heavy usage.[/quote]

No, it doesn`t. You`re not going to get 5.65 miles per KWh (NOT kW) unless you`re going downhill most of the time and heavy, heavy usage (e.g. on a track) could drop the range to 100Km. More if you`re drag racing it.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Angilion: theoretically, you could leave the Karma in the sun for days and drive indefinitely without ever having to plug it in. It`s not a good idea, it provides very little energy, and the Karma includes a combustion engine: it`s a hybrid.

The actual number for the Tesla is 256 Km, I purposely reduced it to account for air conditioning, as was tested in Australia to have "200" as a more accurate normal driving range. That`s the low-end model. The 85kW battery pack will take you a whooping 480 km on ideal conditions, and ~200 under heavy, heavy usage.

As for charging time: it`s slow as f*ck. That`s why Tesla advises not to let it discharge fully before you need it again. Re-charging the 85kW battery pack fully on a regular socket (not their dual or 10-socket "invention") can take as long as 10 hours.

I`m just saying it`s not THAT bad.
0
Reply
Female 50
So it`s not OK to ban cigarettes but it`s OK to ban pot. Not a smoker, just sayin`.
0
Reply
Male 289
True story,bro
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]This one gives you a minimum of 200 km between charges as long as you don`t race it in a race-track[/quote]

That claim is true as long as you drive carefully enough and don`t use air conditioning, but I notice that you didn`t respond to the previous poster`s second point - charging time.

Increasing the range on a battery-powered EV requires increasing the storage capacity of the batteries. Doing so increases the charging time in proportion. Doubling the range requires more than doubling the storage capacity (unless a new type of battery is developed that has double the capacity at the same weight) and therefore more than doubles the charging time.

EVs have a lot of potential, but neither the technology nor the supporting infrastructure exists at the moment. We need *far* smaller+lighter batteries, far more generating capacity and battery swapping stations to circumvent the recharging issue.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And this one can theoretically drive indefinitely (it has different renewable power generators like wind turbines and solar panels).[/quote]

Claims like this do more harm than good when it comes to promoting EVs. Anyone who learns anything about the subject knows that such claims are ludicrous rubbish and that taints the whole idea of EVs by association.

The solar panels on one model of the Fisker Karma will, *in ideal circumstances*, provide electricity for the low-power electronics in the car`s interior. They don`t even provide enough for the headlights, let alone the motor that drives the car.

As for the idea that a turbine attached to a car can generate enough electricity to power the car...anyone who believes that is welcome to buy a bridge from me.

The official mpg figure for the Karma in the USA is 20. It`s *very* heavy.
0
Reply
Female 121
"@sm1804...... they have the right to go work somewhere else...."

Obviously said by someone with no understanding of today`s job market.

On the topic of the video, businesses are subject to the laws of the land and therefore do not receive the same rights as that of a private residence.
0
Reply
Male 159
@sm1804...... they have the right to go work somewhere else....
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@cheeseb: go back a few pages it was all about public spaces, and it somehow got into citrus-acid, pee, farts and electric cars. Pretty funny if you ask me
0
Reply
Male 8
He is absolutely right no one has the right to impose their stance on whether it is ok to smoke or not in someone else`s house, however you cant simply apply that logic to businesses such as pubs and restaurants because they have members of staff which don`t have the same choice to leave as a costumer and as they have the right to work in a clean and safe environment we have no smoking in pubs and restaurants.
0
Reply
Male 274
The title and premise seems a bit off from the actual content. I assumed the video was about the overall, general "smoking vs nonsmoking" debate, but it`s just about smoking/nonsmoking inside places of commerce. In an ideal version of consumerism/capitalism (one in which the nonsmokers wish to see the owner of Bar A ban smoking in his bar), the fact that Bar A allows smoking would mean that the nonsmoking clientele discontinues their patronage there, and it`s enough to hurt business, so the owner bans smoking in his bar to bring back the nonsmokers. The owner of the bar is, as the video says, should be the maker of that decision, not legislation.

I`m rather disappointed, because I wanted to see a robust debate (read: people arguing on an online discussion forum) about smoking and/or banning smoking in PUBLIC spaces.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
wtf is greenbasterd talking about
0
Reply
Male 2,376
i dont give a drat what the gov tells me to do.. i smoke wherever iw ant to. and im always up for a good debate with any dratin doogooder that thinks the government has there best intentions in mind!!! because im as badass as the guy who walked down the hallway with the cig in his mouth. anybody with a memory worth my acknowledgment knows what im talking about!!!
0
Reply
Male 25,417
He has a point... but nothings going to change
0
Reply
Female 6,381
One of the factors at work here in Canada is the phenomenal cost of treating smoking-related illness in the public health care system. The gov`t in my province, at least, puts massive taxes on tobacco, mandates packs of smokes in stores be hidden behind sliding doors, and forbids smoking within a certain distance of building entrances. The whole idea is to discourage the hell out of smoking and save millions every year. Banning smoking in public places has as much to do with inconveniencing smokers as it does clean air rights.
0
Reply
Female 399
Oh, suck it up. When did America become such a pansy nation? I do smoke now, but I didn`t always, and I never had a problem with people being able to smoke in public. The only ban restaurants should have is a ban on kids not being in their seats at all times... >.>
0
Reply
Male 1,737
Pretty sure given the choice most bars would of never gone smoke free. They loose a good amount of business in winter because people don`t want to stand in the cold.

Frankly I thought having an isolated smoking section that`s walled off and ventilated was a good compromise, but the non-smokers whined about that till it was gone as well.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
I used to smoke, and I don`t really have a problem with smoking bans, but I DO have a problem with how they go about making the rules, at least in my province.

For example, originally I believe the rule was that the proportion of smoking seats to non-smoking seats was 60/40. Then, our provincial gov`t decided that only 30% of the restaurant could be smoking. THEN they said that the smoking areas had to be enclosed and properly ventilated, making business owners spend thousands of dollars outfitting these smoking areas. THEN 6-8 months later they banned smoking entirely, leaving these businesses with newly renovated smoking rooms holding their dinks in the wind forced to absorb the cost. Pretty dickish move on the part of our gov`t.
0
Reply
Male 5,189
"But letting that slide for the sake of argument, are you OK with me spraying you with a mist of my piss, as long as I only do it for 3 seconds? "

I laughed so hard at this. Good job!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Here comes the health gestapo!!


^^ The first anti-smoking campaign.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Ya it`s the second hand tobbacco smoke killing us all......
0
Reply
Male 47
This guy nailed it from an unbiased perspective. It`s about property owners` rights like he said, but it`s just one more of many freedoms that the gov`t has slowly taken away. What can we do about it? Vote for politicians that we see as most likely to preserve our freedoms....and then they usually have a hand in taking them away. "A government by the people for the people" has eroded. I still love the U.S. I just think it`s headed in the wrong direction in many ways and there`s nothing we can do about it. We have so much to be grateful for in our country though.
0
Reply
Male 663
I`m a non-smoker but not an anti-smoker. True I think it`s vile, disgusting, and deadly, but I`m not going out of my way to tell people not to smoke etc, I don`t find that fair.

However, I will say that since the smoking ban came into enforcement in the UK, it`s SO much nicer to go out to places without coughing your lungs up or your eyes hurting, and you don`t walk out stinking of cigs.

I think smoking and non-smoking sections of bars/restaurants worked just fine.
0
Reply
Female 89
I`m a smoker but I don`t mind the ban in the UK. I never smoked in restaurants before the ban out of respect for the non smokers anyway. Hopefully the ban will make it `unfashionable` and stop kids starting. It`s not just the ban that makes me think about giving up or the health issues, it`s the cost at nearly 7 quid a pack. Ouch.
0
Reply
Male 678
Izaw, your comparison is completely irrelevant. Everything the video said explains why your comparison doesn`t make sense, so pull your head out of your ass and watch it again. Alternatively, you can live in your ignorant little world all you want.
0
Reply
Male 792
Fact of the matter is...cigarettes [i]don`t[/i] cause anything. There`s no direct connection for first hand smoke, let alone second hand smoke for cause of death. Contributing factor? Sure. But, that steak you just had for dinner is a contributing factor for bowel cancer. The air you breath is a contributing factor for lung cancer.

Ask any respectable doctor, and they`ll tell you that all cigarette smoking does is reduce your lung capacity. That is medically proven. The crap a smoker (not a bystander) inhales makes their lungs sticky, and over time looses it`s elasticity.
Nicotine is actually an excellent drug. It increases mental awareness, it relaxes, and it regulates blood pressure. Delivery method is poo.
0
Reply
Male 3
I agree with this completely. Its the same as if you don`t like whats on t.v. then change the damn channel. Don`t write a letter to your congressman because you saw something that offended you. If you smoke do it. If you don`t then don`t. You can`t tell someone what to do on their property
0
Reply
Male 792
[quote]actually the health rights of the workers trump the rights of a bar owner.[/quote]

Here we go with the hazards of second hand smoke. Bwa-hahaha! You do realize that that EPA study was all bullpoo, right? In the 80s, the EPA produced a report stating that second hand smoke was responsible for like 8000 deaths every year.
US government went, "Holy poo! That`s worse than asbestos and radon combined! Maybe we should classify tobacco as a Class-A carcinogen (up there with uranium, and other controlled substances)."
EPA said, "Erm...can we hold off on that?"
US Government said, "Um...you think it`s a good idea? How about you show us your studies, and we can evaluate this further. It sounds pretty damn scary."
EPA said, "You know what? How `bout we forget the whole thing ever happened."
Then they turned to the medical journals...without FDA or government approval and said, "Hey, check out this cool report.&q
0
Reply
Male 21
A lot of people complained about smoking ban in UK when it first got introduced. Now most people seem to grudgingly accept it was a good thing even a lot of smokers.

A lot had a bigger motivation to quit like they wanted to. And the ones that stayed have more sex according to a study i read, by them going outside to smokers area they strike up more conversations and therefore more meetings more people equates to increase in chance of success and more sex.

Personally the heated outside areas are nice in a lot of places.
0
Reply
Male 173
I disagree:
Argument: I have a pocket, therefore I decide whether I want to carry a gun, or a bag of dope in my pocket!

Obviously guns and drugs are bad for society. So the need of the society to ban guns and drugs outweighs my right to keep in my pocket what I choose to put there.

If 5 people of whom 2 are smokers decide to go to a restaurant, surely the 2 will persuade the 3 to go to the smokers restaurant under the argument "We can`t sit in a non-smokers restaurant so either you 3 endure the smoke, or we will have to split up the group".

What we end up with is almost every restaurant being a smokers restaurant (in the same way many carry guns for "protection" even though they think a gun free society would be better). And now the non-smokers do not have a choice of a smoke-free environment.

It`s a very American way to think that "ok I do not have unlimited freedom since I have to respect other peoples rights too.. BUT
0
Reply
Male 2,516


And this one can theoretically drive indefinitely (it has different renewable power generators like wind turbines and solar panels). Although its "non-charging" range is ~450 km.

The first one is the Tesla Model S with the lowest battery pack, and the second is the Fisker Karma.

The downside? the minimum for the model S is 50k, and the Karma retails for 100k
0
Reply
Male 56
NottaSpy are you some kind of Moron? Yes you are.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Frankil: This one gives you a minimum of 200 km between charges as long as you don`t race it in a race-track
0
Reply
Female 437
Verenthi- No electric cars aren`t hard to build but they`re hard to live with; you can`t get very far in them and when you charge them it takes a heck of a lot longer than it does to put petrol/diesel in
0
Reply
Male 6,737
Too much kudos is given to "freedoms". Here`s a newsflash, you have no real "freedoms".
0
Reply
Male 620
Its amazing how many people are so willing to give up basic freedoms for a minor convenience.

The apartment complex i lived at started a absolutely no smoking policy on the property, and removed buttcans. Shortly thereafter butts started piling up all over the place, and twice people fell asleep with cigarettes in their beds.

What was better, people smoking in the breezeway and once a week a groundkeeper emptied a buttcan into the trash...

Or people smoking in their apartments, trying to kill everybody?

Ban candles and incense. Those are going to kill my family, too!
0
Reply
Male 46
You do have a point Gerry, people`s mentality needs to change further before it can be done without causing too much chaos.
0
Reply
Male 2,345
actually the health rights of the workers trump the rights of a bar owner.

this guy is missing the point that a gov has the right to ban something that is dangerous and deadly to those around it.

and btw, if seat belts can me mandated then yea, we can ban smoking in bars.


oh and then there is the fact that being drunk in public is illegal...why? because it poses a danger to those around the drunk person so really, if a person cannot be drunk due to said danger than a person smoking, which is a proven health hazard for all, can be banned as well.

and then there is the fact that a gov can ban property owners from using certain toxic materials in building their building...again, property rights due not override the public`s right to be in a place that will not give them cancer...

so in other words this issue has HAD its day in court, several times and yes the gov and the people have a right to ban hazardous activities in and around places
0
Reply
Male 39,604

Verenthi {about cigarettes} [quote]"The damn things should be banned entirely." [/quote]
Because we`ve seen how well that has worked with alcohol and marijuana.

What a maroon.
0
Reply
Male 571
Being a frequent traveler, the thing that pisses me off more than anything is the lack of smoking lounges in airports these days. How hard is it to have a room where you can go and smoke? Doesn`t have to be anything fancy, just four walls and a door. You don`t want second-hand smoke, you don`t go in. How is that hurting anyone? Normally I don`t have a problem with just going outside for a cig, but you don`t have that option in an airport once you`ve gone through security.
0
Reply
Male 46
If you want to boil it down, I boil it down to second hand smoke being a health hazard to bystanders. The damn things should be banned entirely.

Also, I agree with the point some people make about cars being at least as noxious. It`s about time we wake up and shift away from the internal combustion engine. It`s not like electric cars are even hard to build nowadays.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@holygod--I`m not treating it as an accomplishment, I only noticed I was getting close to 2000 a few posts ago. And I thought I`d mention it and have a laugh. Why is that such an awful thing? I really don`t care what a IAB stranger`s opinion of me is--that, my friend, would be pathetic.

@nottaspy--No, this video isn`t saying anything like that. Assault with a deadly weapon is illegal on both public and private property. Smoking, however, is perfectly legal on private property (i.e. in your own home, or the home of someone permitting you to do so) but for some reason it is being banned in privately owned businesses, instead of being left to the owner`s discretion.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@Baelzar: I don`t know about you, but working in oil rigs and other places in Canada happens to abide by certain safety rules induced by this law.

If your employer says you gotta stop the blade from the saw mill with your hands, you have the right to refuse to do it. There are safety standards to stop the blade because of this law.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
@smokers
Having fun inhaling your polonium? Guess Marie Curie was one of your childhood idols eh?
0
Reply
Male 881
Yes, when you boil it down it is very simple. This example is exactly why we don`t boil down complicated issues like smoking rights.

According to this guy, it should be legal for me to shoot him in a bar as long as the bar allows firearms. I have the right to discharge my firearm. Who is he to complain about my bullets getting lodged in his abdomen? I mean, its not like I shot him in his house, it was in a bar where the bar owner said it was cool.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
the_windy: Do you have oil wells in Canada? Build houses? Drive heavy machinery? Mine coal?

If that labour code is real, then you can`t. Those jobs are dangerous. Factory floors are dangerous...what about electricians? Who can fix a downed electrical cable or a burnt transformer?

You cannot use a stupid law to justify more stupid law. "Of course we have the right to free iPods, it`s WRITTEN RIGHT HERE!"
0
Reply
Male 252
"Smokers don`t respect any aspect of the area we all live in, air or land."
Air? My cigarette puts out less pollution than your car just when you turn it on. Land? Sure, people leave cigarette butts around, but people also leave all sorts of other litter around. That`s already illegal, smoking bans wont help.
0
Reply
Male 15,187
I have a friend that owned a cigar bar. He had no employees. Even he wasn`t technically an employee.

The place was thick with smoke, no matter how hard he ran the fans. He doesn`t smoke cigars. The irony is he was not allowed to smoke his menthol skinny cigarettes in case he were to poison his customers.
0
Reply
Female 1,589
@ Baelzar
Well according to the Canadian labour code:

Section 2
Refusal to work if danger

128. (1) Subject to this section, an employee may refuse to use or operate a machine or thing, to work in a place or to perform an activity, if the employee while at work has reasonable cause to believe that

(a) the use or operation of the machine or thing constitutes a danger to the employee or to another employee;

(b) a condition exists in the place that constitutes a danger to the employee; or

(c) the performance of the activity constitutes a danger to the employee or to another employee.

And I`m pretty sure no one`s going to want to eat at a restaurant where the waiters are walking around with gas masks on.
0
Reply
Male 1,526
I agree with this guy. The smoking ban is just another example of a nanny state.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
chance13: [quote]...in every state in the US, you can open a private club (cigar clubs, etc...) and all members can smoke on the premises...[/quote]

That is not correct sir, I live in Illinois and smoking is illegal in private clubs as well. My state is also in the top 5 hated states, coincidence ? I don`t think so.
0
Reply
Male 39,604

Baelzar [quote]"People don`t have a "right" to work in a hazard-free environment. They don`t have a "right" to dictate the environment in a private establishment. The word "right" does not mean what you think it means." [/quote]
Well said, well said.
Too many people think "right" = "it`s what I want".
0
Reply
Male 1,399
Simple: provide respirator masks for staff who can`t handle working in a smoking environment. Hell, provide full hazmat suits. Poof! Your argument is null and void.

You don`t like smoke? Go to a non-smoking bar/club. According to the anti-smokers, NOBODY would allow smoking if they had a choice, so you should have plenty of options in your Utopia. Right? Right?

People don`t have a "right" to work in a hazard-free environment. They don`t have a "right" to dictate the environment in a private establishment. The word "right" does not mean what you think it means.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
DrProfessor
I have nothing against making 2,000 posts on a website. More power to you if it brings you enjoyment. But treating it as if it is in the realm of accomplishments does sort or reek of pathetic. Just saying...
0
Reply
Female 1,803
And at least with farts you don`t end up with a ton of cigarette butt trash everywhere because most smokers seem to think all the world is their ashtray. I`ve been in carpeted clubs and witnessed girls grind their cigarette butts into the carpet when an ashtray was only a few feet away. I also saw a guy at my grocery store on his knees cleaning up all the butts from the sidewalk in front of the doors so the area wouldn`t look like a trashy place. Smokers don`t respect any aspect of the area we all live in, air or land.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"well I for one think farting is a far better analogy to smoking than squirting a gun of citric acid, but only by hypothesizing first that you have control of it."

True many farts are unexpected but if one truly enjoys farting, you could be strategic about what you eat ( a good mixture of Mexican food, peppers and garlic would be pretty lethal) and make no effort to go somewhere away from people when you feel the urge come on.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"I`m not sure why the farting analogy was necessary in the first place tbqh. o,o"

It was a handy analogy of a nasty habit someone could have that would make life unpleasant for anyone who is forced to be near it. Smelling smoke is like smelling a fart to me when I`m trying to work, eat and any other activity. I also wouldn`t want to walk through a fart cloud to go into a building and risk someone thinking I`M the one who farted because the cloud attached itself to me.
0
Reply
Male 2,419
He`s completely forgetting the laws regulating labour conditions, sanitary issues with food, etc. Ever look up the rates of cancer from second hand smoke amongst waitresses that had to spend 8 hour shifts in a fog of smoke?
0
Reply
Female 2,674
And it always amuses me when people seem so concerned over what other people do in their free time. Some people like writing responses to posts on IAB and forums and such. So what? :|
0
Reply
Male 2,855
I have the right to explode wherever I please, its my body and I get to decide, people can go duck themselves
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Congratulations on your 2000th post xD
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@burbclaver--I`m sorry, I can`t imagine what it must be like to be so bitter all the time.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
well I for one think farting is a far better analogy to smoking than squirting a gun of citric acid, but only by hypothesizing first that you have control of it.
0
Reply
Male 3,310
Thank you, burb, for taking one for the team.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
I`m not sure why the farting analogy was necessary in the first place tbqh. o,o
0
Reply
Male 878
Wow. Proud of making 2000 posts on a meaningless website. Some people have amazing life goals that`s for sure. I know I am already looking at my wasted time on here. If I were that Gerry guy I`d have surely killed myself, because his life must be hell. It`s not like there aren`t a million great things to do in San Diego! Thanks for the warning. I think I will take a break from IAB.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
I had fun!
0
Reply
Male 3,894
(that`s partially why I dragged out the discussion so long. And also just because I thought it was hilarious.)
0
Reply
Male 2,516
Haha glad I could be a part of your 2000 posts ending with farting!
0
Reply
Male 3,894
It`s not about breaking the analogy, it`s about breaking wind.

...and there we have it, folks! My 2000th post. I don`t think I could have come up with anything more dignified for the occasion.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]If Bob wants to spray himself with citric acid all day long with a squirt bottle, I have no problem with that.[/quote]
Thanks!
0
Reply
Male 3,310
I only go to meth-friendly bars.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor: No thanks, that`s where the hypothetical analogy ends. I don`t know why you were so fascinated with breaking the analogy that fumes from farting ~ fumes from smoking, but I gotta hand it to you, it was fun.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
I would have to fart directly into a tube that lead to a face mask covering your nose and mouth for my farts to be in any way unhealthy for you. And even then, it would take a LOT of them.

But, in the name of science, I`m willing to try if you are.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I did not misrepresent my arguement, at all.[/quote]

You were misrepresenting the argument in favour of restricting smoking by pretending it`s merely a matter of like and dislike.

[quote]My stand is that freedom means people are free to make bad choices as well as good ones.[/quote]

For themselves, yes. But not for other people.

[quote]If I don`t like your perfume I should not be able to ban it just because I have to breath the fumes in an elevator. The 3 seconds of second-hand smoke as you pass a smoker on the sidewalk has no effect on you whatsoever.[/quote]

That statement is untrue.

But letting that slide for the sake of argument, are you OK with me spraying you with a mist of my piss, as long as I only do it for 3 seconds?

If not, why not? I should be able to make that bad choice, right? You shouldn`t be allowed to make it illegal, right?
0
Reply
Female 1,589
I know here it was made law (YEARS ago) that there would be no smoking allowed indoors in order to protect the EMPLOYEES, after many got cancer from second-hand smoke.
This falls under the law that everyone has the right to a safe work environment, and that their job should not be in jeopardy if they choose to refuse unsafe work. It`s no different than, for example, your boss tells you to change the light bulb, and then gives you a rickety chair to stand on in order to reach it. If you refuse, your boss can`t fire you for it.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor: If you were farting on me profusely you`d be expelling an unhealthy amount of methane, on people. So if –with the previous hypothetical– you could control your farts and you were farting in public and exposing everybody to it, the law applies.

If you read the first part of it, this law in the US also applies to private properties, which I agree, shouldn`t be there but hey, it`s your country.

That being said, and as I said about 4 times in the past, I`m only arguing about public spaces. That`s how my first statement started, and that`s how I`ve kept it.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Farts aren`t unhealthy or unsafe. In regards to cigarettes, they can be, in large doses, over a long period of time. One breath of second-hand smoke is virtually harmless, and will be out of your system in moments.

That being said, this is a PUBLIC nuisance law, not a PRIVATE nuisance law. And I already demonstrated that I`m arguing for private rights, and leaving public rights out of it.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor: [quote] -Maintaining a condition that endangers health or safety [/quote]
your move
0
Reply
Male 1
I enjoy riding my bicycle places. It not only keeps me healthy, but makes me happy as well. But every time I go riding on a public road, I`m forced to inhale the unpleasant and toxic emissions of automobiles.
0
Reply
Male 286
@CrakrJak
Non smoking areas and smoking areas do not work. Unless they are completely different buildings with different air systems it still exists. Ex quite a few restaurants that have these different areas is just a open door way to separate the two rooms....that does nothing to stop smoke haha.
0
Reply
Male 39,604

[quote]"I`m going to assume that your misrepresentation of the argument is deliberate because you know you have no real counter-argument." [/quote]
I did not misrepresent my arguement, at all. My stand is that freedom means people are free to make bad choices as well as good ones. The video is completely correct. If I don`t like your perfume I should not be able to ban it just because I have to breath the fumes in an elevator. The 3 seconds of second-hand smoke as you pass a smoker on the sidewalk has no effect on you whatsoever.

No one ever wants to put a ban on their own behavior. But so many want to ban what they disaprove of in others. Well, it`s their life, and just because I think it stinks {literally} does not mean I have the right ban it, or to unfairly tax it as is the case with tobacco. The cost of a pack is 73% tax.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Well, first off, this may vary between states and even between towns.

Secondly:
The law you quoted lists these things as public nuisances--
-Prostitution
-Drug use
-Unlawful weapon use
-Gambling
-Unlicensed sale of Alcohol
-Giving alcohol to a minor
-Maintaining a condition that endangers health or safety
-Engaging in activity declared by law to be public nuisance (this is where the local laws come into play)
-Knowingly permitting others to use property to cause a nuisance.

None of those relate to farts.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Forget farting. How about pooting and pissing? Why don`t we allow people to do those in the street, in shops, in pubs, etc, and on everyone unlucky enough to be in range?

Because they stink and leave a mess, which is disgusting to other people? Yes. Just like smoking does.

Because they`re a health hazard to other people? yes. Just like smoking is.

But unlike smoking, pooting and pissing are not simply stupid and antisocial ways of taking a drug that doesn`t even get you high or tripping. So smoking is worse. But, as a gesture of tolerance even for unpleasant people who don`t care about others, I`d allow public huts for smoking in, like public toilets.
0
Reply
Male 39,604

"No smoking within 20 feet of a building entrance."
That means no smoking anywhere downtown because entrances are so close.

Walking along a sidewalk, carbon monoxide fumes wafting into your lungs from all the cars and bus`s going by, and peole are worried a guy 15 feet away has a ciggie lit!
OMG! GET A FIRE EXTINGUISHER! KILL HIM!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s not about the cigarette, people. It`s about the attitude of banning something you don`t like just because you don`t like it.[/quote]

No, it isn`t.

I don`t like cheese. I think it smells foul and tastes worse. It`s disgusting to me.

Do I want to ban it? No. Things shouldn`t be banned on the basis of whether or not I like them. That would me insanely megalomaniacal of me.

I`m going to assume that your misrepresentation of the argument is deliberate because you know you have no real counter-argument. It`s either that or you`re deliberately ignorant and not very bright, which I don`t think is the case.

I want to ban people harming other people in order to feed their own drug habit in the most harmful way possible. Like I`d ban people stealing stuff to sell to buy drugs. Only that won`t kill the victims, unlike smoking.

Can I spray piss on you because I feel like it? After all, you not liking it is no reason to ban i
0
Reply
Male 2,516
also, I`m not against what the video analyzes, I`m against it`s thesis that it doesn`t pertain rights but instead ownership
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor: How about the public nuisance law analysis from the house of representatives in Minnesota updated in 2008.

You don`t have the right to fart on people`s faces. Sorry, that`s "America" for you
0
Reply
Male 3,894
(contd.) ...of our future generations.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Then you`re in support of this video, because the argument here is that people shouldn`t be forced to smoke outside rather than inside of an establishment that permits their smoking there.

I also stated earlier that if the city voted to ban smoking in public areas, they could do so because those public areas are owned by everyone collectively.

Furthermore, the "law" you linked was a description of public nuisance laws as they applied to vapor emissions from machinery during the industrial revolution. There is no law against farting. I have a right as an American to gas up your subways, your elevators, and your humble phone booths--to crop-dust your aunts and uncles and grandparents. I find it not only patriotic, but necessary if we are to preserve the freedoms given to us by our forefathers, who signed the constitution in a haze of methane at the end of a long, hot summer of gassy deliberation. Fart if you`re an American, for your rights, and for the rights
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Ah, but it`s so much nicer for us to be in public places now that these laws are in place. I suppose it would be more fair if there were specific "smoking bars" where you know exactly what you`re going to get. But, as long as it only takes one smoker to ruin the environment for an entire establishment, I support the laws. With the number of smokers declining (dying off, mostly) this argument will become moot. If I and a bunch of other people got enjoyment out of incessantly farting, would you want me in the same restaurant as you? Farting is legal and is even totally natural, unlike smoking, so it`s even more likely to be my right to do it all I want.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor (again): Then I can slap you with one of these in the US Because you`re consciously being a public nuisance
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor: Like I said before, you`re allowed to smoke anywhere that isn`t public. Private bans on smoking are wrong from my point of view; but public ones are necessary.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
every time i see someone smoking in a crowded restaurant. I look around at all the people having to deal with his second hand smoke and I think to myself... What if God was one of us. Just a slob like one of us. Just a stranger on the bus trying to make his way home.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
and as a postscript to my last comment, don`t bother writing in and telling me i`m wrong. i may be or i may not be. at my age i frankly don`t care about your opinion.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@AntEconomist: There are vagrancy laws? if there are, I agree that there shouldn`t be, as long as the space is declared public.

On the same vein, your freedom within a country: rights and obligations, is determined by the government, so any personal bubble of freedom is subject to it as well, ergo if there are laws about vagrancy in a country, then sleeping anywhere isn`t included in your freedom.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@Jendrian--...and if they`re silent? Also, that depends on where our encounter happens. If it`s in Canada, then that law applies. If it`s in the US, we don`t have that specific law.

And in response to your r-r-r-r-remix of the comic:
So...not allowed to smoke inside, not allowed to smoke outside, live somewhere that doesn`t allow smoking (ex- a university dorm)....what do? Quit smoking? That`s my choice, not yours.

I agree with Gerry on this--and I didn`t know that there were so many restrictions in San Diego...seriously? No frisbee? That`s sick.
0
Reply
Female 4,086
agree with him. too many times the health nazis come out of the woodwork & tell the general population `no`: `no smoking`, no drinking`, `no smoking weed`, & lately, `no eating sugar`. yes, there is an idea floating around to make sugar classed as a dangerous substance.

if you want to smoke, go ahead. if you want to drink, go ahead, just don`t drive. the same goes for smoking weed, just don`t drive. and you`re going to have to pry the chocolate out of my cold dead hands. alcohol, tobacco, and sugar are presently legal crops and the partaking of legal crops is legal. weed should be legalized too.

life is too short not to do what you want. adults can make their own decisions and should have the right to do so. i know all the arguments against smoking; i worked in healthcare for 30 years. but for every sick smoker, there`s at least another one out there who didn`t suffer ANY bad effects. who knows, it could be you.
0
Reply
Male 373
@jendrian: If I have freedom within that portion of a public space inside my "personal bubble", would you agree that there should be no vagrancy laws since the ground I sleep on is as much within my personal bubble as the air I breathe?
0
Reply
Male 506
@Gerry1of1, as long as people`s behaviors don`t affect other people, I`m fine with it. I don`t like sports, but I`m not supporting laws that ban TVs in bars. I`m not supporting laws that ban alchohol because when used responsibly, it doesn`t affect me to see someone drinking.

But smoking is different. You have no control over where that smoke goes and it often ends up in my lungs where I don`t want it. I agree with policies to ban it in apartments or condos because it can immediately impact neighbors and it can collect in walls and carpets, where future tenants may be exposed to it unknowingly.

Are you okay with people running meth labs in apartments? Bit of a strawman, but toxins are toxins.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@AntEconomist: you still have a bubble of personal freedom in a public environment; it`s not like in a public environment your freedom: both rights and obligations as a citizen just disappear. It`s only that it`s recognized that in a public domain you will interact with other bubbles of freedom that have no private rules.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
@Gerry, I don`t want to prevent people from smoking around me because I don`t like cigarettes. I want to prevent people from smoking around me because I don`t like dying.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
The difference between letting a guy smoke and letting a guy have a martini at lunch is that the martini doesn`t give me an asthma attack.

Like others have pointed out, having a privately owned business that serves the public does not give you the same rights as owning a home.
0
Reply
Male 39,604

It`s not about the cigarette, people. It`s about the attitude of banning something you don`t like just because you don`t like it. Freedoms are for everyone, not just yourself. And people should be free to make bad choices as well as good ones. There is an effort now to ban smoking in private residences {apartments/condos} because the smoke drifts through floors and walls into neighboring units.

It`s this attitude on our City Council that is ruining San Diego. No smoking on beaches. No beer on beaches...no throwing frisbee`s except in designated frissbee areas {there arent` any}. No throwing football on beaches. The list goes on and on. Still a nice place to live, but not as nice as it used to be thanks to nosey control freaks.
0
Reply
Male 50
Not so simple, simple boy... When you buy a property AND decide it is for public access, you ability to decide what you do with that property is justifiably regulated. If not you could, say, have a bar with pyrotechnics every night at the time most alcohol is being consumed, with the assumption that your pyro-loving customers will be safe and jeopardizing the lives of others, not just in your bar, but the buildings around that might burn down too.

Try this genius.... go into a restaurant with a small squirt bottle. If you`re next to a "considerate" smoker who is holding his death stick away from his table guests and in your general direction and blowing his foul lung rot over to your table to save his table mates the stench, give him a squirt. Be sure to hit his face and clothes, everywhere his pollution is hitting you. What do you think his reaction will be?
0
Reply
Male 2,516
0
Reply
Male 219
His argument on personal property is voided by opening a public facility...and yes, a restaurant is a public facility...in every state in the US, you can open a private club (cigar clubs, etc...) and all members can smoke on the premises...like-wise, if you open a private dining facility, you can set the smoking policy, but if you open it to the public, then you have to abide by the laws of a public facility.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Nobody begrudges the guy who has a few martinis at lunch why should they limit the freedom of the guy who smokes a cigarette at lunch?"

The guy drinking alcohol at lunch doesn`t directly affect my health or ability to enjoy my lunch. Unless he becomes drunk and a nuisance, in which case, he can actually get arrested. The smoker, however, does directly affect my health, and my ability to breathe (this is especially true for people with asthma and other breathing problems) and my ability to enjoy my meal. I`m actually fine with designated smoking sections, even inside (if it`s not a fire hazard or health hazard and is kept completely separate from non-smoking sections). I`m not fine with smokers being able to smoke wherever they feel like it where non-smokers don`t have the ability to completely avoid the smoke.
0
Reply
Female 2,525
Yes, and why not let the restaurant owner also get to decide what health code laws they have to follow? Don`t feel like washing dishes properly? Don`t feel like throwing out spoiled meat? Like letting rats and roaches run around? Go for it, because not allowing these things would be taking away your freedom.
0
Reply
Male 506
Is it really worth a battle to preserve people`s rights to inhale toxic chemicals into their lungs and then spew it out into the air where it can spread uncontrollably?

I have asthma due to exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke as a kid, so I`m a bit jaded about how lax people are about sharing their self-destructive habit with the rest of the world.

Rental property: No.

A public venue, like a park, stadium, airports, etc. : No.

Office buildings: No.

Privately owned stores, bars, restaurants, etc.: No. Primary service of of these places is not to support smoking.

Outside any of those where people have to pass through. : No.

Your own home: Yes. As long as minors won`t be exposed to it (Should be illegal to smoke around kids anywhere). If you move out, that property needs to be identified as having been exposed to toxins in cigarette smoke.

A tobacco shop or cigar bar: Yes. As long as other non-smoking areas
0
Reply
Male 5,314
no sh*t
0
Reply
Male 813
Lol at all the simpletons in this thread.
0
Reply
Male 373
@jendrian: I`m not arguing, just pointing out an assumption I don`t think you`re aware you`re making. When you say that the smoker has no right to invade "your bubble", you are assuming that the portion of the public space within your bubble is, in fact, not public but yours. Therein lies the problem with public spaces -- the part of the public space within your bubble can`t be yours, by definition. Of course, it can`t be the smoker`s either. So we`re left unable to determine what to do.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@DrProfessor: I could slap you with one of these

Note that it says: "[..."> and other loud noises [..."> as a deliberate attempt to intimidate and offend other people present in the same location.[...">"

So I guess there are laws about it, and I can sue you for it.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@burbclaver--I know people who smoke and who aren`t interested in quitting. Hell, the people who do want to quit probably feel that way because they`re getting harassed all the time.

And nobody is "blowing smoke in peoples faces". This sums it up perfectly:



0
Reply
Female 24
DrProfessor you are awesome
0
Reply
Male 335
Cant argue with that. So what makes most sense is for bar/restaurant owners to have a smoking section and a non-smoking section and everybody is happy?

Either way, the govt needs to stay the drat out of my poo.
0
Reply
Male 762
@Ant0n
And firefighters get hazards pay and respirators.
0
Reply
Male 646
Was this paid for by the cigarette companies?

I`m a smoker, have been for 20 years unfortunately, but there`s a big problem with the analogy. Restaurant owners don`t have the right, as owners, to serve rotten food because it would be a health hazard *for the public*. Likewise, cigarette smoke irritates the eyes and lungs and can be dangerous for some people, especially with long-term exposure.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
@antEconomist: Well yeah, no one`s rights are infinite, what I`m saying is that the non-smoker isn`t infringing in the smoker`s bubble of freedom. If a smoker had control over where the smoke goes, there would be no issue. But the smoke goes into other people in a public space, so the smoker infringes in their rights.

Basically, if the smoker wants to have smoke within his bubble of freedom, he`s got the right to, but he doesn`t have the right to affect everybody else around him. Hence, bans of the practice in a public space are a good idea.

In a private space, they`re not.
0
Reply
Male 878
In any case, who REALLY wants to smoke? Every smoker I have ever met would like to quit if they could. They are just too weak-willed to do so and hate how it is impacting their social life. So, they try to get everyone to agree they have a right to blow it in our faces.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
that`s because farting in people`s faces all the time doesn`t happen nearly as often as smoking. If fights broke out all the time because a group of people thinks they have the right to fart on everybody, the government would set some rules.

Also, the hypothetical is that I can control my farts and consciously fart on you so, it`s unreasonable to ban it. Smokers have control over their smoking, so it`s not unreasonable to ban it.
0
Reply
Male 878
CrakrJak: And that bothers me because??
0
Reply
Male 1,674
come on madest, you know that if there wasn`t a ban, you would be going on about how the government is in Big Tobacco`s pocket.
0
Reply
Male 373
@jendrian: The problem you raise isn`t about smoking versus non-smoking but about undefined property rights. Seen from one perspective, the smoker violates your right to clean air (but that assumes you have a right to clean air). Seen from another perspective, you violate the smoker`s right to smoke (but that assumes he has a right to smoke). The problem is simply that public spaces leave the whole issue of property rights undecided so we`re left to assign them by moral outrage (how dare you!) or muscle (cut it out or I`ll hurt you). Economists have studied this problem in depth. We call it the tragedy of the commons.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
By that logic walladude, Every fast food restaurant would have to close. We`re expected to have self control and free will. Nobody begrudges the guy who has a few martinis at lunch why should they limit the freedom of the guy who smokes a cigarette at lunch? Certainly they could have come to a compromise. The option of all public places must be smoke free is ludicrous to the level headed.
0
Reply
Male 761
@unmercyfuldu
If you apply for a job at the bar, you should be well aware of having to work around smoke.

Otherwise that`s like getting a firefighter job and complaining about having to go inside burning buildings.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
burbclaver: That`s one of the reasons California is the most hated state in the nation. Poll
0
Reply
Male 17,512
jendrian: So you want a ban on public farting now ?

Wow, how authoritarian of you.
0
Reply
Male 878
There isn`t an argument to argue, because smokers have already lost it. Smoking bans will progress until even the less progressive states legislate on it. We aren`t going back to the 1960s, whatever the guy in this video argues. I have friend who won`t visit from Pennsylvania, because she thinks she will be a social outcast in CA for smoking. Sadly, she is right. It`s easier just to give up!
0
Reply
Male 762
The issue isn`t customers, the issue is the staff.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@jendrian-- there are no laws about public farting. I could fart ALL over you, and you wouldn`t be able to do a damn thing about it.

And I`d think it was hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@wolladude--Those rules are relevant to the food being prepared. If legislation was passed to prevent chefs from smoking in the kitchen, that would be sensible as that`s directly related to food prep.

On the other hand, the permit-giver does not get to regulate the atmosphere and style of the restaurant, or what clientele are and aren`t allowed in the restaurant, or a number of other things--because they`re irrelevant to safe food preparation.
0
Reply
Male 403
As long as the owner needs a permit to rune a bar, resturant etc. then the one giving the permit sets the rule. The owner of a resturant does not have to right to choose to serve rotten food for the same reason.
0
Reply
Male 2,516
ok, that works for houses and restaurants, but what about actual public spaces? would those be about the rights of one person or the other?

Let me put it this way: if I was walking in front of you and I constantly and consciously farted on your face in a way you, and everybody around me could smell it, do I have the right to keep farting on your face? NO I do not. that`s what smokers do to the rest of the world in public spaces.

Non smokers aren`t infringing in your rights (again, in public spaces) by not letting you smoke, smokers are the only perpetrators of others` rights
0
Reply
Male 3,894
(contd.) who like their bars citrus-free. And therefore it`s a feasible option for Bill to enforce a ban in his bar.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@ggolbez--but spraying citric acid in the air is going to make Bob lose business, and therefore he will be pressured to stop. Unless of course his entire clientele base has the same citric acid spraying habit, in which case they don`t mind being around other people who spray citric acid. And if Bob`s establishment is known (and properly labeled) as a place where people spray citric acid, those who don`t like citric acid won`t give him their business, because of their distaste for citric acid. This is fine with Bob, because his fruity (ha) customer base is generating a fine amount of profits and his business is surviving.

Meanwhile, Bill down the street runs a shop that is very strict on its no-acid policy, and anyone who doesn`t like the acid spray will find themselves very at home here.

How do we know Bill`s establishment exists? We don`t, but considering the amount of people voting for these citric-acid bans, we know that there are a substantial amount of people
0
Reply
Male 17,512
I`m a non-smoker and think smoking bans are stupid.

Forcing people to smoke outside a business is discriminatory. I find it disgraceful that veterans can`t even smoke in their own VFW halls and that people can`t even smoke in cigar shops.

We did alright with smoking and non-smoking sections for decades, they should quit being so authoritarian.

Now they are even wanting to control what we eat !
Enough is enough already, this isn`t soviet Russia.
0
Reply
Male 373
@Buiadh: Perhaps you keep having this argument because you continue not to appreciate the
logical inconsistencies you`re advocating.
0
Reply
Male 1,931
A bit repetitive. But let me give you a scenario.

Bob likes to spray citric acid out of a squirt gun into the air. This mainly hurts Bob, but a good amount of it does splash onto other people. But Bob has the right to shoot citric acid into the air, right?

I`m sorry, but cigarette smoke smells like poo and second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful time and again.

If Bob wants to spray himself with citric acid all day long with a squirt bottle, I have no problem with that. But the second he gets any on me is when I have a problem.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
[quote]His points are infallible.[/quote]
Not really. He`s equating owning a house with owning a business. They are not the same.

You don`t need a licence to own a house, whereas you do to open a restaurant or a bar.
You don`t (usually) have paid employees required by their job to work in your house.
You don`t need to pass food hygiene safety standards to make dinner for your friends in your house.

They are clearly two different forms of "owning property".
0
Reply
Male 7,378
It`s other stuff as well. Transfats come to mind. Salt. Our rights are being squeezed unconstitutionally. It is time to consider a new way to govern ourselves. Backroom deals between our representatives and some lobby/donor aren`t benefiting us.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
I don`t smoke, but dammit I almost want to start out of sheer defiance.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
I`m not going to get into this argument any further, it`s one I`ve had too many times. The same points come up, the same points are shot down in the same way, on both sides. :)

Bottom line is, if you`re in the US chances are you`ll see your country ban smoking in public places nationwide within your lifetime. Accept it.
0
Reply
Male 1,674
apparently he doesn`t understand the difference between a residence and a business.
0
Reply
Male 761
@Buiadh
So let me get this straight, if running a non-smoking bar was not profitable than there wasn`t a whole lot of demand for those type of bars. Which means that most people didn`t really care about smoking in bars, so why were these bans enforced? Was it because few people felt that they were privileged enough to make rules in privately owned establishments and make majority of people suffer because of them?

Maybe I`m not understanding something, but demand = profit, no profit = no demand.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Then require staff consensus before a changing a smoking policy in any establishment. I mean, if you apply to work somewhere that allows smoking, what can you expect? If you`ve been working there for a long time, and they suddenly switch to become a smoking establishment, I can see your point. Which is why the staff should be consulted beforehand.

...but, again. If I apply to work at a bar that I know is filled with smoke every night... how could I expect not to be subjected to smoke while I`m working?
0
Reply
Male 878
Smoke doesn`t know about property boundaries. I guarantee that within a few years your neighbors will be able to stop you smoking in your own home, because they can smell the smoke. In fact there are already bills waiting to become law in California. If you can be fined for making too much noise, why not for spreading smoke?
0
Reply
Male 835
So the staff was forced to work there?
0
Reply
Male 6,737
One of the main reasons it was passed in the UK is to protect the health of the staff. And guess what, most of the staff were for the ban.

All workplaces in the UK have smoking bans, regardless what they are. I drive a company van for a proportion of my day, it`s a non-smoking vehicle.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
The same to you, the same to you.

You don`t own the bar, you don`t own the restaurant, etc. What give you the right to determine what they allow in their facility? I mean, should we pass laws preventing public places from serving alcohol, on the grounds that it isn`t family-friendly, and that not everyone wants to be around those that are drinking?

(well that doesn`t affect me!)

Sure it does! Your poor mind could be corrupted by the presence of demon-liquor! It might signify to others that drinking is okay! Some inebriated man`s behavior may bother you!

0
Reply
Male 6,737
"And if you don`t like the atmosphere of an establishment, YOU DON`T HAVE TO GO INSIDE. "

Ahh the classic argument.

Well done on being cliche.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
@Ant0n

No there weren`t. Not common anyway. If a bar went non-smoking they`re cutting off up to half the population and thus their profits. Why would anyone open one?
0
Reply
Male 3,894
It`s not "ridiculous pro-smoking propaganda", and if you feel that way then you really haven`t listened.

"Public space" would denote areas not owned privately, such as streets, parks, courthouses, police stations, etc. As a whole, the community can vote on the rights and regulations regarding those areas, because they are (in part) owned by everyone in the community.

You shouldn`t be able to vote on whether the air in my house has smoke in it or not, and likewise you shouldn`t be able to vote on whether I allow smoking in ANYTHING I own. That`s MY choice, not yours.

Smoking is unfashionable enough these days that plenty of establishments would be more than willing to ban smoking on the grounds that it would create an environment the majority of their customers would prefer. And if you don`t like the atmosphere of an establishment, YOU DON`T HAVE TO GO INSIDE.
0
Reply
Male 761
I don`t understand you guys, if you don`t want to "stink" after going to a bar, then why are you going into smoking bars?? Were there no non-smoking bars before the bans??
0
Reply
Male 12,138
I`m a smoker and I think having smoking bans in bars and restaurants is great. If I want a smoke I can always go outside, and I don`t stink of stale smoke the day after. I hasten to add I don`t smoke in my own house either.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
Yep. But hey, smoking isn`t cool. So the public is willing to infringe on the rights of a property owner in order to try stamping it out.
0
Reply
Male 878
Having been brought up in a smoke-filled society, I am delighted to now be able to go into cinemas, bars, restaurants, and public transport that doesn`t constantly smell of stale tobacco. I can now go to small bars and not have to have my clothes dry cleaned the day after. I don`t give a rat`s ass about smokers` freedoms. The bans are only going to increase, so just give it up!
0
Reply
Male 329
Obviously he is wrong.. in those areas that have these laws. =D
0
Reply
Male 6,737
He doesn`t mention the rights of the staff.

This is the usual ridiculous pro-smoking propaganda. Yawn etc.

Glad I live in the UK.
0
Reply
Male 9,524
Completely agree with everything he says. His points are infallible. But I still like smoking bans. You draters stink and I hated coming home from clubs and bars smelling like crap because of you.
0
Reply
Male 3
Link: Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom [Rate Link] - Are smoking bans wrong? When you boil the facts down, yes.
0
Reply