| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On March 14 2009 10:42 Murkyith14 wrote: I agree with you, man. I also think a ban on smoking is wrong. If people want to smoke they should be able to. If people want to mix their piss into a bottle and spray it in your face they should have that right too. | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On March 14 2009 01:17 nataziel wrote: Unless you live in a place without free health care. I.E: the united states Yeah well we have the FASTEST health care...probably lol if you pay with cash lol | ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
Sure second hand smoke isn't good for your health but neither are car fumes, why don't we start banning cars in public areas aswell? Yes I am an occasional smoker. | ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
On March 13 2009 20:23 Loanshark wrote: Uh no. Secondhand smoke only causes permanent/serious problems in cramped places with long term exposure. I don't think anyone has ever been killed by secondhand smoke inhalation. You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE. Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC. These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death. Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is. LINK | ||
|
Comeh
United States18918 Posts
I just think that people don't want to breath in smoke if they don't choose to do so themselves - ie. waitresses that don't smoke, bartenders, etc. | ||
cgrinker
United States3824 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On March 14 2009 11:23 fearus wrote: The governments have waged a vendetta against smokers for the past few decades when really alcoholism is by far a much greater problem. Sure second hand smoke isn't good for your health but neither are car fumes, why don't we start banning cars in public areas aswell? Yes I am an occasional smoker. Except cars are considered necessary for modern life it's a form a transportation not a form of please or escape ie recreation like smoking is. Sure alcoholism is far greater but usually people that are really alcoholism keep to themselves far less public - the occasional drunk driver that crashes and kills a family of 4 or something like that frankly smoking is a lot more public and a lot less of a social norm at least in the majority of the US | ||
|
Oystein
Norway1602 Posts
On March 14 2009 01:27 Ingenol wrote: I'm not talking about open-air bans, I'm talking about restaurant bans. A restaurant is a private establishment, and it should be up to the restaurant/bar owner to decide if he wants to allow smoking, and then patrons can act accordingly. If the smoke from a restaurant were spilling over to a neighboring store or out into public property that's one thing, but these bans (which typically ban smoking in any private establishment) are ludicrous. You have a choice to go to an establishment or not, just as the owner of said establishment should have a choice whether or not to allow it. Should a restaurant be allowed to sell you bad rat meat just because its private owned and the owner can do as he want? Just like there is general laws for hygiene for health reasons in restaurants there should be laws against the health risks that second hand smoke brings with itself for the customers and the employees. I mean how hard is it to step outside if you so desperately need a cigarette? | ||
|
Kaolla
China2999 Posts
On March 14 2009 11:30 eXigent. wrote: You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE. this can never be proven... how the hell can they prove that? its called propaganda... its probably just some estimation and as someone else said how many ppl have died from car fumes? or from the sun (skin cancer)? or from eating food they received from their boss? Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC. Just hire only smokers as personel or only ppl who agree on working in such condition... shouldnt be any problem with that... there's plenty of bars where all personel smokes or doesnt give a shit... These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death. Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is. LINK If there is a market for non smoking bars then let some ppl make them and let's see if this is rly what ppl want... You would be well suited to work in the third reich, oh minister of propaganda.... seriously who believes that crap.. sure its probably got some negative effects, but what doesnt?! and no i dont smoke i just think there should be some more freedom in the world... and it seems more and more measures from the government are taking away our freedom... now smoking but soon alcohol (it is a poison as well! and it can be dangerous to others (drinking and driving, doing weird stuff to others will poisoned)... we cant be in the sun for more than 2 hrs... not allowed to eat fast food more than once a week (or just make it fkn expensive so we cant afford it)... and the government has to protect us all since we cannot make our own decisions!!!!!! who knows what else.... If many people wanted to go to non smoking bars there''d be lots of 'em (or they would be created alot, hole in the market) but obviously they are not so people don't really care and the effects are negligible... assuming that all those ppl did rly die of 2nd hand smoke, who knows how much longer they would have lived anyway... i bet many of them were old and would have prolly died of some other form of cancer anyway.. more and more rules less and less freedom... and then we call the western world the free world... yea right -_- soon they can follow us anywhere we are and we're not allowed to do shit but work and pay tax and live as long as possible so we generate more tax... and we're all too lazy to do shit about it... or we have ppl actually agreeing to it and propagandizing it >.<;; no thx yo~ -_-; oh and about the health care there's so much tax on alcohol (which is probably at least as expensive for health care I would say) and cigarettes and that kinda crap that i think that easily makes up for it... | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On March 14 2009 11:30 eXigent. wrote: You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE. Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC. These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death. Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is. LINK That sounds like an awfully exact number for something that can't actually be proven like that. So... yea i'm calling you bull out because that link didn't tell me a damn thing that couldn't be desputed. | ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
On March 14 2009 12:35 Jayme wrote: That sounds like an awfully exact number for something that can't actually be proven like that. So... yea i'm calling you bull out because that link didn't tell me a damn thing that couldn't be desputed. ROFL, are you serious? You are actually going to sit there and tell me that second hand smoke doesn't kill thousands of people each year? Oh my god, you need to seriously take a medical class. How many different links would you like? How about statements from doctors? The link I provided is from the American Lung Association. How is that not a credible source? How is your opinion more valid than that of DOCTORS? Seriously, tell me. I am in disbelief that you can actually assume that what I said is propoganda, that has to be the most stubborn, ignorant statement I have ever heard in my life. You know what I have as proof? How about the fact that most of north america has BANNED smoking in public places BECAUSE IT CAUSES MASSIVE HEALTH PROBLEMS. You think that scientific research is bullshit? That I am wrong, and you are right, and second hand smoke doesn't cause death? Here are a bunch more links, some written by physicians. (or are doctors all wrong as well?) Woman dies of asthma attack due to second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is PROVEN to be the cause of the sudden asthma attack Link AADAC - alberta health services (my province) Link no-smoke.org - They also state that around 50,000 people die due to second hand smoke. oh and just so you know, I didnt print an EXACT number. This number is based on the midpoint numbers for heart disease deaths (48,500), lung cancer deaths (3,000), and SIDS deaths (2,300) Link Also, in case you need more proof. In 2007, a study using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology was able to detect damage in the lungs of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke Link to MRI study British Columbia healthFiles Link BodyandHealth Link York.Ca - FACT: Second hand smoke is Canadas THIRD LEADING PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF DEATH! Link Seriously, How much more proof do you really need before your narrow mind comes to grip with the fact that second hand smoke KILLS PEOPLE | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
I smoke, but I don't mind the bans everywhere. Cigarettes are gross. They have their uses though. I mean, I really identified with Joe Camel as a kid. He was so cool. Yeah. Everyone knows it's cool to be a killer. | ||
|
ilj.psa
Peru3081 Posts
| ||
|
Tetris
United States36 Posts
I guess I'm glad I've never had an interest in smoking. *shrug* | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On March 14 2009 13:40 Tetris wrote: There's a smoking ban in restaurants and lots of other indoor public places where I'm from. It's been that way for a couple years now, I think. I guess I'm glad I've never had an interest in smoking. *shrug* Too costly imo playing video games is the cheapest form of entertainment imo no monthly f playing for tv my antenna and hulu among other sites hold me over just fine. | ||
|
Tetris
United States36 Posts
On March 14 2009 14:17 IzzyCraft wrote: Too costly imo playing video games is the cheapest form of entertainment imo no monthly f playing for tv my antenna and hulu among other sites hold me over just fine. This. Not to start another debate or get off topic, but I don't see the point in having a costly habit that doesn't benefit you or anyone else. *shrug* | ||
|
Rice
United States1332 Posts
On March 14 2009 11:30 eXigent. wrote: You are wrong. Thousands of people have been killed due to second hand smoke inhalation. Here is a link showing that in 2005 alone, there were 49,430 deaths from SECOND HAND SMOKE. Now, secondly, all of you people saying that bars should be allowed to have smoking if they want, and non-smokers should just go elsewhere, seem to be missing a point. Workers should not have to deal with the effects of second hand smoke. This includes ALOT of people. Waitressess / waiters, dishwashers, cooks, delivery men who need to bring supplies into the bar, food critics, health and safety personnel ETC ETC ETC. These people should have the freedom to not inhale a substance that might kill them in the future. You need to look beyond just the patrons who smoke, and realize that second hand smoke is a very large cause of death. Here is a link that basically gives you a bunch of facts on second hand smoke, and just how dangerous it is. LINK rofl yeah im sure ALL of those deaths are entirely from secondhand smoke. it has nothing to do with car fumes or factory smoke, those things dont matter at all, ITS ONLY THE CIGARETTES!!! | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
I'm not going to reply to all the particular aguments raised in the link here. For what its worth, none of the arguments listed in this thread are novel to me -- they are all very standard. Thats not to say they are simple or unworthy of engagement. Quite the contrary, I think the arguments I am referring to are used often because there is a lot of sense in them. What I am going to do is post a response a personal friend of mine gave to me -- and my response to his arguments. A RESPOSNE FROM MY FRIEND: UNiMEDiA: Uni, you wrote: 1. "One reply is to concede the above argument but make the case that the workers at the bar don’t get to choose if they go or not, they are forced to work in a smoking environment. The implicit assumption here is that the worker has a right to work in a smoke free environment -- and more abstractly, a right to a job. They don’t have either of these rights because these rights impose positive not negative obligations." The right to a safe workplace is positive right comparable to the right to public education or a basic standard of healthcare. Obviously the question of what is and what is not a positive right is the central issue here, and in the broadest sense I think Karel Vasak's "Human Rights" is probably the most concise and cogent example of what positive and negative rights people should expect in 21st century society. 2. One obvious criticism of Vasak's list of human rights is that some of them seem like political goals disguised in the language of absolute rights. Ultimately though, the distinction between positive and negative rights is illusory -- the right to self-defense, although much older, still has the same element of moral judgement that, say, the right to a healthy environment does. Does the government have a right to ban smoking, if it has (correctly) determined that smoking presents a health hazard to bartenders? I believe it does, based on Vasak's description of rights, the same way it has the authority to mandate child labor laws, an 8 hour work day, and the sort of nondescrimination statutes that don't allow white business owners to refuse business from blacks. The right to free enterprise is not absolute. MY RESPONSE TO HIM FRIEND: (1) My defense rests entirely on a notion of property rights. What I mean by rights is specific and was somewhat elaborated on in my original post. Ultimately, however, a defense of property rights is a larger and deeper issue. Any debate about a smoking ban will lead to this. For now, I will limit the discussion to the points proper. (2) You don’t comment on the first of the two distinctive characteristics of rights I lay out. Coupled with the fact that you seem to advocate a form of Human rights, I can only conclude that you agree that rights are, in fact, trump entitlements. (3) As to the second distinction, you wrote, "Ultimately though, the distinction between positive and negative rights is illusory -- the right to self-defense, although much older, still has the same element of moral judgment that, say, the right to a healthy environment does." You are partially correct. It is true that any notion of rights includes a moral element. I could claim I have a right to you bringing me a snickers bar each day when I wake up -- and there would be a moral element to this namely that the right bearer is entitled to such and such. In this case, a king-sized snickers each day. (Also, I think you should have to wear a crixalis-the-sand-king costume and a boom-box playing “Standstorm” when you bring me the bar) However, you are partially incorrect. The reason that there is a non-illusory, non-arbitrary distinction is because positive rights end in contradiction. I made this point in my original post: “If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.” – but let me elaborate further. In other words, if I have a right to health-care then someone is obligated to give me healthcare if I don’t have it. That is what a right means -- a trump entitlement. Its the same with a "right to a healthy workplace" or a "right to unemployment benefits". However, the right to property is also a right --–a trump entitlement which means that I am granted full authority in the use of my resources. So we have a situation in which two contradictory rights are clashing. That is, the right to healthcare says I do not have full authority over my resources – because I am obligated to use these resources to secure health care for someone else. On the other hand, the right to property says I do have full authority over my resources and, thus, I am not obligated (although I may choose) to use their resources to secure healthcare for someone else. These rights are competing – one of them is going to have to go or the meaning and political implication of rights will be drastically changed. _______________________________________________________ A final comments that will (hopefully) save some time for anyone responding. I am defending property rights as absolutes. This means that, if pushed, I will defend a whole host of un-intuitive views about government and its sphere of action. If your response is something like "Well according to your view the government couldn't tax and all hell would break loose" You could very well be right. I am, in fact, working on a paper right now about the assumptions underlying the "must tax or face horrible consequences" argument. I think I have some powerful arguments in store for this objection and I will post my work to TL when I am finished. Please keep in mind that I don't brush off this argument easily. I think it is a powerful objection and may very well be correct. As always, I am not interested in fitting facts to my views but instead fitting my views to facts. | ||
|
ktp
United States797 Posts
On March 14 2009 11:47 Oystein wrote: Should a restaurant be allowed to sell you bad rat meat just because its private owned and the owner can do as he want? Just like there is general laws for hygiene for health reasons in restaurants there should be laws against the health risks that second hand smoke brings with itself for the customers and the employees. If a resturant sells you rat meat, then in theory it would go out of buisness because so many people would get sick that it eventaully no one would go to that restaurant anymore. So it would be very counter productive for a resturant to sell you bad food because it would hurt their business. But in reality, people will still eat shit despite knowing its bad for them. Thus all the fast food places responsible for making people fat will always stay in buisness. Instead of making a conscious decision to stay away from unhealthy food, some people want it to be banned so they don't ever have to make that decision again. I don't know if this is just laziness on our part, or that we, as people, are truely incompetent in making decisions. On March 14 2009 11:47 Oystein wrote: I mean how hard is it to step outside if you so desperately need a cigarette? Why must the smokers step outside? Can't the nonsmokers just leave? Maybe there should be a rule like, 20 smokers and 19 nonsmokers in a room, then the nonsmokers leave. And if there are 20 nonsmokers and 19 smokers in the room, the smokers leave. But thats a pain in the ass. | ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On March 14 2009 19:41 ktp wrote: Why must the smokers step outside? Can't the nonsmokers just leave? I'm pretty sure that Oystein means that smokers who desperately need a smoke just step outside and have a quick cigarette to quell their addiction and to avoid infecting other people with second-hand smoke, it would make no sense for nonsmokers to leave. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
