Norway set to ban public smoking...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
Doesn't matter, its private property and noone is forcing you to go there. The only possible 'public' smoking ban that I can think of would be one inside government buildings... Even then I doubt it would be right, but it would definately be easier to defend\validate

Not really, you could defend a smoking ban in the streets, since a) It has been linked to actually harming others, and b) Someone else has to clean it up.

But yeah, anyone who supports a ban on smoking on private property is an idiot.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Zh|l
Im sorry but the 'right to leave' doesnt fit here, this is flawed logic. If I chose to eat at a certain pub because I like the food, and the next closest pub serving food is an hour's drive away - I would want to eat my food without a health risk of passive smoking than take my 'right' to 'leavel. I will wish for my 'right' to eat in 'clean air'.

I think WF has already explained that this is not about right to smoke or right to breathe clean air but about what the state can and can't enforce. A restaraunt owner for example could permit patrons to openly masturbate during their meals. This, to me at least, would be absolutley disgusting (aside from the health risks involved) and I would never choose to eat at such a place. But this does not make it OK for the state (or anyone else, e.g. moral vigilantes) to close the place down because they don't like the activities. It's up to the manager, customers and employees. If you say to the owner of this pub that you won't eat their again until they ban smoking/serve Mexican food/make the waitresses wear hot pants it's up to him (upon consultation with other customers and employees) to decide whether your custom is worth that much. You don't have the right to eat any specific place. As I said in an earlier post, obviously if there's only one pub in your local town/village and the next one is 900 miles away then sure, the argument becomes a bit more complicated (imho).

People with the entire arrogance of 'it is my right to smoke' would annoy me, are you saying if someone asthmatic asked you to not smoke (assuming you were smoking) you would just say no and smoke anyway?

This is more of a moral argument than anything legal or political. I am not, and never have been a smoker but if I was I would certainly always put my cigarette out if someone requested it. Same with turning down music or something of that nature where it might be my formal right to do something but someone else is bothered by it. Obviously if I thought they were being unreasonable and others (say my family were adversely affected by my turning down the music) then I might refuse. But areas like that aren't something the law should get involved with.

If my neighbour came to me and said "I'm really sorry about this, but my mother has just died and I need to report it, but I have no telephone, can I use yours briefly?" and I said no, then we might say this is utterly comtemptible behaviour (and indeed it is) but I don't think anyone would want the state (i.e. the police) to get involved.

[Nodrog]

Why dont you open up a non-smoking bar? Since there is obviously such a high demand for it, youre going to make a fortune!

[CryWolf]

PHP Code:

if smoking != healthy
then print "Smoking is baaaaad!?!"
else smoking == healthy
then print "Your a dweeb!"
end if 


[Jammers]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
is like racial segregation only you are using a different critera for the separation.

People don't decide their race, but people do decide whether to smoke. Saying segregating smokers and non-smokers is wrong is like saying prisons are wrong, because we are segregating criminals from the rest of society.

[CryWolf]

This ban is to create a more healthy work environment for the people who work in such places (bars, restaurants, pubs etc), not for the general public even though it has it advantages here as well. Would you work in a place where you had to inhale smoke day out and day in? Knowing that you'd probably die of it one day?

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Jammers
People don't decide their race, but people do decide whether to smoke. Saying segregating smokers and non-smokers is wrong is like saying prisons are wrong, because we are segregating criminals from the rest of society.

by using that logic we could separate fat people, or people who swear, or people who refuse to bathe, etc...

[Jammers]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
by using that logic we could separate fat people, or people who swear, or people who refuse to bathe, etc...

Fat people dont pose a health hazard to other people, and it may not be through choice.
People who swear could be threatening or just generally offensive, and people who refuse to bathe would be unpleasant due to the smell, and could pose a health hazard.
We could segregate people who swear and people with low hygeine levels, since they do so voluntarily and are unpleasant to other people, just like smokers are.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Jammers
Fat people dont pose a health hazard to other people, and it may not be through choice.
People who swear could be threatening or just generally offensive, and people who refuse to bathe would be unpleasant due to the smell, and could pose a health hazard.
We could segregate people who swear and people with low hygeine levels, since they do so voluntarily and are unpleasant to other people, just like smokers are.

my my how...

authoritarian

[Jammers]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
my my how...

authoritarian

too much freedom is the surest path to anarchy.

and not the good sort where everyone loves each other and marries trees, more the sort where people smash windows and go looting.

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Jammers
too much freedom is the surest path to anarchy.

and not the good sort where everyone loves each other and marries trees, more the sort where people smash windows and go looting.

allowing people to keep their property rights will not lead to looting and anarchy

[Jammers]

Originally posted by WarFalcon
allowing people to keep their property rights will not lead to looting and anarchy

I was talking more in general than just this issue.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Jammers
too much freedom is the surest path to anarchy..

Examples please.

[Intrepid00]

Greece, Rome the citzens pretty much got to the point they did like they felt ****ing doing and smoked or posioned themselves into social extinction.