Turn on thread page Beta

B64 - Civil Liberties (Smoking) Bill 2007 (Second Reading) watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Heh, well even if you were to support the global arms trade, you'd realise that the gun companies don't do it to kill people, they do it to supply a demand. You may not think that the demand should be filled and thus guns not sold - just as you may think the same about cigarettes - but saying that "They wish to make larger profits by directly harming the health of their consumers," is simply untrue.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    Heh, well even if you were to support the global arms trade, you'd realise that the gun companies don't do it to kill people, they do it to supply a demand. You may not think that the demand should be filled and thus guns not sold - just as you may think the same about cigarettes - but saying that "They wish to make larger profits by directly harming the health of their consumers," is simply untrue.
    I'd argue that as they aim to addict their customers it is true although I'd agree that it isn't for arms dealers. Regardless I still support this bill but wouldn't support a bill to free up the arms trade more as the motivation of the producer is a bit besides the point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I would be worried that any sort of exemption from the smoking ban would provide a loophole for other businesses, such as pubs, to use the clause to get around the ban. And also, that even though this bill is onto a second reading, that the definition of which businesses will be exempt from the ban is confused, and unless a more clearly defined way of defining this in legal terms is found (which i doubt is possible. While i understand the types of business that will be exempt, in theory, it doesn't seem to be easily definable), then it wont work in practice.

    And a level of demand, in itself, isn't sufficient to justify anything. Because there is a demand for smoking, it doesn't mean that it is right to meet that demand. Companies making cigarettes know that their product is harmful to consumers, so they cannot disavow responsibility in any way (unlike something like the arms trade, where there is justification, for defence purposes, regardless on whether you agree with it or not). But i think that topic is more about the wider argument over the smoking ban itself.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah -Shisha Bar

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigar_bar -Cigar Club
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
    I would be worried that any sort of exemption from the smoking ban would provide a loophole for other businesses, such as pubs, to use the clause to get around the ban. And also, that even though this bill is onto a second reading, that the definition of which businesses will be exempt from the ban is confused, and unless a more clearly defined way of defining this in legal terms is found (which i doubt is possible. While i understand the types of business that will be exempt, in theory, it doesn't seem to be easily definable), then it wont work in practice.
    Eep? It says places that have over 'x' amount of sales of tobacco. Given that pubs don't actually sell tobacco (except the odd fag machine), none of them will be exempt. The only reason it's 'x' is because none of us have sufficient knowledge of the situation to give a specific figure, but really the specific figure isn't really relevant to whether or not the bill is a good one or not.

    And a level of demand, in itself, isn't sufficient to justify anything. Because there is a demand for smoking, it doesn't mean that it is right to meet that demand. Companies making cigarettes know that their product is harmful to consumers, so they cannot disavow responsibility in any way (unlike something like the arms trade, where there is justification, for defence purposes, regardless on whether you agree with it or not). But i think that topic is more about the wider argument over the smoking ban itself.
    I literally could not disagree with everything you just said more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can we send this to voting, please?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by wesetters)
    ;no;

    Sorry, the carrot'll have to go too. "Ye could 'ave someun's eye ou' wi' tha' !"
    And aples too - just look at poor old Issac Newton getting his on the head by one...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And what a wealth of knowledge has been discovered from that apple.

    Apples must stay.

    Besides the fact that it is my favourite fruit.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I personally support the smoking ban, mainly because passive smoking is a killer also I dont think non-smokers can stand breathing in or being around smoke caused by smoking, if people want to smoke then thats their choice, don't let other people suffer while your doing it, :mad:.

    Oh and passive smoking affects young children, teenagers, babies, EVERYONE! So whatever smokers say it isn't right to smoke in front of others in a confined open space.

    Smoking is one persons hobby and other's killer.:eek:
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 5, 2007
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.