Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Which is ultimately far more important.
    That is your opinion.
    On this issue, i strongly place the grave health risks involved with passive smoking above the right of a smoker to puff away in a public place.

    I would not personanally consider the smokers right to do so a "personal liberty" either. Taking your cigarette outside is just being commonly courteous, not an ersosion of anothers fundamental liberties.

    It is also worth noting that businesses simple have not and are not doing enough to prevent the spread of these diseases. It is within our own interests to take the neccessary action.

    As i say, when you have to foot the NHS bill for the thousands of people this affects, or you have to go and comfort a widow of one of the victims, don't expect the manager of "greesy joes" to offer you any sympathy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    That is your opinion.
    On this issue, i strongly place the grave health risks involved above the right of a smoker to puff away in a public place.

    I would not personanally consider the smokers right to do so a "personal liberty" either. Taking your cigarette outside is just common courtesy, not an ersosion of someones fundamental liberties.

    It is also worth noting that businesses simple have not and are not doing enough to prevent the spread of these diseases. It is within our own interests to take the neccessary action.

    As i say, when you have to foot the NHS bill for the thousands of people this affects, or you have to go and comfort a widow of one of the victims, don't expect the manager of "greesy joes" to give you any sympathy...
    You chose to go into "Greasy Joes". You chose to sit down. You chose to sit among smokers. If I was, god forbid, 'Greasy Joe', Id rightly laugh at any claim.

    You, like Technik, have jumped the decision making process entirely, by arguing over whether non-smokers should be forced to inhale smoke. I agree that if two groups are forced into a single area then one is rightly effected and I would see the justice in a ban on smoking. But we live in a society where businesses offer their services and goods and we are free to choose and pay the market price. As part of the decision we take into consideration what we are buying for the money and how it will effect us.

    If you dont want to go into a smoking environment, CHOOSE not to. Its your freedom. If a smoker doesnt want to go into a non-smoking environment, they CHOOSE not to. If the restaurant wants to allow smokers, they CHOOSE to.

    Its not a personal liberty to breathe clean air, its a personal liberty to choose to breathe clean air.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    That is your opinion.
    On this issue, i strongly place the grave health risks involved with passive smoking above the right of a smoker to puff away in a public place.
    Barbecues
    I would not personanally consider the smokers right to do so a "personal liberty" either. Taking your cigarette outside is just being commonly courteous, not an ersosion of anothers fundamental liberties.
    Under the ban you won't be able to smoke outside either as that is a public place.
    It is also worth noting that businesses simple have not and are not doing enough to prevent the spread of these diseases. It is within our own interests to take the neccessary action.
    Yes, it is up to us, the public, to take the action by not eating in restaurants that allow smoking. It is not up to the government to tell people what rules to have on their private property.
    As i say, when you have to foot the NHS bill for the thousands of people this affects, or you have to go and comfort a widow of one of the victims, don't expect the manager of "greesy joes" to offer you any sympathy...
    Barbecues.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Barbecues.
    What about them?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    You chose to go into "Greasy Joes". You chose to sit down. You chose to sit among smokers. If I was, god forbid, 'Greasy Joe', Id rightly laugh at any claim.

    You, like Technik, have jumped the decision making process entirely, by arguing over whether non-smokers should be forced to inhale smoke. I agree that if two groups are forced into a single area then one is rightly effected and I would see the justice in a ban on smoking. But we live in a society where business offer their services and goods and we are free to choose and pay the market price. As part of the decision we take into consideration what we are buying for the money and how it will effect us.

    If you dont want to go into a smoking environment, CHOOSE not to. Its your freedom. If a smoker doesnt want to go into a non-smoking environment, they CHOOSE not to. If the restaurant wants to allow smokers, they CHOOSE to.

    Its not a personal liberty to breathe clean air, its a personal liberty to choose to breathe clean air.
    Okay, I am guessing you support a ban on smoking in the workplace then?

    It is worth noticing that many bars/restaurants and pubs are not only smoke dens, but they are workplaces, where employees are vunerable to serious health risks.
    Would you just sack them, saying that it is "their choice to work"?

    I partly agree with your argument, but i feel the non-smokers intererests are being somewhat bypassed by small businesses who view the risks with little importance.
    Would you at the least support some form of restriction on businesses, to ensure they are being responsible about this?
    In the UK, more than 300 people die every year as a sirect consequence of passive smoking.

    What about irresponsible parents who take their children to restaurants where the majority of customers smoke? the child can't really do anything about it.

    Many people are simply irresponsible, and when the risk is as wide as this, i believe that the decent thing to do is make a bold move.

    (Original post by TheVlad)
    barbeques
    Barbeques?! Have you lost the plot?

    Could you attribute the following to the risks involved in lighting a barbeque?:
    (Original post by BUPA)
    As Dr. Vivienne Nathanson stressed, "There is overwhelming evidence, built up over decades, that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks. In children, passive smoking increases the risk of pneumonia, bronchitis, and reduces lung growth, as well as both causing and worsening asthma."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    What about them?
    They are much more dangerous than cigarettes and you can't even escape them in your home as the smoke wafts into your garden. Yet, noone has attempted to ban them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Barbeques?! Have you lost the plot?

    Could you attribute the following to the risks involved in lighting a barbeque?:
    Yes, barbecues
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3106039.stm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Under the ban you won't be able to smoke outside either as that is a public place.
    Uhm, i suggest you do a little more research into the proposals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Uhm, i suggest you do a little more research into the proposals.
    Ok, sorry, you are right.
    But a complete public ban is the obvious next step, isn't it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Yes, barbecues
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3106039.stm
    Very interesting, i was never aware of these risks involved, and we have just had a barbecue today! :p:

    I would agree with professors proposals to put warnings on barbecues, as many people simply are not aware of such risks.

    HOWEVER, it is clearly not going to have such a wide impact as smoking:
    (Original post by Professor Desmond Hammerton)
    "I'm sure that just the odd barbecue during the summer is not going to have any effect.

    "But if you have a barbecue once or twice a week through the summer, and all crowd round it and inhale the fumes then over 10 or 20 years maybe that would do something."
    Surely the neighbours aren't going to come into your garden and crowd around your barbecue twice a week over 20 years. The only person who is going to be risking their health, really, is the person standing by the barbecue cooking away! and thats only if he choses to light a barbecue every week.

    Interesting findings though...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Surely the neighbours aren't going to come into your garden and crowd around your barbecue twice a week over 20 years. The only person who is going to be risking their health, really, is the person standing by the barbecue cooking away! and thats only if he choses to light a barbecue every week.
    Precisely.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    It is worth noticing that many bars/restaurants and pubs are not only smoke dens, but they are workplaces, where employees are vunerable to serious health risks.
    Would you just sack them, saying that it is "their choice to work"?
    The comment wasn't addressed to me, but I couldn't resist posting: OF COURSE!

    Someone chooses to work for certain conditions - pay, perks, company car, whatever. If someone doesn't get what they want, they look for a job elsewhere. Such is the free market. I don't see why employees should be exempt from cigarette smoke when they are aware of the dangers.

    What about irresponsible parents who take their children to restaurants where the majority of customers smoke? the child can't really do anything about it.
    What about the irresponsible parents who don't help their children to read, or help them with their school homework? That's not anything the state can rightly do anything about unless you're considering turning us into some collective commune.

    I question just how much damage passive smoke can do to a child's health before it of an age where it can decide where and where not to go.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheVlad
    Under the ban you won't be able to smoke outside either as that is a public place.

    Uhm, i suggest you do a little more research into the proposals.
    While I am against a ban on smoking in bars/pubs/restaurants/etc I fully support a ban on it in the street and in parks (ie, government-owned land). These are areas of communal enjoyment and in the case of the pavements, you can't really choose not to walk them. However, I am still confronted on the streets of Glasgow with fat, middle aged women's cigarette smoke blowing into my face. While the law does not concern itself with trifling matters, this bloody annoys me - and it's the principle of the matter, of course!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I think Blair, Clarke and Blunkett would fit in well to a tory front bench.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I think Blair, Clarke and Blunkett would fit in well to a tory front bench.
    Only due to the lack of Prescott my friend...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    hehe, lets see your arguments first.


    I agree. If both groups are obliged to remain in that area together.


    It doesnt "inevitably" do anything. Its not inevitable that myself as a non-smoker cannot find a perfectly clean air environment in which to pass my time. Its not inevitable that a smoker chooses to not smoke while in my presence.


    So you are talking about infringing freedoms, something I disagree with in this case.
    every day simply walking through the street in town will expose me to such things. of course, i should just avoid the town. perhaps wear a gas mask.

    simpler course of action is to ban smoking.

    yes i am talking about infringing freedoms. i dont personally believe people should be free or accomodated while damaging themselves and others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    simpler course of action is to ban smoking.
    Simpler for you.

    Or perhaps you should just be more relaxed. Anyway the risk from car fumes is probably much higher than from cigarette smoke on the street.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    every day simply walking through the street in town will expose me to such things. of course, i should just avoid the town. perhaps wear a gas mask.
    If you feel its a threat to your health. Do you?
    I often pass time in the company of smokers, I know thats a risk to myself, its one I CHOOSE to take.

    simpler course of action is to ban smoking.
    How is it simpler than not banning smoking? You havent demonstrated why banning smoking is better than not banning smoking, so to suggest its simpler makes little sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe people in this thread are so stupid to not understand the concept of making a choice by now. There's no debate because no one will admit that someone else has a different opinion, and so the same old 'choice' arguement is brought out over and over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kard)
    I don't believe people in this thread are so stupid to not understand the concept of making a choice by now. There's no debate because no one will admit that someone else has a different opinion, and so the same old 'choice' arguement is brought out over and over.
    I think its obvious they have a different opinion. I just dont agree with it.
    If they believe in a choice they wouldnt base their arguments on the premise that we havent got one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Should we ban barbecues? I believe that all the arguments that have been used to support a smoking ban can also be applied to barbecues and bonfires. In fact I would have thought that the dangers of passive barbecuing are far greater than those of passive smoking.
    Barbecues are events which people go to from choice - so they can be avoided. If they do not want to be exposed to the smoke, that is their choice.
    But, this on the other hand is completely different to restaurants - as barbecues do not occur in a public place, therefore they do not effect anyone who has not chosen to be there.
    Also, The carcinogens may be significantly higher, but other constituents which cause other detrimental effects are not there, and also without the presence of tar, carcinogenic fibres are less likely to become settled in the lungs.

    Maybe since vienna is a parisian, where lung cancer is a national sport, this may effect your opinions. f*cking gauloise...
    (only kidding - dont worry! )

    It is, in my belief unfair to not have a choice where you wish to eat because it could cause a health risk doing so - surely people have the liberty to go where they wish without their health being threatened - surely that is the ultimately liberty which we do so pride ourselves on in the developed nations.

    I do not think a ban on smoking completely is necessary - and having smoking devoted restaurants would probably be the fairest compromise. But, it has been effectively utilised in Dublin, and its wonderful there!
    The current system of segregated restaurants is not too disfunctional, and maybe there should be some guidelines on the ventilation provided in working environments such as restaurants - the system used in wetherspoons that smoking is not allowed at the bar.etc., seems good as it saves people working there the problems associated with smoking.

    I am also quite annoyed at the degree of fossil fuel emissions which we have to breathe in - oxford is said to be the worst in the country, the equivalent to smoking 60 a day....I believe an increased pedestrianisation of city centres and electric trams, similar to those utilised in manchester would provide a much better inner city environment - maybe this is more what we should be discussing? since it is a much more important issue nationally and globally, considering that taxes from tobacco tend to cover the NHS cost of smoking related ailments...
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,263

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.