Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    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.
    Youre right, if everyone had a back garden the size of a football pitch.

    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.
    Restaurants are places of business. They are private. You choose to go on to the property, to pay for that choice and receive something in return.

    Are you suggesting I have more choice in not inhaling the neighbours barbecue smoke through my bedroom window, than I have leaving my house, entering a restaurant and sitting down with non smokers?

    Maybe since vienna is a parisian, where lung cancer is a national sport, this may effect your opinions. f*cking gauloise...
    No, it doesnt.


    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
    Which restaurants are you being frog marched into?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's just a further manifestation of the New Labour Nanny state. You don't have to go into a smoke filled pub. If you don't like it, don't go.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarnhamBoy)
    It's just a further manifestation of the New Labour Nanny state. You don't have to go into a smoke filled pub. If you don't like it, don't go.
    So where do we go then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    So where do we go then?
    A pub which has banned smoking.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    A pub which has banned smoking.
    What if there aren't any?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    What if there aren't any?
    That is similar to arguing that alcohol should be banned because you don't like drunk people but none of the pubs will ban it voluntarily.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    That is similar to arguing that alcohol should be banned because you don't like drunk people but none of the pubs will ban it voluntarily.
    What if there aren't any?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    What if there aren't any?
    Don't go to pubs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Don't go to pubs.
    Supposing I want to?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Supposing I want to?
    Then it is your choice to tolerate the smoke. Smoking is as much a part of many pubs as is alcohol.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    Then it is your choice to tolerate the smoke. Smoking is as much a part of many pubs as is alcohol.
    I'm not just talking about pubs - and why should smokers the ones who are causing the health damage have more of a choice than the non smokers do... the non smokers have to put up or shut up whereas the smokers can go around and smoke wherever...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    I'm not just talking about pubs - and why should smokers the ones who are causing the health damage have more of a choice than the non smokers do... the non smokers have to put up or shut up whereas the smokers can go around and smoke wherever...
    ok, imagine a person, let him be male for ease of discussion, who has a serious allergy to deodorant. He is not causing anyone any damadge but the deodorant users may cause him to become seriously ill or even die. Should we then ban deodorant use to allow that person to walk around wherever he wishes?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheVlad)
    ok, imagine a person, let him be male for ease of discussion, who has a serious allergy to deodorant. He is not causing anyone any damadge but the deodorant users may cause him to become seriously ill or even die. Should we then ban deodorant use to allow that person to walk around wherever he wishes?
    No - but if the deodorant effects everyone, which it does in this case, then yeah...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    No - but if the deodorant effects everyone, which it does in this case, then yeah...
    Most people still chose to go into smoky pubs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    What if there aren't any?
    Run one yourself or drink at home.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    I'm not just talking about pubs - and why should smokers the ones who are causing the health damage have more of a choice than the non smokers do
    Please dont raise the health issue because its irrelevant to the fundamental point. Bars arent public, they are private establishments. Noones forcing you to go onto that property, noone is forcing you to spend time there. If you wish to drink, if you wish to spend time with friends on that property you accept that its someone elses right to determine what is or isnt allowed.

    To suggest that the state must interfere into what landlords can and cannot do on their own property is severely encroaching on individual freedom, and certainly not conservatism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    To suggest that the state must interfere into what landlords can and cannot do on their own property is severely encroaching on individual freedom, and certainly not conservatism.
    Well considering how conservatism dictates an organic society so individual freedom can, and often is, sacrificed for the greater good of society. Neoliberalism, which most modern conservatives subscribe to, does not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    Well considering how conservatism dictates an organic society so individual freedom can, and often is, sacrificed for the greater good of society.
    Dont really understand what you are trying to say.

    Neoliberalism, which most modern conservatives subscribe to, does not.
    Neoliberalism is primarily an economic ideology, not a political one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Dont really understand what you are trying to say.



    Neoliberalism is primarily an economic ideology, not a political one.
    conservatism often does enroach individual freedom when you suggested it didn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    conservatism often does enroach individual freedom when you suggested it didn't.
    You'd be hard pushed to find any mainstream ideology that didnt compromise some freedoms. Conservatism does so for the preservation of institutions it considers necessary to maintaining wider freedoms and social evolution. It doesnt advocate the state interfering into the business of a private landowner.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,389

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.