Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why not the owner decide? All restaurants that i go to have smoking and non smoking areas. Its for the market to decide i.e. if its bad for business owners will react accordingly, not the government.
    There is a fatal flaw in this plan though....smoke travels through air - so segregating the customers has little effect.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why not the owner decide? All restaurants that i go to have smoking and non smoking areas. Its for the market to decide i.e. if its bad for business owners will react accordingly, not the government.
    When it comes to a serious health issue as this, i would strongly suggest that the government intervenes.
    Businesses should be urged to be more responsible at the very least. In some restaurants the line between the smoking and non-smoking designated areas is a fine one, and some places don't even bother to designate non-smoking areas.

    Now that we are aware of the risks posed by smoking, we should really be trying to clamp down on this. Non-smokers are by far in the majority, and it is not fair that they should have to put up with this.

    Besides, i am sure that non-smoking policy would significantly increase revenue in the long run for many businesses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    There is a fatal flaw in this plan though....smoke travels through air - so segregating the customers has little effect.
    It depends on the size of the restaurant and also how sectioned off areas are. Businesses which have provided cover will do well, those that don't may lose custom from none-smokers. Thus they will either make sure the areas are separated enough and there is good ventilation or put a full ban in the restaurant, which they can do as its their restaurant.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Was this ironic? :confused:

    I don't imagine that David Davis has a real understanding of the limited power, and room for manouevre modern politicians have. He would probably expect to be a Conservative... :rolleyes: Too naive and inexperienced.

    Is there anybody but Clarke to lead with weight? Or anyone who would find more favour with the public? A Clarke leadership which made much noise about Vlad's Classic Liberalist stance while submitting privately to the Dirty Digger's globalist corporate agenda would see them pick up a few more voters.

    Piss-ant comments like BKs would lose them even more voters.
    Was what ironic? What are you talking about?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Businesses should be urged to be more responsible at the very least.
    So do you want them to urge or legislate?



    Besides, i am sure that non-smoking policy would significantly increase revenue in the long run for many businesses.
    Thats for the business to decide, not you or the government.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It is absolutely and clearly something that the market can sort out for itself! I am staggered that a Conservative would think differently.

    Fag gestapo on the public payroll and smokers never allowed to eat out!

    Back off Beekeeper!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Thats for the business to decide, not you or the government.
    I think that when we are discussing legislation that could potentially save peoples lives, small profits should be a secondary issue.

    You seem obsessed with every form of revenue, you need to be more open minded and look deeper into issues.
    I'm not too bothered if a couple of customers stop going to "greasy joes" because they can't smoke at the table. Any losses would probably be made up by increased business from non-smokers who would have previously stayed well away.

    What is important is serious health risks posed by passive smoking.

    Passive smoking:
    How dangerous is passive smoking?
    Second-hand smoke contains all the same carcinogenic and toxic chemicals that the smoker inhales, but at even greater levels. The toxins in second-hand smoke aren't filtered as they are when inhaled directly from the cigarette. Also, because side-stream smoke is formed at lower temperatures, it gives off even larger amounts of some harmful substances. It is estimated that a non-smoker in a smoke-filled room for eight hours will inhale the equivalent amount of carcinogens to smoking 36 cigarettes.

    The immediate negative effects of second-hand smoke may include eye irritation, headache, nasal discomfort and sneezing, cough, sore throat, nausea, dizziness, and increased heart rate and blood pressure.

    Passive smokers are also at increased risk for nearly all the medical conditions associated with smoking. Lung cancer, heart disease, asthma and other respiratory problems, infertility and impotence have been particularly strongly linked to passive smoking.
    Lets not let a couple of £s get in the way of saving lives...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    It is absolutely and clearly something that the market can sort out for itself! I am staggered that a Conservative would think differently.

    Fag gestapo on the public payroll and smokers never allowed to eat out!

    Back off Beekeeper!
    You are staggered? hmm

    You need to leave your stereotypes behind and be more open minded then.
    There is nothing wrong with legislation to control passive smoking in public places, it is a serious health issue.
    :confused:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the leader of the TSR Conservatives.

    *i grins*
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think that when we are discussing legislation that could potentially save peoples lives, small profits should be a secondary issue.

    You seem obsessed with every form of revenue, you need to be more open minded and look deeper into issues.
    I'm not too bothered if a couple of customers stop going to "greasy joes" because they can't smoke at the table. Any losses would probably be made up by increased business from non-smokers who would have previously stayed well away.

    Your missing the point. Its not about money. Its about liberty.


    Cream cakes kill people if ate in excess so should people over a certain weight not be allowed to eat them?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You know...i was in dublin a couple of months ago, and didn't see any bespectacled men with german accents marching around in leather coats with water pistols...maybe they are extra sneaky there? or maybe they have the smokers abducted and ironically burn them with cigarettes? (maybe this is turning to one of ants convo's in the justice forum tho!).
    When you are legislating for health, therefore you are legislating for the people as a body - they keep going on about a minority causing public disturbances, surely this is a minority causing public ills.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Your missing the point. Its not about money. Its about liberty.


    Cream cakes kill people if ate in excess so should people over a certain weight not be allowed to eat them?
    OH FOR F*CKS SAKE NOT THE F*CKING CREAM CAKES AGAIN OBJECTIVISM!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I'm for the ban on smoking in public...

    Thing is with the Conservatives, we lose a hell of a lot of student votes to the Lib Dems, in my school my friends consisted of like 3 conservatives vs 25 lib dems vs 1 labour or something... we need a way to reduce their numbers
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only problem I have with restaurants allowing smoking is the health of people that work there. No one is forcing customers to use the restaurant, so if they don't like smoke they can go somewhere else, but it isn't feasible to expect people to chop and change jobs to avoid having to work somewhere where there is smoke. Unless of course everyone has consented to working in a smoking environment, in which case smoking should be allowed to happen in restaurants that choose to have it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Objectivism - You don't start coughing and have to move or leave the public place when some eats a cream cake near you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    You are staggered? hmm

    You need to leave your stereotypes behind and be more open minded then.
    There is nothing wrong with legislation to control passive smoking in public places, it is a serious health issue.
    :confused:

    Your the one who wants to stifle choice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Your missing the point. Its not about money. Its about liberty.


    Cream cakes kill people if ate in excess so should people over a certain weight not be allowed to eat them?
    People don't end up in hospital from passive cream cake consumption.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Objectivism - You don't start coughing and have to move or leave the public place when some eats a cream cake near you
    You seem incapable of understanding an analogy in its context. The point was about life and its importance, eating cakes, burgers etc reduces life, just like smoking.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    Yeah I'm for the ban on smoking in public...

    Thing is with the Conservatives, we lose a hell of a lot of student votes to the Lib Dems, in my school my friends consisted of like 3 conservatives vs 25 lib dems vs 1 labour or something... we need a way to reduce their numbers
    So maybe we could advertise smoking in a cool and very liberal way and try and even out our numbers by killing them all?
    Or....just make apathy a crime (which is virtually the same as a vote for lib dem!)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You seem incapable of understanding an analogy in its context. The point was about life and its importance, eating cakes, burgers etc reduces life, just like smoking.
    So you're saying it's a matter of choice?

    How about those in the vicinity of a smoker, who don't have that choice?
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

910

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.