Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You've missed the context - smoking should be banned in restaurants because its bad for our lives and health, just like cream cakes are if ate in excess. In that context it makes sense, you choose to put it in a different context.
    Yes, your analogy does work in that case - but we are not discussing the banning of cigarettes, we are discussing that they should not be smoked in restaurants - and under that context you could not be more wrong with this analogy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think you're missing the point with the cream cake issue. A consumer of cream cakes is not harming anyone around them. A smoker is.
    They are certainly harm taxpayers when they have to be treat by the NHS.

    And as for *choosing* to be around that harm, they don't really. If someone happens to be smoking around you, why *should* you move? If they want to put their health at risk, fine, let them. But to put others at risk is another matter entirely. It comes down to the idea of liberty you seem so fond of.
    You choose which restaurant to go to, e.g if it bans smoking or if it does not how good its ventaliation is and how far away the two areas are. No one forces them to go to a restaurant, its a choice.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Did you have take the piss out of someone's spelling mistake recently. Come off it, Mary.

    And leave us alone!
    I see, so youre a smoker?

    Well your approach is a selfish one. I don't see the problem with getting off your arse and having a smoke outside, where you won't increase the risk of all those around you getting lung cancer...

    Sometimes you've got to think about others around you!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    They are certainly harm taxpayers when they have to be treat by the NHS.



    You choose which restaurant to go to, e.g if it bans smoking or if it does not how good its ventaliation is and how far away the two areas are. No one forces them to go to a restaurant, its a choice.
    Smokers harm taxpayers, as well as those surrounding them. Therefore it's a greater level of harm and not comparable.

    Again, the idea of choice. As beekeeper has said, if you're in a restaurant and someone comes in and smokes next to you, why should you move? Similarly, why should your choice of restaurant be limited by such factors? Why all the fuss about smokers' rights? It's an addiction!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think ArthurOliver has shown the typical "when the conversation has got too adult, become a baby....
    Objectivism...we accept your point that both of those effect the NHS costs.etc., so if you carry forward your point, are we under your regime going to have daily prescriptions of the exact amount of food? Otherwise what do you plan?
    Maybe people who were driving their cars too fast when they crashed should be refused treatment aswell? since that is risking their own health - it is a ludicrous suggestion, and completely off topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you sit down in a small restaurant and start eating your meal only to find that a gang arrive and sit opposite you, smoking away, you have not "chosen" to be near that harm.
    You chose to remain there, you chose a 'small restaurant' and you chose a one which allows smoking.

    Non-smokers should be able to choose which restaurant they want to go to,
    without having to worry which one poses the highest risk of lung cancer
    They can, many restaurants don't allow smoking and its them for decide. I agree smoking is bad but you seem to believe that if it is bad in your view the government must intervene.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    How is beekeeper's typo relevant to the discussion, exactly?
    We don't always need to be relevant, but in fact it does add to the impression of unwarranted know-all nannying.

    Incidentally I don't smoke, but I do eat in restaurants and if I decide to take up smoking tomorrow I would have to forego this civilised pleasure presumably if you're made fuhrer overnight.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You chose to remain there, you chose a 'small restaurant' and you chose a one which allows smoking.



    They can, many restaurants don't allow smoking and its them for decide. I agree smoking is bad but you seem to believe that if it is bad in your view the government must intervene.
    But why should someone who chooses sensibly not to partake in a vice be disadvantaged?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    They can, many restaurants don't allow smoking and its them for decide. I agree smoking is bad but you seem to believe that if it is bad in your view the government must intervene.
    I can honestly say I know of NO restaurants in my town that disallow smoking. What am I to do? I'm sure there are thousands more like me.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i think that move voters would sway towards the Conservatives if we took action on something as serious as this.
    This is something that affects almost everybody in society, and with a huge majority of the British public being non-smokers, i imagine people would be generally happy with the legislation.

    The only people who would have a problem would be the smokers who can't be arsed to stand outside with their beloved cigarette.

    It goes without saying thast it would benefit businesses aswell... It would provide the masses of non-smokers with far more choice in where to eat/drink...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    We don't always need to be relevant, but in fact it does add to the impression of unwarranted know-all nannying.

    Incidentally I don't smoke, but I do eat in restaurants and if I decide to take up smoking tomorrow I would have to forego this civilised pleasure presumably if you're made fuhrer overnight.
    It's hardly a civilised pleasure. It's a condoned addiction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You chose to remain there, you chose a 'small restaurant' and you chose a one which allows smoking.
    So - you believe that smokers are some god-like race who should get free reign over our public conveniences? why should the person who ISN'T costing the NHS extra have to move, when the tax gobbling smoker is so wrong in your eyes?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Is there a poll on this in the debate forum?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    Yes, your analogy does work in that case - but we are not discussing the banning of cigarettes, we are discussing that they should not be smoked in restaurants - and under that context you could not be more wrong with this analogy.
    My analogy was made in response to the comment that ' lets not let a couple of £s get in the way of saving lives...', thus it is accpetable. Unfortunately some people lack understadning and jump to conclusions and wrong contexts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You chose to remain there, you chose a 'small restaurant' and you chose a one which allows smoking.



    They can, many restaurants don't allow smoking and its them for decide. I agree smoking is bad but you seem to believe that if it is bad in your view the government must intervene.
    I honestly don't think you understand the gravity of this health risk...

    Objectivism, there is aiming for "small government" and there is aiming for "no government". You really do have to reason at some point, and businesses are not doign enough to control passive smoking. When business fails to cooperate in something that essentialy puts peoples lives at risk, i believe that it is the governments responsibility to intervene.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    I can honestly say I know of NO restaurants in my town that disallow smoking. What am I to do? I'm sure there are thousands more like me.
    I think you should check each restaurant first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    But why should someone who chooses sensibly not to partake in a vice be disadvantaged?

    Do you value liberty?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I think you should check each restaurant first.
    Believe me I spent a good 4 hours walking around one morning trying to find one where there wasn't a layer of suffocating smoke filling the air. The only café I go in you have to sit a good 5ft from the smoking area because it travels over, and then you're practically sitting outside
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    When business fails to cooperate in something that essentialy puts peoples lives at risk, i believe that it is the governments responsibility to intervene.
    Business wouldn't and hasn't failed, the point has been made many times, the market will provide smoking and non-smoking restaurants, and people can choose. No intervention needed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So - you believe that smokers are some god-like race

    never said that.

    who should get free reign over our public conveniences?
    I think its for private businesses to decide, not you or government. Its their business, they earned it, if people arn't happy with it they'll not go and businesses will suffer.


    why should the person who ISN'T costing the NHS extra have to move, when the tax gobbling smoker is so wrong in your eyes?
    Because i value freedom as conservatives should
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,638

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.