Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Do you value liberty?
    This is not about liberty.

    We are not stopping people from smoking, but simply want to ensure that it is not a regular practice inside buildings where non-smokers are subject to increased risk of various diseases and can not always "choose" to leave as soon as a smoker arrives.

    Why should non-smokers be the secondary citizen here?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Because i value freedom as conservatives should
    The freedom to put other peoples health and lives at risk?

    I don't think this is the kind of freedom the Conservatives encourage!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I honestly don't think you understand the gravity of this health risk...

    I honestly don't think you value liberty.
    Objectivism, there is aiming for "small government" and there is aiming for "no government".
    People have been allowe to smoke in restaurants in the past, are you saying we had no government than?

    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.
    Why can't you let people decide. Its their lives and their businesses.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Do you value liberty?
    Yes, I value liberty. I think therefore that if a person wishes to exercise their *liberty* and smoke, then they should do it outside, as it is easier for them to take their fag outside than for someone to take their dinnier outside... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Why can't you let people decide. Its their lives and their businesses.
    We are the people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The freedom to put other peoples health and lives at risk?

    You make it sound as if none-smokers are chained to restaurants that they did not choos to go to.

    I don't think this is the kind of freedom the Conservatives encourage!
    The tory MPs who are proposing a bill to stop the governments attack on freedom disagree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HearTheThunder)
    We are the people.
    You are part of the people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    I honestly don't think you value liberty.


    People have been allowe to smoke in restaurants in the past, are you saying we had no government than?



    Why can't you let people decide. Its their lives and their businesses.
    Can you please try and relate your comments to the issues surrounding passive smoking.

    You are constantly dragging out "liberty".
    I value liberty, and i don't want my freedom to be interfered with by people who feel that they can smoke anywhere they like.

    You are desperately trying to make this look like Conservative policy, and you are failing miserably.
    Do you understand the health risks that are associated with passive smoking? Do you honestly think that even though we now understand these risks, we should do nothing about it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You are part of the people.
    And so are you. So what.. referendum?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You are part of the people.
    Part of the people, as are smokers. Why are the *rights* of smokers (and as far as I'm concerned, smoking is not a right) more important than the rights of non-smokers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is not about liberty.
    Of course it is. The freedo for a business to run as it wishes.

    We are not stopping people from smoking, but simply want to ensure that it is not a regular practice inside buildings where non-smokers are subject to increased risk of various diseases and can not always "choose" to leave as soon as a smoker arrives.

    Why should non-smokers be the secondary citizen here?
    Everyone becomes a seoncdary citizen when freedom is taken away. If they can do it to one group, they can do it to another.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    Part of the people, as are smokers. Why are the *rights* of smokers (and as far as I'm concerned, smoking is not a right) more important than the rights of non-smokers?
    This is something that particularly concerns me here. Objectivism is effectively treating non-smokers as the second class citizen...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    *is mildly amused*

    perhaps the fact that such tory MPs are backing supposed "liberty" is out of political self interest, that is, rather than re-organising the party which is what it needs, they're trying to appeal to the stereotype of the working class layabout smoking down the pub. how bizarre.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    This is something that particularly concerns me here. Objectivism is effectively treating non-smokers as the second class citizen...
    Exactly. Which is odd, considering the non-smoker has the good sense not to put their own health and the health of others at risk through this particular activity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    Part of the people, as are smokers. Why are the *rights* of smokers (and as far as I'm concerned, smoking is not a right) more important than the rights of non-smokers?
    No its not about their rights its about all our right to negative freedom. I would not support say a referundum as majority does eqaul right. If that was the case some very awful things would have been right. I support democracy but a liberal form i.e all have freedoms which no one may take away, inclduing the majorty which can all too quickly turn into the tyranny of the majorty.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    No its not about their rights its about all our right to negative freedom. I would not support say a referundum as majority does eqaul right. If that was the case some very awful things would have been right. I support democracy but a liberal form i.e all have freedoms which no one may take away, inclduing the majorty which can all too quickly turn into the tyranny of the majorty.
    It comes down to the principle of the health risk posed, though, not the principle of some warped liberty.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Okay, well personally i would fully support a ban in all restaurants of smoking.

    Call it "freedom" if you like, but we need to draw the line somewhere, and smoking poses a serious threat not only to the person who chooses to smoke, but all of those around them.

    Slowly phasing out the practice of smoking will do everyone good...
    id ban it totally in public.

    and if you have kids, i'd get the state involved. smoking in your home should not be seen as a right especially when there are kids. thats often overlooked or forgotten, possibly for convenience too i might add.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    No its not about their rights its about all our right to negative freedom. I would not support say a referundum as majority does eqaul right. If that was the case some very awful things would have been right. I support democracy but a liberal form i.e all have freedoms which no one may take away, inclduing the majorty which can all too quickly turn into the tyranny of the majorty.
    Do you seriously consider smoking in a restaurant a fundamental liberty?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/t86689.html

    So - referendums are fine, unless your self interets dont match the majority, in which case they may mutate into a tyranny. Therefore if most people in the UK want to ban smoking in public, we shouldn't have a referendum because it doesn't reflect your interests and is against 'liberty'. Surely part of our liberty is the right to a full democracy, if the people want it, the people should get it, not the minority who are the ones taking up the most tax money and endangering the rest of us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xx_ambellina_xx)
    Exactly. Which is odd, considering the non-smoker has the good sense not to put their own health and the health of others at risk through this particular activity.
    It appears i value liberty more than others. I think freedom is more important than smoking. Freedom not just for smokers but for businesses and of ALL of us. This legisaltion is just a further step of government interferance.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,737

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.