Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by technik)
    you were doing so very well until the last part of your last sentence.

    oh dear.
    What do you mean? Are you saying there are exceptions to this? You know of smokers who've died of tobacco-related illnesses, without being addicted to smoking first? Please share this info with us!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    Vienna, where is the state "maintaining" control over private property? Even a smoking ban is only exerting control of the actions of individuals on private property.
    The state is interfering into the management of private property. The most fundamental part of that is precisely its control over what individuals can or cannot do on private property.

    The laws which forbid murder exert control over private property insofar as it remains illegal to murder someone on private property. I doubt anyone would have it any other way.
    Just as the state constricts the actions of the individual to prevent harm from others with GBH and murder laws applicable on private property, I believe it should do the same with regards to smoking.
    Yet, GBH and murder are universal criminal offences. The state outlaws physical violence as one individual may encroach on the rights of another, without the latter having any choice in the matter. This is not the case for smoking which is why the state currently permits its activity in the home, on private property where one individual clearly has a choice not to inhale the smoke of another.

    I don't see it as a liberty issue particularly - more as a matter of public health. It is not only non-smokers who suffer because of second-hand smoke. A collection of smokers in a pub are in effect constantly smoking, even if some of them only smoke ten a day.
    Im ignoring all arguments regarding health issues. I know about them, it makes no difference to my own.

    If we do cast it as a question of individual liberty however, I still believe a liberal will fall in in defence of a smoking ban. You make the argument that the individual has the choice to go to the place where someone is smoking or not, which is all very well, but is this liberty or is this the constriction of liberty by the actions of another individual? There is, admittedly, no clear answer - the liberty argument here is too complex to be the root cause of an individual's commitment or opposition to a smoking ban.
    How is it complicated? There is no constriction of liberty. The right to choose, the right to self-determination remain for the smoker and non-smoker alike. What you mean to say is that the non-smoker does not wish to go into a smoking bar and thus the free market caters poorly for their choices. That is not a restriction of individual liberties.

    I think the fact that we have to make the choice between going to a place and being harmed by the actions of others and not going to that place shows that our liberty is already constricted. The option of going to the place, where we may have friends or be meeting associates, without suffering the effects of smoking there is unavailable.
    Are my individual liberties being constricted if one barman decides not to sell a certain alcoholic beverage that I am partial to? Should the state interfere on my behalf into that private business so that I can consume that beverage in an establishment of my choice?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)


    Im ignoring all arguments regarding health issues. I know about them, it makes no difference to my own.
    The banning of smoking in public places is solely because of health issues. If you ignore that you have no basis for argument! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The banning of smoking in public places is solely because of health issues. If you ignore that you have no basis for argument! :rolleyes:
    If you read what I wrote: "Im ignoring all arguments regarding health issues. I know about them, it makes no difference to my own"

    I recognise why people want to ban smoking on the grounds of health, but in despite of those health issues, I am against a total smoking ban because I believe it interferes unnecessarily into the private choice of individuals and the freedom of the market.

    Do you not acknowledge said basis? And will you address the arguments I have made?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    If you read what I wrote: "Im ignoring all arguments regarding health issues. I know about them, it makes no difference to my own"

    I recognise why people want to ban smoking on the grounds of health, but in despite of those health issues, I am against a total smoking ban because I believe it interferes unnecessarily into the private choice of individuals and the freedom of the market.

    Do you not acknowledge said basis? And will you address the arguments I have made?
    How can I acknowledge a basis for your argument when it is not the basis on which the smoking ban is going to be implemented! :confused:

    There are no arguments to address because the reasons you cite are not even being considered as meritous of discussion as far as the legislation is concerned.

    I would suggest that if you wish to have a campaign on those issues you raised, you take it up with the Dept. of Health as we are unable and unwilling to progress your opinions as you don't live here!

    And anyway, the overwhelming majority of opinion in this country is for the total ban on smoking in public places. You might consider the restrictions on smoking to be tantamount to communism and tyranny - I cannot agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)

    And anyway, the overwhelming majority of opinion in this country is for the total ban on smoking in public places.
    Yeah, right. Why don't you hold a vote on it then?
    Offline

    0
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I am against a total smoking ban because I believe it interferes unnecessarily into the private choice of individuals and the freedom of the market.
    Of course it does, but the anti-smoking nazi's will never admit it.
    There are some on-going court cases here in the States, Mike Ditka, former Chicago Bears football player who owns a restaurant in Chicago is in court trying to make his restaurant a "SMOKING RESTAURANT". Since smoking is legal, and if this case got the the supreme court, I believe he'd win.

    I can understand a ban on smoking in public buildings, but not a sweeping ban for private business owners.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    How can I acknowledge a basis for your argument when it is not the basis on which the smoking ban is going to be implemented! :confused:
    If it was the same basis I wouldnt be against a total smoking ban would I.

    There are no arguments to address because the reasons you cite are not even being considered as meritous of discussion as far as the legislation is concerned.
    I dont understand what you are trying to say here, other than YOU are unable to address my arguments because they arent valuable because they arent in favour of a total smoking ban

    I would suggest that if you wish to have a campaign on those issues you raised, you take it up with the Dept. of Health as we are unable and unwilling to progress your opinions as you don't live here!
    So I cannot take part in a discussion here because I dont live in the UK and if I did, any arguments opposing your own should be taken to the Department of Health because you dont want them on the thread?

    You might consider the restrictions on smoking to be tantamount to communism and tyranny - I cannot agree.
    Yet you never tell us why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    And anyway, the overwhelming majority of opinion in this country is for the total ban on smoking in public places.
    And yet you are for a total ban on smoking in private.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    And yet you are for a total ban on smoking in private.
    I am for a total ban in all places where the public gather - put whatever spin you wish on that, but do not make me responsible for your spin!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Douglas)
    Of course it does, but the anti-smoking nazi's will never admit it.
    For heaven's sake - get together with Vienna and decide whether we are nazis' or communists - we can't be both surely! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I am for a total ban in all places where the public gather
    Thats not always public property, so your poll can hardly represent support for your opinion. Unless of course 'public' refers to the population?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    For heaven's sake - get together with Vienna and decide whether we are nazis' or communists - we can't be both surely! :rolleyes:
    I dont think I ever said those who opposed smoking in public were communists. In the face of your persistant refusal to answer, acknowledge, address opposing arguments or question I suggested that if we followed your particular train of logic, you should also support a principle tenet of Communist thought. If you dont wish to take part in a debate, youre free to not contribute, but I think its disappointing to spend the majority of your posts on misrepresenting, smearing and spinning everyone elses as part of a personal attack.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I dont think I ever said those who opposed smoking in public were communists. In the face of your persistant refusal to answer, acknowledge, address opposing arguments or question I suggested that if we followed your particular train of logic, you should also support a principle tenet of Communist thought. If you dont wish to take part in a debate, youre free to not contribute, but I think its disappointing to spend the majority of your posts on misrepresenting, smearing and spinning everyone elses as part of a personal attack.
    Get back into bed and trying get out of the other side. Your posts defy all logic and it's a shame that you smear people by suggesting they are communists because they don't fall in with your views on what constitutes tyranny and then put spin on that smearing to abrogate your responsibility for it.

    My part in this debate stops at defending smoking in public, which is harmful to the health of all. You wish to ignore that part, because you know it is indefensible and thus divert the crux of the matter to something that is of secondary consideration and therefore far less important.

    What point is there is continuing to make posts that say nothing new? I know you always want to have the last word - so take it. It gives you no victory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Get back into bed and trying get out of the other side. Your posts defy all logic and it's a shame that you smear people by suggesting they are communists because they don't fall in with your views on what constitutes tyranny and then put spin on that smearing to abrogate your responsibility for it.
    I equated your perceived logic with a principle of communist thought. I gave you plenty of room to elaborate on your views, to answer the questions I posed, and scope in which to defend their context. No opportunity has been taken to develop your arguments alongside those which others have raised.

    My part in this debate stops at defending smoking in public, which is harmful to the health of all. You wish to ignore that part, because you know it is indefensible and thus divert the crux of the matter to something that is of secondary consideration and therefore far less important.
    I dont ignore the health issues because I dont believe they exist, I dont believe health issues effect my particular argument which Ive made abundantly clear. If we go back and look at your posts you spend more time smearing others, making personal remarks, discarding the opinions of others than you do actually addressing their arguments or disagreements. This post again is another in a long line of 'contributions' echoing your 'I am right, you are wrong' sentiment. And no, thats not a quote.

    What point is there is continuing to make posts that say nothing new?
    If you addressed the arguments, instead of avoiding them, there wouldnt be the need for me to reassert my basic premise against a ban that appears to be rather unclear. Did you actually want a debate on this subject?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I equated your perceived logic with a principle of communist thought. I gave you plenty of room to elaborate on your views, to answer the questions I posed, and scope in which to defend their context. No opportunity has been taken to develop your arguments alongside those which others have raised.


    I dont ignore the health issues because I dont believe they exist, I dont believe health issues effect my particular argument which Ive made abundantly clear. If we go back and look at your posts you spend more time smearing others, making personal remarks, discarding the opinions of others than you do actually addressing their arguments or disagreements. This post again is another in a long line of 'contributions' echoing your 'I am right, you are wrong' sentiment. And no, thats not a quote.



    If you addressed the arguments, instead of avoiding them, there wouldnt be the need for me to reassert my basic premise against a ban that appears to be rather unclear. Did you actually want a debate on this subject?
    Your comparison with having a total ban on smoking in public places with communism is a non-starter - not only is it outrageous, but also deserves no response which would give it credence. I have said this more than once on this thread before in response to your question "are you a communist". I do not need plenty of room from you to elaborate - because of what I have said above. Have a look again at the remarks of posters. Your viewpoint is very much in a miniscule minority and no other poster has given your viewpoint credence either.

    The debate is about a total ban on smoking in public places because of the health risks to all. You have failed to address the debate on the terms in which it was raised. You have avoided addressing the argument. You instead ask inflammatory questions, making them personal and attemption to smear the person concerned. Oh - you are doing just what you accuse me of! Have a look in the mirror Vienna.

    Do you want to debate the question which is whether a total ban on smoking in public places is a good thing because of the evidence which shows it poses a health risk to all? Or do you want to divert the debate onto something which is not appropriate to the thread?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Your comparison with having a total ban on smoking in public places with communism is a non-starter - not only is it outrageous, but also deserves no response which would give it credence. I have said this more than once on this thread before in response to your question "are you a communist". I do not need plenty of room from you to elaborate - because of what I have said above.
    I didnt equate the ban with communism. I took your logic and drew some comparisons to put such convictions in perspective. You advocate state interference into private property, it is thus logical to ask at one point you believe the state should not interfere into private property.

    Have a look again at the remarks of posters. Your viewpoint is very much in a miniscule minority and no other poster has given your viewpoint credence either.
    I think you'll find that im not the only one to be concerned by the issue of liberties that a ban raises. In any case, the suggestion that I cannot contribute and my contributions are not valid because they are not widely supported is further proof that you couldnt care less about debate but only, in the first instance, a dogmatic appraisal of this legislation, and in the second instance, the opportunity to attack anyone that disagrees with you through smear.

    The debate is about a total ban on smoking in public places because of the health risks to all. You have failed to address the debate on the terms in which it was raised. You have avoided addressing the argument. You instead ask inflammatory questions, making them personal and attemption to smear the person concerned.
    On what terms was the argument raised? Another pathetic attempt to end debate by restricting its scope to one single issue, something that has rightly never been explicitly declared by anyone but you.

    Do you want to debate the question which is whether a total ban on smoking in public places is a good thing because of the evidence which shows it poses a health risk to all? Or do you want to divert the debate onto something which is not appropriate to the thread?
    The consequences of legislation are inappropriate in a discussion on the effectiveness of the same proposed legislation? What kind of debate are you expecting to contribute to? What gives you the right to determine what can or cannot be discussed?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I didnt equate the ban with communism. I took your logic and drew some comparisons to put such convictions in perspective. You advocate state interference into private property, it is thus logical to ask at one point you believe the state should not interfere into private property.


    I think you'll find that im not the only one to be concerned by the issue of liberties that a ban raises. In any case, the suggestion that I cannot contribute and my contributions are not valid because they are not widely supported is further proof that you couldnt care less about debate but only, in the first instance, a dogmatic appraisal of this legislation, and in the second instance, the opportunity to attack anyone that disagrees with you through smear.


    On what terms was the argument raised? Another pathetic attempt to end debate by restricting its scope to one single issue, something that has rightly never been explicitly declared by anyone but you.



    The consequences of legislation are inappropriate in a discussion on the effectiveness of the same proposed legislation? What kind of debate are you expecting to contribute to? What gives you the right to determine what can or cannot be discussed?
    So now my posts are pathetic? How's that for a personal attack and attempt at smearing the valid opinions of a fellow forum member?

    Go and try to 'wind up' someone else because it ain't working on me!
 
 
 

2,615

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

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.