Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So would you prefer it if there were more non-smoking bars?
    Yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Yes.
    So you would prefer it if more bar managers decided to make their bars non-smoking?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So you would prefer it if more bar managers decided to make their bars non-smoking?
    Yup. Although I'd favour a situation where smokers are allowed to smoke in certain places in the bar - a balcony, for example.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Who is forcing you to spend time next to smokers?
    Society, due to the acceptance of smoking. You complain about rights and freedoms and democracy but the fact of the matter is that the majority of people in this country are in favour of a public smoking ban. Just look at the poll.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Yup. Although I'd favour a situation where smokers are allowed to smoke in certain places in the bar - a balcony, for example.
    So you would be happy if we had smoking and non-smoking bars so smokers and non-smokers could choose?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AMM)
    Society, due to the acceptance of smoking.
    Society is forcing you to walk into that smoking bar? Society stops you walking into a non-smoking bar?

    You complain about rights and freedoms and democracy.
    You mention those three words with such little distinction that I dont truly believe you understand their meaning.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So you would be happy if we had smoking and non-smoking bars so smokers and non-smokers could choose?
    That sounds like the most desirable situation, yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    That sounds like the most desirable situation, yes.
    So you wouldnt go into a smoking bar if you had a choice?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    So you wouldnt go into a smoking bar if you had a choice?
    If I had the choice (which I'm sure you're going to point out that I actually do - but it's a choice that would result in me becoming a bit of a hermit), I would prefer to go into non-smoking bars, yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    If I had the choice (which I'm sure you're going to point out that I actually do - but it's a choice that would result in me becoming a bit of a hermit), I would prefer to go into non-smoking bars, yes.
    And one last question, say you were a hermit, and you invited some friends around, do you think you should be the one to decide what is allowed in your house(whether they smoke or not etc)?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    You mention those three words with such little distinction that I dont truly believe you understand their meaning.
    Put it this way, I believe that my right to not die of smoking related diseases far outweighs the right of a bunch of tobacco junkies to get high in public.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AMM)
    Put it this way, I believe that my right to not die of smoking related diseases far outweighs the right of a bunch of tobacco junkies to get high in public.
    I dont disagree, which is why I agree with a smoking ban in public buildings and on public services.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    And one last question, say you were a hermit, and you invited some friends around, do you think you should be the one to decide what is allowed in your house(whether they smoke or not etc)?
    Yup. However, if you're about to try and say "so why shouldn't pub owners be allowed to decide for themselves?", there's a difference between pubs etc and actual homes, in my view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Yup. However, if you're about to try and say "so why shouldn't pub owners be allowed to decide for themselves?", there's a difference between pubs etc and actual homes, in my view.
    Yes, pub owners invite you in and you choose to take them up on their offer.

    To sum up, you believe in choice for smokers, you believe a private owner has a right to decide what happens on his property and you would choose not to go into a smoking bar, yet mysteriously the state should deny a private owner that right, deny the choice for smokers because you cant be bothered to choose. Thats a denial of individual freedom and an advocation of state control of private property, because you personally havent the got the discipline to make a choice that matches your convictions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I dont disagree, which is why I agree with a smoking ban in public buildings and on public services.
    What about licensed premises, i.e. public houses?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Yes, pub owners invite you in and you choose to take them up on their offer.

    To sum up, you believe in choice for smokers, you believe a private owner has a right to decide what happens on his property and you would choose not to go into a smoking bar, yet mysteriously the state should deny a private owner that right, deny the choice for smokers because you cant be bothered to choose. Thats a denial of individual freedom and an advocation of state control of private property, because you personally havent the got the discipline to make a choice that matches your convictions.
    Very good - nice ego massaging there. However your argument clearly exemplifies the point: the behaviour of a minority is selfish in the respect that it forces a majority into a position where they either have to seriously put themselves out (in my case, have very little social life) in order to 'follow convictions'. You are arguing the point in a total vacuum if you refuse to acknowledge the difference between pubs and a person's actual home, but that's your prerogative.

    Luckily for me, the chain of pubs that I normally frequent have chosen to ban smoking in their establishments in any case, although I don't think this is happening for a while yet.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Well it's their selfishness that's forcing me (and others) to even have to make this acceptance in the first place.

    Having said that though, I only have a problem with it when it gets to the point where smoke is literally going in my eyes, in a way that the smoker could easily prevent, by moving their hand slightly.
    (Original post by Sophie)
    I agree,lol. Well said.

    We're not putting our own liberty above others, smokers are abusing their liberty, by selfishly inflicting their exhaled smoke on people who have chosen not to smoke, and therefore shouldn't have to be subjected to it.
    That is reprehensible, very rude behavior, & as a smoker I certainly don't do that. Blowing smoke in people's faces or lighting up next to a group of non-smokers is just boorish. (The only thing I object to here is saying that "smokers" do this, rather than something like "rude individuals who smoke." Because I don't think it's true of smokers as a rule.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iz the Wiz)
    That is reprehensible, very rude behavior, & as a smoker I certainly don't do that. Blowing smoke in people's faces or lighting up next to a group of non-smokers is just boorish. (The only thing I object to here is saying that "smokers" do this, rather than something like "rude individuals who smoke." Because I don't think it's true of smokers as a rule.)
    Unfortunately, your average 18 - 24 year old chav Brit isn't quite so considerate. If they weren't the way they were, I can't really imagine me caring about smoking in pubs either way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Very good - nice ego massaging there. However your argument clearly exemplifies the point: the behaviour of a minority is selfish in the respect that it forces a majority into a position where they either have to seriously put themselves out (in my case, have very little social life) in order to 'follow convictions'.
    Thats not the point whatsoever, they have been allowed to smoke on someone elses property. You are happy to dictate what you do in your home, but the state overrules what others do on their property when its convenient for you. Thats tyranny of the majority, not advocation of individual freedom.

    You are arguing the point in a total vacuum if you refuse to acknowledge the difference between pubs and a person's actual home, but that's your prerogative.
    Is a restaurant or pub not under private management? Has Britain turned communist in the years Ive been away?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AMM)
    What about licensed premises, i.e. public houses?
    They are privately owned, privately managed.
 
 
 

1,747

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.