Damn anti smoking fanatics! Bars can't serve food and allow smoking? WTF!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
Again... it's your choice to enter that bar. If you don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke in a bar, you don't have to enter. You can vote with your wallet and support bars that don't allow it. Nobody is asking you to give up any rights. But you are.

But this doesn't compute.

Smoking is an active health risk and people have grown complacent with it. There aren't going to be enough people to simply refuse to have a nightlife for years until bars ban smoking people.

You probably know damn well that it's not feasible in situations like this to let the free market ride it out. Bars want more customizers, and as long as the competing bar allows smokers, any bar will keep allowing it. If one bar prevents smoking in it and another bar doesn't, the smokers will leave his business for the other.

The only way to level the playing field is to regulate it. The people have voted on a public health issue, and they've decided they've had enough of it. They're asking the smokers to step outside so they don't pollute everyone else's lungs as well.

No one is baning smoking, they just don't want you to do it in an enclosed public space with other people around. If anything, it's a sensible request that makes sense from a factual point of you (it hurts them) and a sociological one (minority smoking affects a majority of nonsmokers directly).

[Ming]

Originally posted by Asher
The only way to level the playing field is to regulate it. The people have voted on a public health issue, and they've decided they've had enough of it. They're asking the smokers to step outside so they don't pollute everyone else's lungs as well.

Many of the people think gays are a problem... and have voted as such. They've decided they have had enough of it... so you see nothing wrong with that

Another way to regulate it is to establish some smoking bars, and have the majority of them non smoking. That would give people the choice and not take away the rights of people do something legal in a place where the owners allows it.

And when it's cold or raining outside, the "all your asking" line isn't as easy as you make it sound.

[laurentius]

I dont think this non smoking-gay analogy works very well. I mean homosexuals are homosexuals and cant do much about it. Smokers on the other hand can exercise self restraint and not smoke in certain situations. They can even cure themselves from nicotine addiction.

Gays dont have that option. Besides gay rights are protected by the constitution(maybe even in some states of the US) where smokers are not recognised as any kind of minority. Because frankly you cant establish minorities based on their habits alone.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Well, we can just as easily argue that if health risk A is eliminated, we should continue with eliminating risk B, and C and so on. This process will inevitably mean more and more government interference and regulation, until before we know it, there are more restrictions then in the USSR.

Ban teh evil computer games and fizzy drinks! ???

First they came for the smokers, but I did not complain ...

I am against actions which harm others by your choice.
I am not against actions which harm yourself by your choice.

See the difference?

[Mrs. Tuberski]

ok last i checked bars that allow smoking allow smoking tose that dont, dont!! if you say and you have said there are more nonsmokers then smokers then why are u claiming business is bad ofr the bars that dont allow it?? I guess it cause alot of folks that want a night life either dont care if smoke is in the bar or can tolerate it for a night they chose to attend said bar. What i have been saying is that if smoking isnt allowed in said bar i wont light up its not hard to understand, ill go outside and if a non smoker goes out then i dont want to hear them nitiching bout my smoke, heres a newsflash, i walked away from them for a reason

[Ming]

If he wants to say "the public has spoken" and "that's the way it is"... then he really doesn't have the right to complain when some people want to limit his rights by passing silly votes like gays can't be legally married. If he want's to claim the "moral right" of the majority, then he has to be willing to accept it in all things, and not just the things he wants to go along with

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Aeson


I am against actions which harm others by your choice.
I am not against actions which harm yourself by your choice.

See the difference?

You choose or choose not to enter the place of business.

See the difference?

[laurentius]

yeah ok, so you are just pointing out inconsistancies in his arguments.

I understand.

The interesting question is when and how did inconsistency became less desirable than blind consistency. Is life really simple enough for that?

[notyoueither]

It's annoying when a social crusader ignores his or her own situation and argues that others should be restricted while they cry freedom.

[laurentius]

Social crusader?

[notyoueither]

... and when it comes to governing our societies, since when is anything but consistency acceptable?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by laurentius
Social crusader?

Temperance League, anti-smoking zealot... what's the difference?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by laurentius
yeah ok, so you are just pointing out inconsistancies in his arguments.

I understand.

The interesting question is when and how did inconsistency became less desirable than blind consistency. Is life really simple enough for that?

this is one of my arguements. being completey consistent and absolute lends to absurd applications or ridiculous hypocrisy.


and ming one of my arguements is the idealism you have about property rights give way to the practicality and desires of the majority. and it isnt always right. but we look at this case by case, issue by issue.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by notyoueither
... and when it comes to governing our societies, since when is anything but consistency acceptable?

when consitency actually harms more people than it helps.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by notyoueither
... and when it comes to governing our societies, since when is anything but consistency acceptable?

Since the 1945-onwards?