Printable View
I disagree: where smoking is banned, it is banned for everyone. (If it's not, that is discrimination). Yes, it it affects people differently. What rule in modern society is perfectly equal? Thus, I argue that it is a common rule, not discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
If the pub would not serve you delicious, delicious ale because you were either smoker or non-smoker, or based on your cultural heritage, that would be discrimination.
If smoking is such a bad thing, I question why governments just don't outlaw the manufacture and sale of tobacco and tobacco products, instead of banning their use in certain places, and don't give me that crap about "It would be too hard" If smoking is in fact killing people in the numbers portrayed by ban advocats it should be illegal, simple as that. Now I believe I will have a smoke.
Because prohibition doesn't work nearly as effectively as making something socially unacceptable and the people effectively implimenting their own ban.
When I was a kid it was socially acceptable to put a cigarette in your mouth. Now it seems that what is socially acceptable to put in your mouth has radically changed. I hope to see a smoker's rights movement begin. If we aren't being discriminated against who is ?Quote:
Originally Posted by gregs656
I'd LOVE if Penn State actually enforced the state's smoking ban. UP sidewalks are literally shoulder to shoulder walking between classes. And when some douchebag in front of you is puffing away, it makes your life a lot less pleasant for that ten minute walk.
Seriously, smokers rights? You can't drink on the street and drinking doesn't directly involve the people around you (until you start stumbling into them). It's a recreational activity that you are only allowed to do as a responsible consenting adult. Imagine you have to get drug tested for your job tomorrow and I'm walking in front of you puffing away at a joint. The nature of smoking involves anyone within a certain radius of you. And they have the right to not be involved in that activity. Since you've elected to do an activity that infringes on THEIR rights, it's your responsibility to take it somewhere their rights aren't at risk. Such as your home or a bar or a restaurant smoking section. Now the removal of smoking from these places is retarded, but I DO see the logic in banning smoking in rented homes/apartments. You don't own the place, and the owner doesn't want HIS property smelling like smoke. You can't set up a compost pile or outhouse on your balcony for the same reason. You're damaging property that you don't own and which in fact you have signed an agreement to not damage.
Does not the gov. allowing tobacco sales, insinuate to some that it is not a harmful product, the gov. is quick to ban many harmful products i.e lead paint, DDT and even certain types knives because they might cause harm, so why not tobacco? If it in fact causes death or even the shortening of ones life, than it should be outlawed, or am I missing something?
They can't outlaw it. they would lose too much revenue.Quote:
Originally Posted by livingontheedge
Same with alcohol. Don't get me wrong, I'm as fond of a drop as the next guy but the abuse of the stuff has caused more misery, death and disease than use of tobacco ever did. Speaking from personal observation and first hand experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
So governments choose revenue over lives. Than why have healthcare? Kind of a double standard if you ask me.Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
When the government does it it is usually about money and power and nothing more.Quote:
Originally Posted by livingontheedge