Scotland's Smoking Ban

[Jin]

Originally Posted by eggman furface

This is why designated smoking areas would be a good idea; those who are irritated by second hand smoke wouldn't be forced to endure anything. Instead, people have to stand outside to smoke, in Scotland, where the weather is even more annoying than second-****ing-hand smoke.

Right, because moving someone slightly farther away really works well to stop smoke from moving to the non-smoking area in an enclosed room. Not to mention the waiters/waitresses that have to serve these people. That was sarcasm btw.

I don't think you quite understand the concept. Second hand smoke does not simply annoy people. Second hand smoke causes various health problems in the human body. With that in mind, I don't think that it's unfair to tell someone to go outside to smoke, cold weather or not.

Originally Posted by Shiva

I feel I should say here that people got lung cancer before tobacco was ever smoked at all...there is still no concrete evidence that passive smoking kills, though I won't deny that it is annoying and probably harmful, in some way.

Then how about you inhale second hand smoke for a a few months strait and be our test subject so that waitresses don't have to be.

[Grizzly]

I feel I should say here that people got lung cancer before tobacco was ever smoked at all...there is still no concrete evidence that passive smoking kills, though I won't deny that it is annoying and probably harmful, in some way.

Lmao! You do know smoking has been around for hundreds of years, right? Course there was people who got lung cancer, but they never knew it. Smoking harms and kills in all ways possible. In fact here's something for ya...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lung_cancer#Epidemiology

Now below it says...

Originally Posted by Article

The British Doctors Study, published in the 1950s, first offered solid evidence on the link between lung cancer and smoking.

Uh oh! Proof! The smoking companies aren't gonna like that! Banning smoking is a good idea. As for alcohol, oh yeah it claims a lot more lives, but to take away a "pleasure of life" from people will piss them off as well, a lot. Personally, I think they should put up policy of how many drinks you can have. Most of the time it's dumbasses going overboard cause they wanna have fun, few hours later they hit a car with a family inside. There should be a way to get rid of alcohol abuse.

Anyway, it's not policing, but rather like a worried mother. I wish the US would do the same thing, I think people can afford to go crazy than dead.

[Chez Daja]

Admittedly, I would prefer for alcohol abuse to be minimized rather then smoking cigarettes. As a young child, I was submitted to abuse from an alcoholic family member, whom had many times used many types of abuse both verbal and physically against myself and other members of my family.

That family member also smoked as well. Hooboy... Smoking may kill, but so does alcohol, and it also can have a much worse effect on the people around the drinker, should they be the aggressive type.

This thread is about the banning of smoking though. Yeah, go ahead and ban it. But I would much prefer love to reduce alcoholism.

I do hate smokers who are so inconsiderate that they go ahead and breathe your way, though. Knowing it's harmful, heh, what assholes...

[Govinda]

Gladly, Jintatsu.

I'm not saying that second hand smoke isn't harmful. I'm just saying that sometimes people make it out to be a lot worse than it is. I hate it when people who get lung cancer blame it on passive smoking, without evidence. Neither am I saying that smoking does not cause many kinds of cancer; I know that it most definetly does. I just think that people worry about passive smoking more than they should.

More like a worried mother than policing...what if they banned alcohol? Would that be a worried mother? A lot of people enjoy smoking, they find it relaxing. They don't just do it for the sake of it. it is one of the 'pleasures of life' for some people. Drinking is just as much a right as smoking, and alcholic violence and driving claim many more innocent lives than passive smoking.

[Jin]

Originally Posted by Shiva

I'm not saying that second hand smoke isn't harmful. I'm just saying that sometimes people make it out to be a lot worse than it is. I hate it when people who get lung cancer blame it on passive smoking, without evidence. Neither am I saying that smoking does not cause many kinds of cancer; I know that it most definetly does. I just think that people worry about passive smoking more than they should.

It doesn't matter how harmful it is. You're still harming people regardless. The fact that some people eggadurate changes nothing. Banning it in public places is a very sensible thing to do.

Banning it altogether? Now that's just stupid. If people want to kill themselves and smell terrible, then by all means, let them. That's no different than telling people they can't eat any foods with transfats in them. As long as they're only hurting themselves, then it's no one's buisness.

[Grizzly]

Uh yeah, that's what I was saying, but even if smoking doesn't claim as many lives as alcohol, it still kills. It's like saying that just because this man killed my brother gives me the right to kill him. You can't justify smoking even if it is one of those pleasures of life. People should be able to be pleasured without hurting themselves or anyone around them.

But anyway, we're not talking about alcohol here, I brought that up as an analogy because of it's similarities. HOWEVER, you did say they were mainly banning smoking within public areas, right? That means I'm sure people will have private places where you can smoke, or even your own home. So they aren't entirely getting rid of it. So really what are they whining about? Getting rid of one problem publicly is much safer for the children as well and other various people. People have the right to smoke, but not to bring pain upon others.

[Govinda]

If you read back, you'll find that I earlier stated that the Scottish people as a whole have taken to the ban very well. Nobody is whining.

I accept your points on passive smoking. But did they have the right to prevent people from exercising a right, as a government?

[Hildegarde]

Well, this isn't so much about the smoking, but about civil liberties as someone else put it.
When the (any) goverment starts deciding for you what it is good or not for you, it's the beginning a slippery slope trip downhill.
Of course, there are rules and rules, no one argues that killing is wrong and that the goverment decides that for you, per se, but, when it comes to personal health... hmm.

Although I live in the US, I come from Argentina, the other days, one of my best friends from over there, excitedly told me on the phone that a smoking ban was to be enforced in Argentina (good luck with THAT, everybody smokes, over there).
She saw it as a sign of progress, me, I've been living in California for too long to see it that way.
Here, we are long past the initial smoke ban and, it shows, a couple of months ago, the first smoke free town was inaugurated, you can't smoke anywhere there, anywhere, that includes your back yard, or your balcony, you CAN smoke hidden in your bathroom, if you prefer, however, there were people complaining about the fact that a smidge of smoke might seep outside through closed windows (because you can't smoke in your house with open windows, oh, no), and then what?.
But, the officials of this particular place (don't remember the name, it's a beach community) said that a ban in private homes can't be enforced, therefore there couldn't be a ban there.
And this isn't a newly developed place, there is people there that has lived all their lives there, if they smoke?, either they quit or they move out.
See how far this is getting?.
A couple of years, two kids were taken away from their mother (and she got a sentence with parole) for neglecting her children, what did she do?, she forgot to put sunblock and her kids got a sunburn.
I personally don't appreciate living in a place in wich I can get a fine or worse for doing something that only concerns me in the privacy of my home.
What's next?, 1984 style cameras, so we can see who's smoking too close to the windows?.
A ban on anyone that doesn't meet certain weight-height ratio, because obesity is bad for you, and your goverment knows better?.
How about jailing a parent that gives chocolate to their kids, because that is bad for them, you know?.

No, you should be able to discern what's good for you, without having the goverment "aiding you" in your personal decisions, at least, as I said, when it comes to health matters.
Not to mention that ugly things happen to people that suddenly see that they have a power (of any kind) over their peers, it is already ugly here, because, hey!, now we have a new group that we can discriminate and it is politically correct to do so and it makes you look good!.

It makes me think of the social consequences of religious bans, political bans, heck, drinking bans.
No, bans are never good.

[Grizzly]

Originally Posted by Shiva

If you read back, you'll find that I earlier stated that the Scottish people as a whole have taken to the ban very well. Nobody is whining.

I accept your points on passive smoking. But did they have the right to prevent people from exercising a right, as a government?

So what are you barking about? If the Scottish people have taken to this ban then I see no problem. Course I understand you are talking about our rights, but I think there is a thing such as TOO much freedom. I'm sure the government thought of this action as best for the entire nation. They know it won't stop people from smoking, so they simplified it by cleaning up area's where smoking can cause harm to non-smokers. It's technically a win win situation for both sides. People get to actually breathe CLEAN air while smokers can go somewhere else privately and smoke however they want.

Now, if they started banning everything else then yes that would be bad, but one tiny little ban on something to help the enviroment and it's people is not a bad thing at all. Even if I was a smoker I would agree with this. You can't act selfishly. If the government wanted to strip us of our rights it would've already been done. See, the problem with your debate is you're trying to excercise the right to smoke with something like the first Amendment. That doesn't work that way. Plus that old man who said they government was controlling them was an ignorant fool. The governments rule over us, but they don't control us. It's like a packing job for your food, somebodies gotta do it.

As I said before, you have the right to smoke, but not to cause harm.

[Jin]

Originally Posted by Hildegarde

Well, this isn't so much about the smoking, but about civil liberties as someone else put it.
When the (any) goverment starts deciding for you what it is good or not for you, it's the beginning a slippery slope trip downhill.

Banning smoking in public places =/= banning smoking altogether. This specific case (being the Scottish banning of smoking in public places) has nothing to do with taking away civil liberties. Unless of course, you consider walking around with exposed poison to be a civil liberty.

[Hildegarde]

No, honey, I'm talking about the fact that it ends up being about civil liberties.

[Jin]

How so? If you mean the pathetic arguments that people against it come up with, then I'll agree. Otherwise, I can't see where civil liberties come into play here.