Quote:
Originally posted by Intrepid:
Yes but you can't attribute that to banned smoking, echonomic conditions have changed over time, arifairs have fallen, relative income has increased, and the world has genrally becme more globalised, bringing much more need for air travel.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">Wellard's point, I believe, was not to say thaat this has happened because of the smoking bans, but rather that it has happened
in spite of them. That is, people have not stopped flying on planes because they can't smoke on them. Rather, as you say, other factors have come into play (like they always do), and so there has been - in the long term -
no loss of business because of banned smoking. A ban on smoking does not a bankruptcy make.
Quote:
But why should i alter my spending patterns? isn't that the consumer's choice and right? what is the purpost to work if you are not permitted to spend money ernt in the way you wish. $16,000 is an unbelievably high ammount, that is multiple packs a day.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">Noone will have to alter their spending patterns. The NSW ban, atleast, is for indoor public places. Others, such as the ones in the towns Beumanoir mentioned, are bans in all public places. Note that word "public". That means, you can smoke at home all you want. You just can't smoke where it will affect people in ways that noone can predict.
Quote:
But the purpose of helthcare is to ensure the well being of society, to discriminate against specific people defeats the purpose, smokers pay for the system as much as other people, and they deserve equal rights.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">Equal rights, yes. But why should anyone have the right to put
other people's health at risk? There are other ways in which you can do this, yes. But they all tend to fall under banners of "assault" or "bodily harm" which, last I checked, were illegal.
Quote:
But you're missing the point, even if it is bad for me it is my right to do so.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">If it is bad for you, yes, it is your right to do so. If it is bad for other people, they have the right to not be at risk.
Quote:
And why should smoking be banned in all pubs? it should be an optional thing,
|
<span style="color: lightblue">Looking back on the thread, that question has already been answered:
Quote:
Originally posted by Legolas:
The ban on smoking is done neither to accomodate non-smokers nor to pester smokers. Their rights are hardly important in this as both choose to be where they are and do what they do (although the fact of the matter is that smokers do cause inconvenience to others, be it in a pub, at a busstop or anywhere else). Their wishes are not considered as they are not the reason for the regulations. Look to non-smoking signs for that.
The reason for the ban is simply this; employees are currently being forced to work in cigarette smoke. This is affecting their health and in many places the amount of smoke leads to the ADI (acceptable daily intake) being exceeded. Plainly put, <span style="color: lightsteelblue">they're not good working conditions.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">My emphasis.
Quote:
why restrict freedom further? why take something else away.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">Rights have to be protected. In doing this, other rights must be removed. I have the right to live, at the expense of your right to take my life. Demoncracy is about freedom, but some people's idea of freedom seems to be out. You aren't free to do whatever the hell you want: that would be anarchy. The fundamental idea of freedom is that everyone is free to do anything
which does not impose on the freedoms of others. I have the right to own material possessions, to say of them "these are mine". Someone, then, does not have the right to take things that I have earned and called 'mine' unless I let them call it theirs. I have the right to vote for our government - I do not nhave the right to evict John Howard from Kiribilli House (as much as I would like to), because that would infringe on the rights of whichever misguided souls voted for him. Your right to smoke around me in public imposes on my right to be in a smoke-free environment. Your right to smoke at home infringes on nobody. As such, no government who knows what they're doing will try to ban the latter. The former, though, has to give way to democracy and freedom.
Quote:
Maybe smokers like to smoke with their friends in a nice environment. All i'm saying is that perhaps some pubs should take the ban on, and some should remain smoking pubs.
|
<span style="color: lightblue">That doesn't fix the problem of working conditions. Also, with the number nof people who are paranoid that such a restriction would loose them business, government action is the only thing which is likely to bring good working conditions about.
EDIT: minor typo with cascasding quote messing-upness...
[ 12-01-2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: LennonCook ]