05-08-2003, 11:14 AM | #51 | |||
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ 05-08-2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
|||
05-08-2003, 11:18 AM | #52 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
|
|
05-08-2003, 11:21 AM | #53 |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
|
Smoking is a vile disgusting habit. Your right to pollute your body ends when I'm forced to breath in the by-products of your self-destructive behaviour. Personally I feel it should be outlawed and the executives of the cigerette companies should be tried for crimes against humanity.
On a lighter note, here in San Francisco area there are some bars that have built 'smoking rooms',plexi-glass room all the smokers can pack into, light up and shorten their lives by another 7 minutes. The rooms are vented by a seperate ventaliation system.
__________________
This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.<br />~ George W. Bush (2000) |
05-08-2003, 11:24 AM | #54 |
Apophis
Join Date: July 10, 2001
Location: By a big blue lake, Canada
Age: 50
Posts: 4,628
|
Well I have no experience with this yet, but I probably will soon. What I do have experience of is smokers waiting for cardiopulmonary transplants. If you donīt stop smoking you donīt get a new lung, period! This policy is of course not official in the pediatrics ward, BUT I can assure you the parents get a real talk to. You can actually hear this talk to from the other end of the hall and the rant often include such words as "dumb, stupid, idiot etc" . And people smoking near the casualty ward first get a warning (read escorted at least 100 yards away from the hospital) and are then monitored by the staff. If it happens again they get a nice escort home, usually by the police. Smoking outside the casualty ward is THE most stupid thing to do!
I donīt know if you can ban smoking at home but what you can do is to catch them during pregnancy and inform them then. And then nag and nag whenever they visit. Itīs not that hard to take those 5 steps outside and smoke there instead of inside the house. What really surprises me is that there have been no lawsuits from asthmatics suing their parents. |
05-08-2003, 11:27 AM | #55 | |
White Dragon
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: York, UK.
Age: 41
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
Anyway, the discussion on self ownership is a slightly weird one. Its ludicrous to suggest that freedom is only attainable when we can all choose what to do with what we own (e.g. ourselves, in your example). What about the freedom to plant a legitimately owned dagger in someones back? They legitimately own their own back as well, so you would be unable to do that. Ownership of something does not give you the right to use it as you wish, IMO. You could choose to do something with it that might damage the legitimate holdings of another person, which would obviously contradict this principle of freedom or turn it into a state of anarchy. Either you are able to do what you like with your holdings, in which case we arrive at a Hobbsian state of nature where life is nasty, brutish, and short. Or you restrict the right to do anything with your holdings to just things that will not harm the holdings of others - in which case you cannot defend a ban on smoking in public places. And of course, if we all own ourselves, and we own the products of our labour, then surely our mothers all own us from birth until death? They almost always legitimately acquire sperm in voluntary exchange, and then use their labour to produce a person. Surely that person belongs to them? Ok - I know this is an extremely abstract argument, but its quite a fun one... Its a right ol' spanner in the works for people like Locke and Nozick. Anyway, no offence taken Timber - I was saying that in jest. The way the phrase "Thats as bad as Communism!" was being used was obviously supposed to slander the other argument by exxageration. Its a bit like saying "You're as smelly as a pig!" and someone coming back with: "Thats an insult against pigs!". Or something along those lines... [img]tongue.gif[/img]
__________________
[img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe |
|
05-08-2003, 11:37 AM | #56 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Well, Barry, on topic I noticed you mention that my rights with my property extend only so far as they do not harm your rights with your property (including your body, lungs, and health). Now, I couldn't tell whether you thought that meant you can ban smoking in bars or not, but I'll tell you my take on it.
Yes, my rights end at harming you. But, in a privately-owned smoking establishment, everyone has agreed to the smoke, and the harm that ensues if any. Because they all want to smoke or be with smokers, they agree to not enforce their right to have smoke-free clean air in their lungs. If they do not want to enter into that agreement, they do not enter into the private establishment. It is NOT their right to put rules on the private establishment and upset the scheme just because they want to go in. They can go to a non-smoking establishment. Ergo, it is not the government's right to pass a law on their behalf. BTW, in NYC shortly after the ban, a bartender kept telling a patron to put his cigarette out. The patron finally, after the fifth or sixth demand, pulled out a knife and stabbed the bartender in the heart, killing him. NOw, that's horrible. The patron should have targeted the SOURCE of his angst. Which is why I intend to blow up an empty city government building late at night. [ 05-08-2003, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ] |
05-08-2003, 11:55 AM | #57 | |
White Dragon
Join Date: October 19, 2001
Location: York, UK.
Age: 41
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
Yeah, I'm really not sure what to think on all of this. I basically think that smoking shouldn't be banned in private establishments but it should in public ones. In private establishments its the decision of the owner in my mind. However if an owner of a cafe has no non-smoking area then I won't go there myself. And for preference I drink in bars where theres no smoking at the bar itself - mostly just Wetherspoons pubs round here. But the main point of my post was to point out that I'm really not sure self-ownership arguments are as indestructable as a lot of people seem to think. Self-ownership is a hell of a logical problem when you consider women for example, or the products of peculiar talents. The great example for self-owners justifying laisse-faire capitalism is Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain example - he owns his talent and people choose to give him money in voluntary excahnge to watch him as a result of that. Therefore Wilt is entitled to a larger set of holdings than people who have done equal amounts of work, as the other people have chosen to give him that money. The important thing is not who has a moral claim to the money (as an egalitarian might say), but that the people who legitimately hold the money are able to dispose of it as they see fit. Now... a liberal might put forward another example - say a man is born with no legs and therefore can't ever have the chance to be as good at basketball as Wilt Chamberlain. This centres on the idea that if you own yourself then you also own entirely abitrary elements of yourself. This may be many things but it is not just by many definitions. Basically self-ownership is fine as long as you are happy with procedural justice, not distributive justice.
__________________
[img]\"http://img1.ranchoweb.com/images/sproutman/certwist.gif\" alt=\" - \" /><br /><br /><i>\"And the angels all pallid and wan,<br />Uprising, unveiling, affirm,<br />That the play is the tragedy, man,<br />And its hero the Conquerer Worm.\"</i><br /> - Edgar Allan Poe |
|
05-08-2003, 12:23 PM | #58 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
05-08-2003, 12:27 PM | #59 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
[ 05-08-2003, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ] |
|
05-08-2003, 12:28 PM | #60 |
Jack Burton
Join Date: May 2, 2002
Location: Canterbury, England
Age: 36
Posts: 5,817
|
I had the pleasure of going to a concert at the Brixton academy only to discover I couldn't even see the bloody band because of the smoke. Not to mention I ended up coughing so hard I had to leave half-way through. Why? A couple right in front of me who didn't even look like they enjoyed the music were chain-smoking. Gits. I've had a cigerrette stubbed out on my mid-riff by my grandmother (whose cigerette caused a house-fire), leaving a circular scar. I've ended up, because of my asthma, having to go on a nebuliser once I've been in too much smoker's company. IMO, banning it is a good thing. Yeah, smokers have rights, but they also have homes.
__________________
The wolf is as cunning as he is ferocious; once he's had a taste of flesh then nothing else will do. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thank You for Smoking | Ilander | Entertainment (Movies, TV Shows and Books/Comics) | 0 | 04-14-2006 05:56 PM |
smoking | burnzey boi | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 190 | 12-06-2004 12:24 AM |
Smoking ban | Lanesra | General Discussion | 130 | 04-12-2004 05:43 PM |
Smoking and under 18 yrs old? | uss | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 32 | 07-07-2002 01:29 PM |
smoking bad for you ???? | johnny | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 41 | 06-23-2002 10:06 AM |