La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 According to the studies, smoking in these public places does cause harm to others even if it's just to influence their behavour, but this is about the health of the smoker also. The city's authorities has the power in these places to influence the health of the population, including the smokers themselves. They've reduced smoking massively in the city with previous changes, and this is an extension of that. You can't drink in this kind of public space, you can't run around nekkid, etc. This isn't just about passive smoke. But influencing other's behaviour is, to me, a totally unacceptable justification for placing a ban, as is the concern for the smoker's own health. The only good justification is in protecting other's from inhaling the material from the smoke. I place a much higher value on freedoms. Whether the result is to reduce people smoking on the whole is not important to me. Influencing others to smoke is not harm. Other's have the mental capacity to make a choice as to whether they wish to smoke. Simply putting the thought of having a cigarette in other's minds does not constitute harm and nor should it result in a curbing of such behaviour. If this were a situation of some 10 year old smoking children and the action of their parents to stop in then I'd think we could agree. But this is about adults and the State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 ManxTaxPayer I think you'll find the Middle East has a much more relaxed attitude to tobacco use than we do in the west. Given that this is the Middle East we are comparing ourselves with, why do you think that their attitude differs from ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 ha hah ah ah ah, i join you in the smoking garage then. well put Come right on in gazza - the atmosphere is lovely, just like pubs used to be before they filled up with non-smokers (did that actually happen by the way?) Shut the door though, don't want any of those nasty car fumes from the next garage seeping in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 But influencing other's behaviour is, to me, a totally unacceptable justification for placing a ban, as is the concern for the smoker's own health. I think we've established that your opinion is a bit 'special'. Lots of things aren't permitted for your own protection, from drugs to unsafe diy home modifications. The only good justification is in protecting other's from inhaling the material from the smoke. I place a much higher value on freedoms. Whether the result is to reduce people smoking on the whole is not important to me. Influencing others to smoke is not harm. Other's have the mental capacity to make a choice as to whether they wish to smoke. Simply putting the thought of having a cigarette in other's minds does not constitute harm and nor should it result in a curbing of such behaviour. If this were a situation of some 10 year old smoking children and the action of their parents to stop in then I'd think we could agree. But this is about adults and the State. Normal discussion can resume when we've returned from la la land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 But whether or not such other things are or not permitted does mean that they are right or not. And nor does the fact that my opinion seem 'special' mean that it isn't a better one to have. It is a poor argument to be made when all you can do is point to those things, as if it makes it all right. You'd do better to give actually put some effort, as you have with previous drugs debate, rather than dismiss my outlook as weird. Besides, I think it's fair to say that do not run any simply comparatives in justifying your position. I mean, you do have one of these peculiar and unfortunate understandings of government as being some sort of father figure to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Lots of things aren't permitted for your own protection, from drugs to unsafe diy home modifications. And why is that? Why is permission for free usage withdrawn? What, in your opinion, is the driving force to make them unaccessible to the general public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 unfortunate understandings of government as being some sort of father figure to the public. And therein lies the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Given that this is the Middle East we are comparing ourselves with, why do you think that their attitude differs from ours? I don't have an opinion on that, never having thought about it. But I think attitudes and laws regarding tobacco in the region are becoming more like those in the west.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 ManxTaxPayer What makes you think that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 A brief flit through Google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 A brief flit through Google. Can you give me a link to that article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 What article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majkul Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 In the meantime, back in the good old Isle of Man, as I was walking home from work half an hour ago, I spy with my little eyes... Just by the phone boxes at the bottom of Broadway... An adult, sitting on the pavement with three under age kids, passing around his can of Bud AND a cigarette. Welcome to the Isle of Man. I might be a non-smoker, but who are we to preach??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Presumably these under-age kids already smoke and drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 But whether or not such other things are or not permitted does mean that they are right or not. And nor does the fact that my opinion seem 'special' mean that it isn't a better one to have. It is a poor argument to be made when all you can do is point to those things, as if it makes it all right. You'd do better to give actually put some effort, as you have with previous drugs debate, rather than dismiss my outlook as weird. Besides, I think it's fair to say that do not run any simply comparatives in justifying your position. I mean, you do have one of these peculiar and unfortunate understandings of government as being some sort of father figure to the public. It gets tedious because your boundaries of normality are so much different from everyone else. I'm not interested in a political or idealogical debate, I'm just attempting to show what I've read about the reasons behind the health initiatives in New York. You don't think anyone should be told what to do. A cigarette ban is really the least of your worries in this regard surely? And why is that? Why is permission for free usage withdrawn? What, in your opinion, is the driving force to make them unaccessible to the general public? In this case to improve the health of the cities population, which so far has turned out to be effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.