Patricia Hewitt, the Health Secretary…said the Health Bill would ban smoking in ‘virtually every enclosed public place and workplace” in England and save thousands of lives a year. Smoke-free workplaces and public places “will become the norm”.
As the developed world gradually and inexorably turns it back on the public health menace that is tobacco, more and more countries are deciding that public health in public place trumps the rights of individuals to smoke in public places. Now before Adam and all the rest of you amateur legal scholars out there jump into my $#!&, let me just state for the record that it is my firm belief that my right to breathe clean air trumps your right to pollute that same air with cigarette smoke. Yes, I understand the holes inherent in my argument…and I don’t much care. This is an emotional issue for me, and I freely admit to that. Until you’ve been locked in a hot, airless room in a mosque with close to 100 chain-smoking Kosovar Albanians, you can’t possibly understand the depths of my contempt for cigarette smoking. It’s a filthy, vile habit…and the fact that I’m allergic to cigarette smoke doesn’t exactly help matters.
For this reason, then, I applaud the British government for taking action that trumps hundreds of years of history and tobacco addiction. I truly believe that the banning of smoking in public places is a positive step towards the Greater Good. No, I understand that this is not a perfect solution, and there are many who will see this as unwarranted government intervention in the private affairs of individuals. As I said, I am well aware of the holes in my argument, and I don’t pretend to be able to justify my position on anything but a largely emotional basis. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that this is the wave of the future, and I for one am glad for it. I grew up with a father who smoked, and I always resented being forced to breathe his second-hand smoke. If I want to live smoke-free (and I do), then that right should and does trump the right of a smoker to pollute the air I am breathing. Deal with it.
Seig Heil, Jack. Deal with that.
I won't even make the basic arguments as you continually reject them on emotional grounds, which you freely admit.
Instead, I'll put this out there:
I applaud the NSA for taking action that trumps hundreds of years of inaction and ignorance. I truly believe that the secret tapping of electronic communications is a positive step toward the Greater Good. No, I understand that this is not a perfect solution, and there are many who will see this as unwarranted government intervention in the private affairs of individuals. I am the President, and if I want to live terror-free (and I do), then that right should and does trump the right of an innocent citizen to have private communications with others. Deal with it.
Ok, so where do you draw the line, Jack?
I don't know where Jack draws his line. I drew mine in the blowing sand of Amarillo at lunch today. I'm allergic to smoke -- it creates a situation where, within seconds, I literally cannot breathe.
I spent my lunch hour sitting out in a parking lot because not only couldn't I eat in the cafe whose nonsmoking section wasn't even a separate room, I couldn't get any air. I lasted less than 2 minutes inside the building.
Do I cough? Do I sneeze? Yeah -- after I'm outside and can get air to expel that way.
Does your smoke hurt me? Damn skippy. Do I resent that? Hell yes. Am I happy about no-smoking ordinances?? Let me see ... is the ocean wet?
YOUR right to enjoy YOUR ADDICTION does NOT entitle you to ASSAULT ME.
Your right to swing your fist stops before it touches my nose.
Your right to smoke stops before it chokes me.
DEAL with it.
Sarah:
I highly suggest that next time you go out for lunch, you go somewhere that smoking is not permitted. Doing otherwise is like eating a snickers when you're allergic to peanuts: it's just stupid.
Contrary to popular belief, you do NOT have the right to eat wherever you choose. As a private property owner, I do not have to alter my property (or the legal activities that take place therein) to make it accomodating to your whim, your allergy, or your taste. I don't have to make my tables out of oak if you're allergic to pine resin. I don't have to ban loud noises if you have ear problems. I don't have to turn on the A/C if you're sweating, and I don't have to ban smoking because you're allergic.
Moreover, my opposition to such legislation has absolutely NOTHING to do with the "rights" of the smoker. They have to do with the rights of the property owner. As such, nearly all of your self-serving emotional arguments are destroying straw men.
YOUR right to enjoy YOUR ADDICTION does NOT entitle you to ASSAULT ME.
This is hyperbole. You are not being assaulted. You are having an allergic reaction. While this is not by any means your fault, it doesn't give you special rights or privileges either. Not everyone has to accomodate you. Is that very nice? Certainly not. Is it just? Most assuredly.
Your right to swing your fist stops before it touches my nose.
This is correct. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand, however. A more apt analogy would be "your right to get what you want ends when you step onto my property." This principle is the basis for private property law in the United States. It's the reason you can be asked to leave a bar for being obnoxious. It's the reason I can shoot you if you're trying to kill my son in my back yard. It's the reason you can't smoke if the owner tells you you can't. It's the same reason you CAN smoke if the owner tells you it's alright.
Your right to smoke stops before it chokes me.
Just like the non-smoker, the smoker's "right to smoke" ends when he enters private property. Owners can expel smokers from their property at their whim. This is why I can't smoke in your house if you say no, why I can't smoke at Sam's Deli if there's a no smoking sign, and why I can't smoke in a courtroom. The property owner said "no."
DEAL with it.
No! Your arguments are hyperbole, personalized, emotional, and completely without meaningful support. "Deal with it" is the three year-old answer to this problem, on both sides. I refuse to sit here and let you spout such trash while pretending you're defending some "right." You are sitting there telling me that I have to deal with the government telling me what legal activity can and can't go on inside my property. I believe this is unjust, dangerous, and borderline totalitarian, and I'm not afraid to call you and Jack out on it either.
Being "progressive" doesn't mean changing everything. It means making the world a more just place through active debate and discussion. Ignoring the things you don't like and whining when you don't get your way isn't even close to being "progressive" and the short-sighted display of emotion-laden rhetoric here is enough to make me want to vomit. You're not being progressive, you're being fascist.
Adam...I don't know where to draw the line, and I realize that this is a slippery slope. I freely admit to being something less than objective when it comes to tobacco, and I make no apologies for that. Of course, the flip side is that I'm aware that if tobacco is banned...well, what's next? Alcohol? Chocolate? Hockey? Sex? It's not a perfect argument, to be certain.
On a completely unrelated note...congratulations on your first law school acceptance!! Dude, that's righteous.... ;p)
As a non-smoker who will actually be affected by this controversial piece of legislation, I think I may add my two pen'orth (that's two cents for those who required a translation:) )
It's a means of countering potential lawsuits regarding Health and Safety at work. But in the main it's a popularist distraction, polarising opinion between smokers and non-smokers. Particularly distracting from all the issues you will see raised here
http://www.blairwatch.co.uk/
I read a bit now and again but it is not good for the blood pressure.
Am I in favour of a ban? Sort of, in 'Public buildings' certainly. I try not to frequent places where I know there are lots of smokers (particular pubs etc. though there are many that already ban smoking in the bar area and in certain rooms/restaurant areas etc.) Many of these businesses are already becoming aware that they may be losing trade because of the smoke, so a ban may help in the long run (the counter argument by the breweries is that people go out for a smoke and a pint...and they will lose custom..) Who knows, but one of the main justifications is to protect the staff who work in such places from secondary smoking. Myself, I would not choose to work in place that was filled with smokers. Yet when I started work in an office many years ago it was NOT a non-smoking environment. (I even smoked a pipe there myself for a year or so !!) Nowadays the office workplace is a smoke free zone (smoking rooms are provided..there is even a sitcom called The Smoking Room!) and we are more aware of the issue, so if I were to apply for a job one of the key questions for me would be whether I would be subjected to smoke, because we have gotten used to offices being smoke free. We do not expect pubs and clubs to be smoke free.WHY? Because we have accepted for years that that is what people do at pubs and clubs:smoke and drink. So if that's what you are getting into why get a job there if you are a non-smoker ? Why bother going there if you are a non smoker, and as the trade dwindles as less and less people smoke the trade will soon cotton on and.......have the government ban it so THEY don't carry the can for excluding smokers from their premises (oh, the cynic in me !!)
I hope that made sense...
There's a lot of crap going on in this thread. Let's sweep some of it out.
"Being on a slippery slope" and "where do you draw the line" are part of almost any social choice, and simply not arguments against any social proposal. When a proposal starts getting these two emotional responses, it is probably getting close to addressing the real issue.
Whereas "sieg heil" is an utterly invalid response, as no one is born a smoker in the way one was born a European Jew.
And "you're having an allergic reaction" is also an invalid response, as allergy is not probably part of cancer caused by smoking, second-hand or otherwise.
Lastly, smoking among unwilling others is technically not just assault but battery, and battery should be prosecuted legally as the felony it is. How does causing others to breathe your toxic smoke differ from slipping chemicals in their drinking water or injecting them with drugs? They don't, not in ways that matter much.
And even if, by some miracle, tobacco smoke were proven not to cause any harm whatever: smoke still stinks like the devil, and who would permit such intentional stink in public places, any more than loud obscenity or unfounded bomb threats? That smokers have killed off their own ability to smell the stink is not relevant.
So it is just a little more complicated than "sieg heils" and other red herrings. It is not necessarily even about cancer or allergies or physical harm. Life among others is always a slippery slope, and is often about drawing lines. To choose not to "deal with it" is merely choosing to deal with it badly, to let the belligerent and hostile force their choices on others, pretending it's one's "right" or that it doesn't "really" harm others or that others have no right to breathe clean air in public.
Rights are wonderful, but "my right to smoke anywhere" is an oxymoron, just another thug behaviour that has been going on for hundreds of years. Whether UK's particular choices are the correct ones or not, it is time for this crap to stop, for civilization to encourage civilized behaviour and not its reverse.