Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

And who could forget prohibition - attempts to control an "unwanted" substance by outlawing it made the situation far worse. It became easily available but was of such disgusting quality it was far less healthy than when it was legal. If memory serves well, before prohibition the consumption of Gin was of over a bottle per head a day. Which is insane. Afterwards, people eventually learned of the dangers of alcohol abuse and consume far more responsably.

The important things to keep in mind are that attempting to outlaw something didn't help at all - it made things MUCH worse. And I don't think anyone cares about individual "normal people" cases - those who do continue consuming end up growing far worse, and so the general situation worsens. But once people learned to take responsability, while alcohol consumption didn't vanish, it ceased being much of a problem.

My question is, what gives ANYONE the right to tell someone what they can or can't do when it isn't detrimental to others? Putting asside smoking in public, how is anyone justified in telling a conscious adult they're not allowed to do something? The government has no business trying to outlaw smoking, and that's hardly something I can see as being debatable. Nor is it ever going to happen, and not solely on the grounds that the government makes money off of cigarette taxes.

In public, that's a different matter. One's freedom ends where another's begins, after all. But that works both ways, and until now bars have been viewed as places where there's alcohol, tobacco smoke, and drunks. This is what was expected of these places. Now, smokers don't have anywhere to smoke other than at home. Non-smokers already have plenty of places they can go to to be free of cigarette smoke: anywhere public. What of smokers' liberties? Why remove the one place they could go to to enjoy a relaxing cigarette and a beer among buddies when this was already how things were before?

Freedom works both ways. And while smoke may be undesirable, so is having drunk drivers on the roads (in Montreal, the number of accidents involving alcohol are quite high), having some leering drunkard oggling your girlfriend, or some depressed guy telling you his problems when you don't even know them. These, too, impede on others' freedom, and even health.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Yeah I see where you're coming from. However I don't think it's safe to let things continue as they are just to wait for people to become more responsible. I've said my piece already on this - many smokers are addicted, they don't choose to damage themselves, and the government has already prohibited harder drugs. As for your question...

Quote (Silverlance)

what gives ANYONE the right to tell someone what they can or can't do when it isn't detrimental to others? Putting asside smoking in public, how is anyone justified in telling a conscious adult they're not allowed to do something?

My answer would be: that's what the government is paid to do. Just like they tell us what to do (go to war, pay taxes, get licenses), they similarly are there to tell us what not to do (take illegal drugs, carry firearms, hurt others). It's their duty as leaders of the country. I wouldn't see it as a violation of civil liberties if smoking was banned, the government wouldn't be overstepping the line.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Sorry to double post here, I think I'm okay in doing it but give me major frowns if I'm wrong.

I just read today in the Evening News that the law is expected to hit Scottish & Newcastle (pub chain and brewery owner) by £10 million in six months. So their profits will only be £452m... poor guys. Amazingly, in Ireland, bar sales are up from pre-ban levels. It seems that the ban doesn't even have that much of an impact economically then; except for the bingo hall Hayweights; they had to close after 50 years of service... gutted.

The effect on health has been massive though: air pollution in Scottish pubs has dropped by 86% (the other 14% being just general odour I'm guessing), and among the bar staff, nicotine levels have dropped and lung functionality improved. "Lung functionality improved" - that's... kind of scary if you think about it.

This far into the ban, it seems to be doing good.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

That's good news, SD. Thanks for posting. I think it's an overall good move, and I hope to see it become more widespread.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Quote (karasuman @ 21st November 2006 11:03)

My first instinct is that this is a prime example of the government meddling where it ought not to meddle.

If I own a bar (or a restaurant, or whatever), and I want to allow a legal behaviour to take place inside (smoking, square-dancing, sauerkraut-eating), that should be my business, right? If you don't like smoking/square-dancing/sauerkraut-eating, you don't have to come to my bar, and if I want you to come to my bar, I'll take your smoking/square-dancing/sauerkraut-eating preference into consideration. For the government to decide what's best for people and then ban me from allowing a legal behaviour that they've decided is undesirable is just asinine.

My husband, who is usually extremely libertarian but hates smoking with a passion, points out the other side of the issue. This isn't about other customers who want to come into a bar without inhaling smoke (or watching square-dancing, or smelling sauerkraut), but about the employees of my fine establishment who have a right to safe workplace conditions...and the presence of secondhand smoke might be enough to infringe on their rights.

So, really, I'm torn on this issue. Up until you consider the employees, I'm all for the bar owner deciding whether or not smokers can light up. But I do believe in employee rights, and I don't buy into that "oh, well if they don't like their job they can quit" mentality--no one should have to choose between earning enough to eat and being free of workplace hazards. So I really don't know where I stand.

When I first considered the issue, I decided it was certainly the right thing to simply ban smoking (everywhere, not just bars). But, apart from being unrealistic, I realize that people should be able to choose whether or not they will slowly kill themselves.

I spoke with my brother and he pointed out the very same thing as you, the employees should have the right to be in a smoke free environment.

It seems that someone's rights are going to be infringed upon here....and I'd side with the health issue on this one. The ban is good