Quote:
| Originally Posted by uwila Why do smoker feel they have a God given right to smoke in public? In the past, non-smokers just put up with it. Pub and restuarant owners simply wanted as many customers as possible, and since the non-smokers all thought that they just had to put up with it, the busnesses didn't ban smoking. Non-smoking areas were always a joke, but used as a sop to those who didn't like to breathe someone else's cancer fumes. This legislation is popular; it isn't just the Labour Party who wanted it - a lot of people agree with it. |
True. Also, an awful lot of people disagree with it.
Quote:
|
Smoking is significantly different from other activities in as much as smoking in pubs etc actively causes harm to all those present. If I go to a pub and get smashed, I might start a fight (highly unlikely) or I might puke in public (still unlikely), but so far neither of these has happened so I estimate the amount of harm my beering up has caused others must be nil. Smoking a few fags in a pub does harm to everyone present - every time it's done. I have had to chose those places I could go into because smoke irritates my lungs and makes my eyes burn, now I have the same choice of venue as everyone else. Also, I am much happier taking my little boy out with us for an early meal out.
|
What about breathing in ........................ this is not the point of my argument and this is a no win argument as each side is completely entrenched. IMO, those smokers in my circle of friends had already taken the message on-board and would go outside for a smoke where feasible. I only really drink in one place and they had put some jet engine thing in the place to extract fumes - the only time I've had a reverse ear blockage above water. Restaurants ........... well, that is the choice of the management and enforcing some more effective air conditioning might have been a bit less draconian? Did you ever make your feelings known to any restaurant manager and explain why you would never be returning to their establishment?
I'm not specifically arguing the smoking case but it is a prime example of over heavy handedness to ban it completely when, IMO, it would be much fairer to allow establishments to cater for either. Then, if you don't like somewhere you have a choice to go elsewhere.
Another pet hate of mine is children in restaurants and pubs. How would you feel if my POV was the majority? I take the choice to either put up with it or go somewhere where there aren't any.
In my opinion the government is interfering far too much in everything and the "war on terror" is giving them the perfect opportunity to gather more and more information on everyone and poke further and further.
Just because you are greatly in favour of this particular decision does not necessarily mean you will be so happy in the future?
Anyhow, you either believe/understand/sympathise or you don't. Smoking is a poor subject from my POV because of the strength of feeling involved which keeps dragging everything back to a "I'm glad it's banned POV" which is fine but is not the point I'm trying to get across.