Going back to smoking bans which I and someone else mentioned, I don't even see an issue. On the grounds of personal responsibility, property owners rights, freedom to choose, and the right of a pub owner to make a living, smoking bans in pubs and clubs are completely wrong and unjustified.

(July 21, 2010 at 7:36 pm)Godhead Wrote: Going back to smoking bans which I and someone else mentioned, I don't even see an issue. On the grounds of personal responsibility, property owners rights, freedom to choose, and the right of a pub owner to make a living, smoking bans in pubs and clubs are completely wrong and unjustified.

I don't think that's true. (plus the law has little to do with fairness).

Harm from passive smoking is well established as factual. That makes it a public health issue.

Here smoking is banned:

In all Government buildings, all pubs,clubs, restaurants ,casinos,shops and department stores. All public transport including planes in Australian air space.

It is an offence here to smoke in a car in the presence of a minor child.

Adelaide city council is considering a smoking ban in Rundle Mall, the city's largest open air mall.


I support almost any action short of making it illegal to end the social evil of tobacco use. I wan to see smoking banned everywhere except in the privacy of one's home
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:Passive smoking is the inhalation of smoke, called secondhand smoke (SHS) or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), from tobacco products used by others. It occurs when tobacco smoke permeates any environment, causing its inhalation by people within that environment. Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking

So those people who now can't smoke inside a restraunt in their own section, now have to stand outside and every man, woman and child walking in or out gets second hand somke instead of those who chooset to sit in the smoking section? That's a counter-productive ban. :S Not to mention it's limiting another's freedom. Wouldn't it be better to just regulate and enforce the use of seperate smoking areas for owners to choose to have a smoking establishment and make it part of the health inspection?

That would make more sense. Or, leave it up to the owner. The anti smoker movement, despite being well funded and coordinated, doesn't represent true freedom.

(July 22, 2010 at 8:08 am)Godhead Wrote: That would make more sense. Or, leave it up to the owner. The anti smoker movement, despite being well funded and coordinated, doesn't represent true freedom.

As an ex-cigarette smoker let me say that your right to enjoy that cigarette ends at my nose.

---

(July 22, 2010 at 3:40 am)tackattack Wrote: So those people who now can't smoke inside a restaurant in their own section, now have to stand outside and every man, woman and child walking in or out gets second hand smoke instead of those who choose to sit in the smoking section?

You're either being disingenuous or outright misinformed if you think that is actually how it works. Outdoors is not a closed environment. Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.

Jaysyn -

Ex smokers often turn into antismokers. Note that there's a difference between being antismoking and antismoker.

Personally think you are beating the wrong victims here...has anyone got a chemical analysis of the actual 'fresh air' you lot are going on about??

I for one would like to see it.

Up here, you can't smoke in public indoor places, whatever they are (pubs, restaurants, discos, government buildings, etc), unless they have a 'smokers area'. I agree with this measure and I am a smoker. Who cares? I'll just go outside...

Others don't have to sniff my smoke, like others don't have to ear me preaching about a given religion(if I had one). Two pollution kinds here: the former pollutes the lungs, the latter, pollutes the mind.

@ Godhead

(about religion)

Considering what I've witnessed, most adults don't even qualify to decide if they want to follow a religion. I've been at the point where I felt totally confident in my (ex)religion. Where I used to get fuzzies and thought it was the Christian god (i later learned they were mentally controlled). And I think that people should learn about religion in the light of "This is what some people believe: The chances of it being true are very slim. But if you want to believe it that's your business" NOT "This is our religion: Isn't it great that we have such a caring creator(s) that we only have to follow special guidelines and we can live forever? In spiritual form, of course. Which is better than physical."

My point is: don't sugar coat it in any way. Don't add glamour in any way.


And to answer the OP on the first page.
My pet peeve are people that are too stubborn on what they perceive as ultimate truth. Human beings know so little in context to the universe that arrogance is nothing but ignorance.

Apologies bad grammar.

-KK

KawaiiKoneko -

Well said (especially the last part), however, I would have religion taught just as you described but without the bit about the chances of it being true are slim. That should be down to the students to decide, surely. I also think that preaching is ok if the person on the receiving end is there voluntarily.