A Rational Argument (1112 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.5 on 7 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Foonbo (View user info) at 2005-10-12 11:57:21 EDT
Because of retards like this--http://www.ubersite.com/m/76884--certain issues take on a fanatical side by either the far right or far left that becomes downright annoying. It seems as though Chicago will follow the path of New York, Florida, Boston, and some other places in enacting a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. Here, is a well-researched and thought-out argument to chew on (a paper I wrote about six months ago before it really seemed like this ban was going to happen). I warn you: this is long. If you're anti-smoking, I suggest you check it out when you have the time, though.
Oh, yeah, and -2 away, kids.
smoking argument.doc (128 kB) [application/octet-stream]
User Reviews
Submitted by Foonbo (user info) at 2005-10-13 11:43:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry, you're "special."
Submitted by Feargal (user info) at 2005-10-13 08:31:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Don't label me a retard because I share a different opinion to you. That's lame, even by your own woefully low standards.
Submitted by NOWorNEVER (user info) at 2005-10-12 15:50:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
this was by far one of the most rational arguments i have read on this topic. however, i still do not agree. i just moved to boston, and it is SO nice to go out without coming home stinking of smoke, especially since i live with someone who is extremely allergic (we wont get into what happens when she goes out).
i can't be bothered to find the studies, but i was under the impression that bars/restaurants hadn't suffered much from the bans- perhaps i'm also getting biased information, i am in a school of public health. however, i am sure that cigarette sales (and therefore revenue from taxes) hasn't dropped.
lastly, the biggest point that btoehrs me is bar and restaurant owners shouting about their "right" in their private establishment to have an unhealthy environment... they aren't allowed to have rats and bugs all over their kitchens or lead in their pipes or whatever other health codes exist- for the safety of the consumer/patron of their establishment. this shouldn't be any different.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2005-10-12 15:23:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Eh, I'm a smoker but I'm fine with no smoking in restaurants, honestly. I'm not so horribly addicted to nicotene that I can't wait until I walk outside after my meal to eat.
And anyone that thinks that we're not bothering others, even if we have a "smoking section" is wrong. You can smell cigarette smoke a LONG way away, and nobody but smokers should have to put up with even a little smoke smell inside any public building.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2005-10-12 13:05:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I agree, and not just because I am a smoker.
What next? No music above XXX decibels because someone who does not enjoy the music THAT loud could sustain hearing damage?
I know that is an absurd example, but wouldn't it be easier to avoid the places where you may be exposed to an atmosphere that could make you sick, or at the very least uncomfortable?
Submitted by userpete86 (user info) at 2005-10-12 12:32:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh no you don't... I already went to one link on your post, I'm not reading all that too.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-10-12 12:14:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What you wrote seems to be well researched and you do raise some interesting points. +2 on this basis.
Obviously, there are alot of inverese factors to consider on top of the ones you have written about.
In all honesty, the fairest way to go could possibly be to allow these establishments to have small designated smoking rooms, which are seperated and entirely sealed off from the remainder of the venue. No alcohol would be served in the smoking rooms, which would mean bar staff don't have to endure the smoke, and paying customers who are smokers won't be put off from going to pubs/clubs.