| Product: |
Should smoking be banned in public places? |
| Date: |
30/01/01 (13 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: See opinion
Disadvantages: See opinion
Hmmm, now this one is a hard one to write about. It's difficult, because you can make an excellent argument either way. I don't believe that you can build a conclusive argument either for or against a ban, as there are inevitably going to be serious holes in both arguments. Personally, I am all for a ban on smoking in public places, simply from the selfish point of view that it benefits me. I fail to see how anyone can make an argument that doesn't go along the lines of "I want this because it benefits me" when it comes to this topic though. Let me say that I believe very firmly in people's rights to be assholes. I also believe in people's rights to be hypocrites. Why? Because whether we admit it to ourselves or not, we all do at least one thing that really seriously gets on other peoples nerves, and we all criticise other people's annoying habits, and lack of consideration, without stopping to think about our own. I also don't like the idea of the "nanny state" and of self-appointed moral guardians that try to tell us what's best for us, what we should do, and even what we should think. I respect people's rights to poison their minds and bodies, and generally do all that is bad in life. Having said all that though, I would rather not have someone force their choices onto me. Otherwise, does that make them any better, any more "right" than those whining "moral and social guardians" who they so detest? Smokers seem very eager to complain about those types of people, but yet they don't give a damn when they've blowing their smoke into other peoples faces. How's it any different? You can move away they say... well, yes, sometimes you can, sometimes you cannot though. (I'm thinking particularly of packed restaurants where non-smoking sections border smoking ones and smoke drifts across, or bus queues
etc) They of course can "move away" from the moral crusaders, by choosing not to listen to them, so again, how's it any different? As I said, I believe in the right of hypocrisy, but I am just trying to point out some of the flaws in the arguments of those who are against a ban. The only thing that I can come up with that wins my side of the argument for me, trying to be objective, is that the majority is very definitely for a ban on smoking in public places. Most people have chosen not to smoke, therefore they should not have it forced upon them my the minority. Simple democratic principle: Majority rules. I'm not saying that I think smoking should be banned completely. We'd be in serious trouble without the taxation that smokers provide, and what is wrong with consenting adults smoking in the privacy of their own homes or exclusively in areas with other smokers? It doesn't affect non-smokers, so I can't see anything wrong with that. I'm not going to come out with the usual arguments about it putting a strain on the health service etc either... because I'm probably putting as much strain on the health service with all that junk food I eat. All of us are putting a strain on the health service. It's one of the reasons that it is in such a state, but that's another topic. The only other thing that I would like to comment on before I sign this one off is the argument about smokers having to find a place to light up if a ban went through. I have to say that's just tough. There's 101 things that I would like to do in public that I can't. I just have to exercise some restraint. You should do the same. In both of the cities that I live in, I can't even enjoy a quiet drink outdoors, and that affects no-one else at all. Not unless I'm planning on having 10 quiet (or rather loud!) drinks. By all
means, continue to kill yourselves in the privacy of your own homes, and with other like minded individuals, but please do not pass on your noxious fumes to me. I'm already busy killing myself in more pleasurable ways!
Summary:
|
Last comment:
|
- 19/02/01 I agree. I don't see why I should have to put up with people deliberately or without any concern or consideration damaging my health. If they injured me with their fist it would be called assault. Why shouldn't doing it with their tabacco fumes also be considered an assault?
As to the taxation issue, that's only short term. Long term the difference would be more than made up for by the dramatically reduced load on the National Health Service. |
|