1 of 2 Social Unacceptable Double Standards?

Asked By: knightwhispers 56-60, M 2 years ago

This morning, a TV station is asking for Cell Phone votes about smoking. The question is: "Smoking should be banned from *ALL* places other than inside your own home." For none-smokers this is a no-brainer because they consider smoking to be disgusting in the first place. Smoking is already banned in Public places. But ... where do we draw the line in how far we will go in taking away what some would consider to be not too unlike taking away a free-choice.Serious considered responses, please. And then take a look at Question 2 of 2 which relates to what can only be said to be the same.

[Edit] E.P. will not let me put a Link to question 2; sorry

Is This A Good Question? (2)

Add an Answer to "1 of 2 Social Unacceptable Double Standards?"

3 Answers to "1 of 2 Social Unacceptable Double Standards?"

Posted by SallySea Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:51AM

I don't smoke, and I don't like smelling smoke on people. However, I strongly disagree with banning smoking in all places but the home. I think there should be special permits for a few bars or restaurants to allow smoking. Smoking outside is fine. If I walk pass a smoker and get a little smoke on the way then I don't mind. Perhaps someone with asthma will feel differently and I can respect that.

Like (1)
Reply by knightwhispers Oct 18th, 2010 at 2:51PM

Here in England there are no exceptions; smoking is banned (by Law) in *ALL* public buildings. There are no exceptions for Bars or Restaraunts; something that smokers have had to come to terms with.

I have respect for those who smoke as much as they have respect for me ... I also have respect for those who find it uncomfortable. But there are those none-smokers that really tick me off when they complain in the streets about a person smoking across the other side of the road. I mean ... what the hell can they do to harm them and they are slagging the guy off? ... LOL
Like (1)
Posted by funkelfee Oct 18th, 2010 at 10:51AM

If everyone stopped smoking tomorrow, the taxes smokers are currently generating would fall flat... as they are used in the healthcare system to treat alcoholics and obese people (and I would only stigmatise the self-inflicted obesity here).... who would pay for that then?

Impose the same level taxes, bans and restrictions on alcohol (and maybe even fast food), stigmatise alcohol and obesity as much, and then we can talk again. I don't really understand why smokers don't speak out more for their rights - oh, right, that's because they are not abusing a drug that changes their personality and specifically their agression-levels. and are actually capable of considering the effect their addiction might have on others, and therefore staying quiet and agreeing with every new restriction that gets thrown their way.

(this tax thing might only apply to the UK... not sure about the US).

Like (1)
Reply by knightwhispers Oct 18th, 2010 at 11:16AM

You really believe that smoker don't stand up for their rights? They have been Socially opressed for the best part of a decade and have never been quiet. It's more a case of who's voice is loudest; it goes without saying that the one voice with 'power' drawns out thousands of voices *if* the voice is loud enough. I think you will find those with the loudest voices come from within Governments and it's from within here the Laws are made. And you seriously think the man on the street has enough power to stop the Politicians?

~F~
Like (1)
Posted by madeofstone Oct 18th, 2010 at 4:02AM

smoke fascism

Like (1)