We haven't all had a good rant in a long time, so maybe this will get us going. D
On the news here a pretty old bar/restaurant closed because it said the smoking-ban in businesses had crippled it. Someone brought this up at work and said that smoking should be banned outright anyway. I asked if they thought alcohol should be banned an they said that it probably should as its effects are harmful. At the very least, my workmate said smoking should be raised to age 21.
This got me wondering, if smoking and drinking is perfectly legal, why isn't the argument for allowing other recreational drugs like pot, or hell even ecstacy, much more convincing? We drink coffee and use sugar, which you could argue are also harmful, as a recreational thing too. On the flipside, smoking and drinking ARE pretty damn harmful. My libertarian streak says people should do whatever they like, but the reasonable streak in me says that smoking is pretty frikking damaging. So why are we so selective over what we can and can't have? Why the age limits? Isn't that like saying you aren't old enough to start killing yourself slowly till your 18 or 21?
Do you think we should keep it as it is, legalize, or ban the lot? Are the age limits right?
I agree with the smoking ban, and think it should be applied in every pub and restaurant.
Why? Because smoking is one drug that has a direct influence on my health without my permission due to passive smoking.
At home I was a barmaid from the age of 18, all through Uni, and spent each evening and long weekend shifts in smoky environments, breathing in second hand smoke and doing who knows what to my lungs.
Was it my choice to work in that environment, yes of course it was, but it was the only job available that I could work while studying in the day.
I am not against drugs of any kind, and if that is what a person chooses to do, then fine. But in their own home, where there are no consequences on other people.
At home, we had the right to decide if someone had too much to drink, and stopped serving in order to prevent any disruptive behaviour.
But I had no right to stop the guy across the bar from blowing smoke directly into my face for a laugh evil .
I admit my addiction to coffee, but the only effect I have on other people is my grumpiness if I didn't get my morning intake. I don't increase other peoples risk of lung cancer and heart disease.
Ok, rant over.
Thanks feel much better now D
'I've heard' that the effects of alcohol consumption are far worse that pot....
As for the smoking ban, I actually think it should be up to the restaurant to decide if they permit smoking or not, not the government. I mean if they do, and its too smoky, I won't bother going there - its their loss. I don't know if sales go up(with more non-smokers frequenting) or down(less smokers frequenting) if they have a smoking ban but surely thats for the owners to make the decision.
As for banning smoking, I would imagine the country would see riots and civil disorder on a scale never seen before... roll
A total smoking ban has been in effect in Ottawa since August 2001 and it has had little effect on sales in bars and restuarants. Sales in some have actually risen.
http//www.no-smoking.org/june03/06-20-03-1.html
I can remember when cinemas allowed smoking and the screen was often seen through a haze of smoke. The Odeon in Barnet used to have someone walk through the theater during a performance, spraying a deodorizer.
Just like movie houses and live theatre, smoking in pubs and eateries will amaze future generations.
Unfortunately age restrictions do not work on either smoking or alcohol consumption. Both are a result of young people wanting to be grown up and are difficult habits to either break or reduce the use of.
It's also unfortunate that most governments rely heavily on both products for taxes.
I cringe when i hear the govt want to **BAN** something .*Nannyism *is not my thing as im very libertarian oriented .
this does one of two things (or both ) it either makes the consumption /use /possession of that perticular item on the wish list of many more poeple then before the ban .
Or it pisses of a large percentage of the population who enjoy /use that perticular item ,and they tend to look for it illegally (example prohibition )
Smoking wont be banned outright its a cash cow ,period.
Smoking and alchohol is far more dangerous to ones health than pot and i see no reason why pot for personal use should be banned ,its a matter CHOICE of the individual as to what is ,and what is not good for that person .
As far as smoking in restuarants is concerned im a not smoker and i hate smoke in my face when in eating of otherwise , but as i liberterian its should be a choice of the dividual as to wether he /she goes to a smoking restaurant /and a choice of the restaurant owner as to wether he/she allows it in the establishment .
There is enought room in this world for people holding both opinions to eat and drink in a restaurant of there choosing .
Smoking in public places where there is a *captive audience *is imo differant .
Smoking restictions should be in place IN PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS with ample excess to a area where smokers can congregate and enjoy the habit .
Generally speaking im against censorship of any kind be it what you smoke ,drink ,read ,say ,see ,or wear . but SOME contols are nessasary with regard to excess toDrugs ,pornograghy , ,guns etc but outright BANNING OF ANYTHING no.
Who are the FEW to say what the rest of the world should be .say .ingest , see ,or hear ?
Alcohol in moderation has beneficial effects, I don't beleive there any benefits or safe levels for smoking.
I cringe when i hear the govt want to **BAN** something .*Nannyism *is not my thing as im very libertarian oriented .
this does one of two things (or both ) it either makes the consumption /use /possession of that perticular item on the wish list of many more poeple then before the ban .
Or it pisses of a large percentage of the population who enjoy /use that perticular item ,and they tend to look for it illegally (example prohibition )
Smoking wont be banned outright its a cash cow ,period.
Smoking and alchohol is far more dangerous to ones health than pot and i see no reason why pot for personal use should be banned ,its a matter CHOICE of the individual as to what is ,and what is not good for that person .
As far as smoking in restuarants is concerned im a not smoker and i hate smoke in my face when in eating of otherwise , but as i liberterian its should be a choice of the dividual as to wether he /she goes to a smoking restaurant /and a choice of the restaurant owner as to wether he/she allows it in the establishment .
There is enought room in this world for people holding both opinions to eat and drink in a restaurant of there choosing .
Smoking in public places where there is a *captive audience *is imo differant .
Smoking restictions should be in place IN PUBLIC ESTABLISHMENTS with ample excess to a area where smokers can congregate and enjoy the habit .
Generally speaking im against censorship of any kind be it what you smoke ,drink ,read ,say ,see ,or wear . but SOME contols are nessasary with regard to excess toDrugs ,pornograghy , ,guns etc but outright BANNING OF ANYTHING no.
Who are the FEW to say what the rest of the world should be .say .ingest , see ,or hear ?
Never though I'd agree with you about anything, but you're spot on on this one! :wink:
Great idea. Make smoking illegal.
And then cripple the economy of the South. roll
If you want to ingest a known toxin, whether it be alcohol, nicotine or cannabis, knock yourself out. If however, while under the influence of said intoxicant you hurt someone, you go to the Big House for a very long time.
Legalise everything except some of the more extreme porn, that's what I say.
/I wonder if I can claim skinning up a big phattie is freedom of speech?