Article: New smoking rules not well received

Why the facepalm? Laws are set by the few for the many. Everyone has their own values and morals. I showing you that, that specific argument doesn't work.
 
Qwikslver said:
Why the facepalm? Laws are set by the few for the many. Everyone has their own values and morals. I showing you that, that specific argument doesn't work.
Click to expand...

so why are you advocating a law that will force your set of morality onto others?
You do realize that you sound very contradicting in this thread already?
 
Nicodeamus said:
so why are you advocating a law that will force your set of morality onto others?
You do realize that you sound very contradicting in this thread already?
Click to expand...

Aren't all laws forcing someones "morality" onto others?
 
sudo end thread shutdown

this is really going nowehere :p just insults going back and forth and people trying to convince each other that they get to share a similar space. this is like the whole Giza strip debate :D
 
2012 said:
Lol, the smokers are so angry now that they can't spread their filth as easily!
Click to expand...

WHAT!!! You mean to say I CANNOT spread my filthy, government regulated tobacco products to all the people around me in my office where I have never been allowed to smoke!!!! What'l I do :(

FFS grow up.
 
iAmThePope said:
WHAT!!! You mean to say I CANNOT spread my filthy, government regulated tobacco products to all the people around me in my office where I have never been allowed to smoke!!!! What'l I do :(

FFS grow up.
Click to expand...

Best you ignore them rules and smoke as much as possible. That way you commit suicide faster and have less of a chance to contaminate the gene pool. plz plz plz dont have children, they may end up as stupid as you :)
 
rakabos3 said:
Best you ignore them rules and smoke as much as possible. That way you commit suicide faster and have less of a chance to contaminate the gene pool. plz plz plz dont have children, they may end up as stupid as you :)
Click to expand...

Haha are you saying I am stupid because I willingly endanger my life with smoking? Or because of the stupid comment I made? :)
 
Ho3n3r said:
If you are a non-smoker, probably yes. It's none of non-smokers' business, I agree, up to the point where it affects us directly, i.e. people smoking where the law is supposed to forbid it, i.e. public places.
Click to expand...

Actually ponder and I probably both agree, that if smoking affects you directly (not by choice) in public grounds then you will have a case.

When it comes to private property which has been the entire argument here, you have NO case. As you are choosing to associate with smokers/businesses who allow smokers.

Ho3n3r said:
But don't worry, I am not naive enough to expect you to understand this.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the entire point he tried to make.
 
Qwikslver said:
Why the facepalm? Laws are set by the few for the many. Everyone has their own values and morals. I showing you that, that specific argument doesn't work.
Click to expand...

As ponder has pointed out, he is not forcing his opinions on you with the threat of violence.

Thus his position can be justified as at the very minimum it doesn't harm you. Your position harms him and the rights of others (Property owners).

Our position has always been if the smoker causes you harm (which you didn't agree to accept/risks) then you have a case. When entering a PRIVATE establishment you agree by the rules of the owners and if he allows smokers then YOU are accepting that risk. If you don't want to accept that risk, then don't go in the private establishment, you have no rights to it...
 
WilD_CaT said:
As ponder has pointed out, he is not forcing his opinions on you with the threat of violence.

Thus his position can be justified as at the very minimum it doesn't harm you. Your position harms him and the rights of others (Property owners).

Our position has always been if the smoker causes you harm (which you didn't agree to accept/risks) then you have a case. When entering a PRIVATE establishment you agree by the rules of the owners and if he allows smokers then YOU are accepting that risk. If you don't want to accept that risk, then don't go in the private establishment, you have no rights to it...
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that government is this country provides a public health care system. Allowing it's citizens to knowingly poison themselves just puts undue pressure on this system.

Smokers are selfish. That's the problem.
 
Qwikslver said:
You're forgetting that government is this country provides a public health care system. Allowing it's citizens to knowingly poison themselves just puts undue pressure on this system.
Click to expand...

Do you have stats on the number of smokers who require public heath care vs private health care?


Smokers are selfish. That's the problem.
Click to expand...

You are conflating two separate issues here.
 
WilD_CaT said:
When entering a PRIVATE establishment you agree by the rules of the owners and if he allows smokers then YOU are accepting that risk. If you don't want to accept that risk, then don't go in the private establishment, you have no rights to it...
Click to expand...

I disagree. Your arguement of "entering a PRIVATE establishment you agree by the rules of the owners" means that any types of crime can occur in "private establishments" because rules of the establishments can just circumvent laws.
 
2012 said:
I disagree. Your arguement of "entering a PRIVATE establishment you agree by the rules of the owners" means that any types of crime can occur in "private establishments" because rules of the establishments can just circumvent laws.
Click to expand...

No. This is in regard to smoking. If you enter a private establishment which has agreed to implement a smoking section it is ,for now, wholly within the law. If you then knowingly enter said smoking area and complain THEN you have no case. If the private establishment only has smoking section, AFAIK, that is not within the law as the establishment must cater for both or only non-smoking then you have a case. This is not saying that you walk into a restaurant and shoot someone then saying the owner agreed to allow killing in his establishment.
 
iAmThePope said:
No. This is in regard to smoking. If you enter a private establishment which has agreed to implement a smoking section it is ,for now, wholly within the law. If you then knowingly enter said smoking area and complain THEN you have no case. If the private establishment only has smoking section, AFAIK, that is not within the law as the establishment must cater for both or only non-smoking then you have a case. This is not saying that you walk into a restaurant and shoot someone then saying the owner agreed to allow killing in his establishment.
Click to expand...

Thats fair enough.
 
2012 said:
I disagree. Your arguement of "entering a PRIVATE establishment you agree by the rules of the owners" means that any types of crime can occur in "private establishments" because rules of the establishments can just circumvent laws.
Click to expand...

You are working from the premise that when the state decides to make laws (& infringe on fundamental property rights) it is just.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X