View Single Post
Old
06-01-2006, 04:31 PM
  #84
Richer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habfan4
Yet another bad analogy. Alcohol only negatively affects bar and restaurant employees in limited circumstances, and employees can take reaonable precautions to mitigate that risk (cutting people off, refusing admission etc...). How exactly do you prevent yourself from breathing in 2nd hand smoke if patrons are allowed to light up in your place of work?



From a smokers perspective it's limiting, but from socities perspective it's a reasonable limitation (like speed limits or seat belt laws). It boils down to this: A person's ability to exercise their choice to smoke ends when it impacts on the health of others in a public place. If you disagree with that as policy on the basis of a smokers narrow self interest (I would say disregard) then so be it.
Alcohol is a hell of a lot more dangerous than smoking. Cigarettes didn't smash the windows of the businesses on Whyte Ave but drinking has a huge part to play. To say drinking is less of a public threat than cigerattes is absurd. Cigerattes don't kill people in car crashes, beating deaths. Affects of drinking are horrible to your body, it causes a host of diseases both immediate and long term. To argue that bars can magically place full proof rules on excessive drinking that limit the damage drinking casuses society and workers but it is impossible to do the same for cigerattes is just absurd.

I defend the narrow self interests of smokers in a narrowly definied spaces, like a smoking bar, beacuse it only affect the narrow segment of society that chooses to participate or make a living off these activities. If you are completely blind to the fact that you can create a system where society at large will not be affected by second hand smoke and only those who choose to engage or economically benefit from this activity are affected than so be it.

Richer is offline   Reply With Quote