Una Salus Lillius, on Jun 4 2003, 10:38 AM, said:
Jid if that were true, alcohol, aspirin, sodas, oreos, MacDonalds, automobiles and probably a whole sh*t load of other things would be banned.
There actually *is* no such blanket right.
The only part of those examples that I really follow is the automobiles one. I fail to see how your choice to drink alcohol or sodas (or mix
), take aspirin, or eat oreos and McDonalds would have any effect on me, or vice versa. Self poisoning isn't what's on the table here, I think.
I *do* have the right, in a philsophical sense at the very least, to be free from harm at the hands of other people.
If you came into my house and started trying to force aspirin down my throat, it'd be my right to tell you to bugger off.
In the case of automobiles and other vehicles that require engines or power to run, it'd be pretty damn hypocritical of me to demand cessation of their use, since I use them, almost daily. If you started piping exhaust fumes into my house, on the other hand, I'd, again, have the right to tell you where to go.
On the other hand, I have no problems if you choose to smoke, provided it's not near me, or at the very least for short durations.
In a place like a restaurant, smoke has a tendency to linger (and longer than you might think, says the HVAC student
It is really no more right for the smoker to be allowed to smoke in a restaurant than it is for me to demand they not be allowed to in any enclosed public space. (They have just as much a right to non interference as I after all) - but the dilemma is that the very act of allowing them *their* non interference causes interference for *me*, and most non smokers. Being in a family of mostly asthmatics (the one genetic lottery I somehow managed to win) means that even a single person puffing even several feet away, can be extremely offputting and dampening to what are normally celebratory events. (We rarely eat out otherwise)
All because they don't want to take 5 minutes to step outside? (Stepping outside, I'd say, is far more acceptable, imho. I'd much rather walk past a smoker who's smoke is diluting into the nice large atmosphere than be trapped in a room filled with the byproduct fumes of their favourite vice.)
Sure, I sound selfish. Both sides of this debate truly are selfish motives. I say go for what the majority says it wants. And if the government asks it's constituents if they want smoke free areas, well, isn't it the governments duty to do so?
Edited by Jid, 05 June 2003 - 04:07 AM.