![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Smoking ban
Lots of people are talking about the UK plan to totally ban smoking in enclosed public places which was voted through yesterday evening. Most of my friends list who have commented seem keen, though some have reservations. I'm curious as to what those who've not said anything yet feel. Do propogate this as widely as you like. Personally I think it's a good move, though I would have been as happy with the amendment which allowed smoking in private clubs. I do think a total ban in pubs is an excellent step. And no, I don't smoke, though I have in the past been in the "Well... a bit " category. - oh yeah and just to add I am still occasionally tempted if I'm out with one of the few friends who smoke. [Poll #673518]
no subject
However, I disagree with the total ban. I think people should have a *choice*, and that should mean that people have to option to smoke if they wish when having a drink. People say that they don't like not having the choice to avoid secondary smoke. Well, how about other people's choice to smoke in a designated pub? What about *smokers'* rights? Smokers have stopped smoking at work, public transport and so on. I think one institution that allows smoking is not too much to ask.
I think one of the most concerning aspects of the ban is the imposition of the government on non-government premises and the public. They are telling people what they must do, they are telling *private* businesses what they HAVE TO DO. I think the government has intruded on the populace's life quite enough.
I like to think of myself as a responsible smoker. I don't smoke in restaurants, even in the smoking section, because people are eating. I sit away from non-smoking sections. I don't smoke at work, on public transport and so on. But I do think smokers deserve to have the opportunity to go into an environment where they can smoke. Just as others should have the chance to go to an environment without smoke.
no subject
Like many other things in life, I believe that people should have a choice. I think that *some* pubs becoming mixed-race is a good idea, to allow people to go and have a drink in the atmosphere they like. However, I disagree with total integration. I think people should have a *choice*, and that should mean that people have to option to be in a whites-only environment if they wish when having a drink. People say that they don't like not having the choice to go to all pubs regardless of their race. Well, how about other people's choice to drink in a whites-only pub? What about *racists'* rights? Racists have stopped discriminating at work, on public transport and so on. I think one institution that allows segregation is not too much to ask. I think one of the most concerning aspects of the ban is the imposition of the government on non-government premises and the public. They are telling people what they must do, they are telling *private* businesses what they HAVE TO DO. I think the government has intruded on the populace's life quite enough.
I like to think of myself as a responsible racist. I don't believe in segregation in restaurants, even in transport cafes, because people are hungey. I sit away from black customers. I don't discriminate at work, on public transport and so on. But I do think racists deserve to have the opportunity to go into an environment where they can be with their own kind. Just as others should have the chance to go to a mixed-race environment..
no subject
no subject
no subject
You have compltely missed the point that I am rather liberal, am trying to reach a sensible balance between both parties' rights, accepting non-smokers' rights.
I think you missed all of that in *you're* bigotted opinion.
Don't drag everyone down to your level.
no subject
Because your argument is completely analogous. It doesn't make you a racist, but if you believe people should be allowed to do a thing which is bad and harmful by shared consent, you need to explain why that liberalism applies to some bad things (smoking), and not others (racism).
no subject
I'm not imposing any value judgement on who is 'better', smokers or non-smokers, which is the case with racism. If smokers were able to smoke in a pub, that doesn't affect their behaviour outside of it, or how they view non-smokers. I doubt there are many 'smoker driven' beatings and killings.
Hope this clarifies things for you.
no subject
I'm yet to understand why that differs from racism - it's easy to construct a similar argument in the other case. For instance "if racists were allowed to drink in whites-only pubs, there'd be less racial violence caused by forcing people who hate each other to get drunk in close proximity to each other".
no subject
no subject
no subject
It does differ from racism in so many fundamental aspects, that I'm surprised you can't see them. Secondary smoke in closed areas does cause harm. Therefore it is fair and reasonable to provide a choice for non-smokers to enjoy an evening in smoke-free surroundings. However, I think it is fair to provide facilities in which people can smoke, if they so chose. As I mentioned before, it's not keeping anyone out of either facility - smokers can go and not smoke in non-smoking pubs, and non-smokers can come into smoking pubs. You are arguing that they are *completely* segregated, with no exceptions.
You see, it's a matter of choice whether to smoke, whereas the colour of your skin is not a choice. There are good reasons not to smoke, whereas there are not good reasons for racism.
I think you're getting mixed up in the 'hate' aspect. Smokers and non-smokers don't hate each other as people, and don't look down on each other as human beings. The only reason for a choice of facilities is just that - to provide a *choice*. It doesn't impinge on normal social interaction, and as for the example of violence, that really is spurious.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm not going to delete any comments, because I don't believe that helps, but I'd appreciate it if you could apologise for upsetting saffie - at least make it clear you don't believe she's a racist or similarly bad.
We've all seen people use nazism as an analogy in the same way you've just used racism, and I doubt you think that's appropriate. Or do you really think smoking is as unpleasant as racism?
no subject
no subject
I'd appreciate it if you could apologise for upsetting saffie - at least make it clear you don't believe she's a racist or similarly bad.
Of course I don't, I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was engaging in the normal philosophy undergraduate pastime of constructing a logically similar argument to one which appears acceptable in order to explain why I don't consider it valid.
Or do you really think smoking is as unpleasant as racism?
It depends what racists do. I'd rather sit next to a table of racists than a table of smokers, but evidently beating someone up for being black is worse than blowing smoke on them.
no subject
I'd say that wanting to have a place to be with other smokers for the purpose of smoking is more comparable to this, than racism, since there are clear rational reasons for this (as long as we accept it's not unreasonable to want to smoke), where as race segregation was based on prejudice.
There're plenty of examples where either private clubs or even places open to the public have rules about who is and isn't allowed in, from Scouts disallowing atheists, to shopping centres banning people with hoodies, and people often defend this with the argument "it's private, they can do what they like".
So the question of whether this should also apply to someone setting up a "smoking club" especially for the purpose of smoking is very reasonable I think - racial segregation may be a thing of the past, but there are plenty of more relevant comparisons which are still legal and considered acceptable.
Now, the argument for banning smoking everywhere is to do with the rights of the employees, which isn't a factor in running no-hoodie-shopping centres or single sex clubs. Or white-people-only clubs, come to that.
no subject
no subject
Sadly there seems to be no way to provide that choice.
I frequent the local JD Wetherspoons, a purpose-built pub building constructed for the company when it had a ventilated zones policy (it now has a non-smoking policy on all new pubs). I assume therefore that the non-smoking ventilated area was designated from the earliest stages and is as good or better than anything that can be retrofitted. There is an entrance straight into this area and the toliets are non-smoking (and accessed through the non-smoking area). Generally speaking only one of us will go to the bar to order during any visit. Despite all this, and the fact our visits are generally for breakfast at about 10 on a Saturday, rather than a really smokey time later, we still end up smelling of smoke for the rest of the day.
Unless you've got any brighter ideas, choice is simply not a possibility and I, as someone who doesn't like smalling of smoke, therefore comes down on the side of a total ban.
no subject
I really do appreciate your point about non-smoking areas being pointless, however :)