Smoking ban

[lnr]

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]

Comments

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

I don't think they are in anyway comparable. I am talking about a matter of health, which I believe is a perfectly acceptable justification for offering some kind of choice for people. Racism has no logical basis. Offering separate accommodation does.
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.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Sure, I'm not arguing about whether one is better than another. I'm arguing about whether people who want to do a harmful and unacceptable thing should be allowed to do it in clearly designated premises.

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".

[mobbsy.livejournal.com]

A smoker or non-smoker could go into a segregated premesis simply by modifying their behaviour, if only for a short time. Racial segregation has no such analogy.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Maybe. I still think in the case of non-smokers they can go into a segregated premise by taking the risk of coming to harm as a result, therefore...

[ms-saffie.livejournal.com]

Harmful, yes. Unacceptable, no. Making non-smokers breathe in your smoke may be considered unacceptable because you are imposing something on them that is detrimental. As a by-product, you can also argue that making their clothes smell of something they don't like is also unpleasant.

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.

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

You might have a point on racism, I need to think about it more when I haven't been on a late train and the rush hour underground and am not VERY HUNGRY. I stand by my violence analogy however, that's precisely what smoking at someone is - it's directly causing them harm - in effect, it is attacking them with a weapon. Not a very good one in the short term, I'll grant you, but that's not the point.