To be fair, it has been argued in the past that smoking does infringe on others' rights to not be harmed. Considering the idea of a social contract is to exchange some of our rights to have our properties and persons protected, and second hand smoke very much puts the persons part in question. On a side note, did you know that both tobacco and alcohol would not have been approved by today's standards of the Canadian Food Inspections Agency or w/e its called?
I'd just like to send a big shout out to all the people who smoke next to the no smoking signs. I've never smoked a day in my life, but even I can see that you're fighting the good fight. Nothing's more annoying than a group of activist whiners passing stupid regulations.
I take it you're against the smoking ban. This isn't a stupid regulation, however, for reasons which I will explain. I agree with your claims that second-hand smoke is practically innocuous (even though this seems counter-intuitive), but don't think of the smoking ban as an act by a bunch of activist whiners. I don't even think this is at all a health issue; rather, think of it as more of an issue of preference.
I detest the odious stink of the cigarette. I am sure most non-smokers are in agreeance with me. We know that having second-hand smoke blow in your face for a second is harmless, but most of us would prefer to breathe cleaner (or at least more neutral-smelling) air. There are more of us (and certainly more of us among the student population), so it looks like our preferences take precedence over those of the smokers' who seem to think it's all right to pollute the air (which we all breathe) with their cigarettes (that's my air as well!!!). You can't just walk around campus puffing away and not give a shit about OUR preferneces.
This makes for a great rationale for the smoking ban, but it also makes for a sensible solution: because there is a fair number of you smokers out there, I think there should be a designated smoking pit for you. This smoking pit should be accessible and well ventilated, yet it should not be in the way of anything important on campus (so non-smokers don't have to walk through smoke clouds in order to get to where they want).
The ban is somewhat similar to regulations against playing loud music during certain hours. It isn't harmful, but it certainly isn't preferred by those of us who want to sleep. In a previous post, Morro, you wrote that you dislike loud music so you avoid nightclubs. Well, what if I were your neighbour and I played loud music that you detested (let's say this was country or rap rock)? Would I too be fighting the good fight or would I be disregarding most people's preference for a quiet night?
Morro maybe you dont have a problem telling smokers to get out of your way or move but as Im a girl whos 5'7 and barely 100 pounds I feel I'm barely in a spot to tell people off without them laughing in my face, or if its another chick trying to start a fight with me. For me I'd rather some higher power fight these battles for me.
Fight with me all you want about natural rights cause we obviously dont agree, so just cause Im free does that mean Im allowed to fire bullets out of a gun anywhere I like as long as im not purposely aiming at someone? Or can I wave my arms wildly and if I accidentally hit someone in the face is that ok too? On each comment I made, I was speaking about the legal definition of freedom as quoted by the bill of rights
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; (b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law; (c) freedom of religion; (d) freedom of speech; (e) freedom of assembly and of association; and (f) freedom of the press.
To me this means that true freedom in this context is the right to be protected against the acts of others who are free to do as they please, section 1 with the limitation clause allows legally for any of these rights to be denied or infringed if theres an important reason to.
Just for the record, my praising people smoking in front of the no-smoking sign was mostly a joke. :) I just like irony.
randomuser: You can't compare firing a gun to smoking. Your bolded section refers to your right to declare what goes on on your property. SFU, though, is as much theirs as yours. You can't justify a smoking ban any more than someone else could justify a tie-dye shirt ban. Myself, I find tie-tye to be far more invasive and annoying than smoking.
Any attempt to legitimize a smoking ban will eventually have to fall back on the "but it hurts other people!" argument. And that just isn't true. In the lack of any credible health risk posed to passers-by, it becomes an issue of preference. And that's just not good enough to justify a ban. By default.
The ban is somewhat similar to regulations against playing loud music during certain hours.
First off, these laws refer to you pumping music near residential areas. If you were billowing cigarette smoke into someone's house, that would be an analagous example, and would be absolutely fine to regulate against. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a public place such as the convo mall. And, really, remember all the times you've been trying to study but some retarded radio station is blasting music in there?
Comments
On a side note, did you know that both tobacco and alcohol would not have been approved by today's standards of the Canadian Food Inspections Agency or w/e its called?
econ 368 to the rescue.
I detest the odious stink of the cigarette. I am sure most non-smokers are in agreeance with me. We know that having second-hand smoke blow in your face for a second is harmless, but most of us would prefer to breathe cleaner (or at least more neutral-smelling) air. There are more of us (and certainly more of us among the student population), so it looks like our preferences take precedence over those of the smokers' who seem to think it's all right to pollute the air (which we all breathe) with their cigarettes (that's my air as well!!!). You can't just walk around campus puffing away and not give a shit about OUR preferneces.
This makes for a great rationale for the smoking ban, but it also makes for a sensible solution: because there is a fair number of you smokers out there, I think there should be a designated smoking pit for you. This smoking pit should be accessible and well ventilated, yet it should not be in the way of anything important on campus (so non-smokers don't have to walk through smoke clouds in order to get to where they want).
The ban is somewhat similar to regulations against playing loud music during certain hours. It isn't harmful, but it certainly isn't preferred by those of us who want to sleep. In a previous post, Morro, you wrote that you dislike loud music so you avoid nightclubs. Well, what if I were your neighbour and I played loud music that you detested (let's say this was country or rap rock)? Would I too be fighting the good fight or would I be disregarding most people's preference for a quiet night?
Fight with me all you want about natural rights cause we obviously dont agree, so just cause Im free does that mean Im allowed to fire bullets out of a gun anywhere I like as long as im not purposely aiming at someone? Or can I wave my arms wildly and if I accidentally hit someone in the face is that ok too? On each comment I made, I was speaking about the legal definition of freedom as quoted by the bill of rights
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b) the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c) freedom of religion;
(d) freedom of speech;
(e) freedom of assembly and of association; and
(f) freedom of the press.
To me this means that true freedom in this context is the right to be protected against the acts of others who are free to do as they please, section 1 with the limitation clause allows legally for any of these rights to be denied or infringed if theres an important reason to.
randomuser: You can't compare firing a gun to smoking. Your bolded section refers to your right to declare what goes on on your property. SFU, though, is as much theirs as yours. You can't justify a smoking ban any more than someone else could justify a tie-dye shirt ban. Myself, I find tie-tye to be far more invasive and annoying than smoking.
Any attempt to legitimize a smoking ban will eventually have to fall back on the "but it hurts other people!" argument. And that just isn't true. In the lack of any credible health risk posed to passers-by, it becomes an issue of preference. And that's just not good enough to justify a ban. By default.