Does the smoking ban in public places go against human rights? (62)
seekerian: No it does not. If you want to smoke do so but do not force it on others.
I do smoke but there are times when I want to enjoy what I am doing without the taste and/or smell of burning tobacco. When I am by the sea I prefer to smell the breeze. When I am eating I prefer to taste my food. When I am having a good wine I want to enjoy it. After the meal though I do walk outside to smoke. I also do when I get a pint.
Further to this, the fact that smoking is not good for health is a proven fact and to have non smokers suffer is not just. They should enjoy a public place as much as smokers do without 'The Benefit'.
I do smoke but there are times when I want to enjoy what I am doing without the taste and/or smell of burning tobacco. When I am by the sea I prefer to smell the breeze. When I am eating I prefer to taste my food. When I am having a good wine I want to enjoy it. After the meal though I do walk outside to smoke. I also do when I get a pint.
Further to this, the fact that smoking is not good for health is a proven fact and to have non smokers suffer is not just. They should enjoy a public place as much as smokers do without 'The Benefit'.
es, You are completely right. This is the way how "Consideration for the others" go together with "One's own right". Thanks for this.
Tamarin: Do you think it takes away freedom of choice?
As far as I am concerned the smokers do exactly the opposite. They take away our choice not to breathe in their smoke. If we the majority (non smokers) would stand up for OUR rights more we would make more people stop smoking. In this way the minority would start to realize how foolish they are. But the non smokers always giving in and being the good guys we put their lives in danger and some others through passive smoke. It is almost like we let them stand on train tracks knowing the a train will come by soon but are to polite to say "GET OFF THE TRACKS YOU (SOON TO BE) BLOODY FOOL"
Linking the right to smoke to 'human rights' is inappropriate. The concept of human rights is about serious, fundamental rights, like the right to free speech, to live in dignity and freedom, etc. There are many defintions on the internet, "These are the rights that every human being automatically qualifies for at birth. They cannot be denied because of the colour of one’s skin, religion, age or other personal factors. Central to the concept of human rights is the protection of human dignity. ..."
I believe had humans known at the time the destruction to the human body that smoking causes, they would never have started. Smoking began with the native Americans, probably looking for something to incorporate into a religious ceremony...why else would someone look at a tabacco leaf and get the idea to roll it up, set it on fire, and start smoking it? Native Americans were very much interested in a spiritual life and balanced co-existence with nature: they would not have knowingly done anything to their bodies that was so destructive. Now, we have huge multi-national corportations pushing cigarattes around the world, in the same way drug dealers push dope, but with the sanction of the world market and governments.
My perception of this situation is from that of a former smoker...18 years altogether on and off: I have quit 3 times, the last time was the last time, 4 years ago. I am not a born again type who gets all worked up about people smoking, but I do find it funny the justifications smokers make for smoking, including suggesting it is a human right. The issue of human rights is a very serious issue, the issue of smoking is one of a rather pathetic addiction, like a drug, like abusing alcohol, like abusing food.
I believe had humans known at the time the destruction to the human body that smoking causes, they would never have started. Smoking began with the native Americans, probably looking for something to incorporate into a religious ceremony...why else would someone look at a tabacco leaf and get the idea to roll it up, set it on fire, and start smoking it? Native Americans were very much interested in a spiritual life and balanced co-existence with nature: they would not have knowingly done anything to their bodies that was so destructive. Now, we have huge multi-national corportations pushing cigarattes around the world, in the same way drug dealers push dope, but with the sanction of the world market and governments.
My perception of this situation is from that of a former smoker...18 years altogether on and off: I have quit 3 times, the last time was the last time, 4 years ago. I am not a born again type who gets all worked up about people smoking, but I do find it funny the justifications smokers make for smoking, including suggesting it is a human right. The issue of human rights is a very serious issue, the issue of smoking is one of a rather pathetic addiction, like a drug, like abusing alcohol, like abusing food.
amelia7: Linking the right to smoke to 'human rights' is inappropriate. The concept of human rights is about serious, fundamental rights, like the right to free speech, to live in dignity and freedom, etc. There are many defintions on the internet, "These are the rights that every human being automatically qualifies for at birth. They cannot be denied because of the colour of one’s skin, religion, age or other personal factors. Central to the concept of human rights is the protection of human dignity. ..."
I believe had humans known at the time the destruction to the human body that smoking causes, they would never have started. Smoking began with the native Americans, probably looking for something to incorporate into a religious ceremony...why else would someone look at a tabacco leaf and get the idea to roll it up, set it on fire, and start smoking it? Native Americans were very much interested in a spiritual life and balanced co-existence with nature: they would not have knowingly done anything to their bodies that was so destructive. Now, we have huge multi-national corportations pushing cigarattes around the world, in the same way drug dealers push dope, but with the sanction of the world market and governments.
My perception of this situation is from that of a former smoker...18 years altogether on and off: I have quit 3 times, the last time was the last time, 4 years ago. I am not a born again type who gets all worked up about people smoking, but I do find it funny the justifications smokers make for smoking, including suggesting it is a human right. The issue of human rights is a very serious issue, the issue of smoking is one of a rather pathetic addiction, like a drug, like abusing alcohol, like abusing food.
I believe had humans known at the time the destruction to the human body that smoking causes, they would never have started. Smoking began with the native Americans, probably looking for something to incorporate into a religious ceremony...why else would someone look at a tabacco leaf and get the idea to roll it up, set it on fire, and start smoking it? Native Americans were very much interested in a spiritual life and balanced co-existence with nature: they would not have knowingly done anything to their bodies that was so destructive. Now, we have huge multi-national corportations pushing cigarattes around the world, in the same way drug dealers push dope, but with the sanction of the world market and governments.
My perception of this situation is from that of a former smoker...18 years altogether on and off: I have quit 3 times, the last time was the last time, 4 years ago. I am not a born again type who gets all worked up about people smoking, but I do find it funny the justifications smokers make for smoking, including suggesting it is a human right. The issue of human rights is a very serious issue, the issue of smoking is one of a rather pathetic addiction, like a drug, like abusing alcohol, like abusing food.
Great posting amelia.
Tamarin: Do you think it takes away freedom of choice?
There is another way of looking a people who smoke. They are actually a blessing. If it would not be for them we would probably have to pay even more taxes for the longer pensions.
All their lives they pay taxes on the cigarettes they smoke and when it comes down to being able to profit from it they end up dying a shortened life span. What a pity for them. But as they say themselves it is their decision. So be thankful that there are smokers.
Ok I am over the top again.
wooffy: There is another way of looking a people who smoke. They are actually a blessing. If it would not be for them we would probably have to pay even more taxes for the longer pensions.
All their lives they pay taxes on the cigarettes they smoke and when it comes down to being able to profit from it they end up dying a shortened life span. What a pity for them. But as they say themselves it is their decision. So be thankful that there are smokers.
Ok I am over the top again.
DEFINITELY!All their lives they pay taxes on the cigarettes they smoke and when it comes down to being able to profit from it they end up dying a shortened life span. What a pity for them. But as they say themselves it is their decision. So be thankful that there are smokers.
Ok I am over the top again.
How did this Thread turn into a SMOKER-BASHING Thread?
It's true that it's one more regulation and that takes away another freedom, like helmets for motorcyclists and seat belts in cars, etc., especially since not wearing either of those items does no harm to others.
But cigarette smoking is such a disgusting habit to non-smokers, particularly since these have their sensory organs unimpaired. Therefore I applaud the ban.
At the same time it's important to remember that once again a section of the population is telling the rest what to do and what not to, so we should be wary of that. Maybe we could limit future bans to a trade-off.
For each new ban, un-ban an existing ban, like helmets or seat belts?
But cigarette smoking is such a disgusting habit to non-smokers, particularly since these have their sensory organs unimpaired. Therefore I applaud the ban.
At the same time it's important to remember that once again a section of the population is telling the rest what to do and what not to, so we should be wary of that. Maybe we could limit future bans to a trade-off.
For each new ban, un-ban an existing ban, like helmets or seat belts?
bodleing: I posted this in the Int Forum.
No one came up with any argument against it.
With modern ventilation systems its perfectly
possible to provide smoke free areas, as well
as providing smoking areas in pubs and bars.
There could be 'smoking licenses' available to
landlords or breweries who want to provide their
customers with the choice.
Maybe these premises could be subject to random
air quality tests (paid for by the owners of course.)
If the air isnt smoke free in the designated areas,
the pub loses its smoking license.
Seems simple enough to me.
'Cause it is too simple,restricts no one,just too easy to implement.No one came up with any argument against it.
With modern ventilation systems its perfectly
possible to provide smoke free areas, as well
as providing smoking areas in pubs and bars.
There could be 'smoking licenses' available to
landlords or breweries who want to provide their
customers with the choice.
Maybe these premises could be subject to random
air quality tests (paid for by the owners of course.)
If the air isnt smoke free in the designated areas,
the pub loses its smoking license.
Seems simple enough to me.
Takes the Wind out of the Crusaders Sails!
This is a real can of worms.
My opinion is that we are allowed to buy cigarettes legally and openly so we shouldn't be restricted where we smoke them. We have to take into consideration non-smokers of course, but surely with modern ventilation solutions we could have separate smoking areas.
I was recently in the UK and was shocked at the number of previously very respected hostelries that have had to close. One example is the pub famous for crown-green bowling, The Waterloo in Blackpool. Bowling continues but the pub is closed. Why couldn't the landlord/owner be given the choice to open a smokers' pub instead of having to shut down?
I feel that the world's governments are opening themselves up to massive lawsuits here as well. Can you imagine if your local supermarket continued to sell a product (like the recent Chinese milk powder) that was proven to kill people? Yet governments are claiming tobacco is a highly dangerous substance but continue to let us buy it because it generates so much tax income.
My opinion is that we are allowed to buy cigarettes legally and openly so we shouldn't be restricted where we smoke them. We have to take into consideration non-smokers of course, but surely with modern ventilation solutions we could have separate smoking areas.
I was recently in the UK and was shocked at the number of previously very respected hostelries that have had to close. One example is the pub famous for crown-green bowling, The Waterloo in Blackpool. Bowling continues but the pub is closed. Why couldn't the landlord/owner be given the choice to open a smokers' pub instead of having to shut down?
I feel that the world's governments are opening themselves up to massive lawsuits here as well. Can you imagine if your local supermarket continued to sell a product (like the recent Chinese milk powder) that was proven to kill people? Yet governments are claiming tobacco is a highly dangerous substance but continue to let us buy it because it generates so much tax income.
amelia7: Linking the right to smoke to 'human rights' is inappropriate. The concept of human rights is about serious, fundamental rights, like the right to free speech, to live in dignity and freedom, etc. There are many defintions on the internet, "These are the rights that every human being automatically qualifies for at birth. They cannot be denied because of the colour of one’s skin, religion, age or other personal factors. Central to the concept of human rights is the protection of human dignity. ..."
I believe had humans known at the time the destruction to the human body that smoking causes, they would never have started. Smoking began with the native Americans, probably looking for something to incorporate into a religious ceremony...why else would someone look at a tabacco leaf and get the idea to roll it up, set it on fire, and start smoking it? Native Americans were very much interested in a spiritual life and balanced co-existence with nature: they would not have knowingly done anything to their bodies that was so destructive. Now, we have huge multi-national corportations pushing cigarattes around the world, in the same way drug dealers push dope, but with the sanction of the world market and governments.
My perception of this situation is from that of a former smoker...18 years altogether on and off: I have quit 3 times, the last time was the last time, 4 years ago. I am not a born again type who gets all worked up about people smoking, but I do find it funny the justifications smokers make for smoking, including suggesting it is a human right. The issue of human rights is a very serious issue, the issue of smoking is one of a rather pathetic addiction, like a drug, like abusing alcohol, like abusing food.
I believe had humans known at the time the destruction to the human body that smoking causes, they would never have started. Smoking began with the native Americans, probably looking for something to incorporate into a religious ceremony...why else would someone look at a tabacco leaf and get the idea to roll it up, set it on fire, and start smoking it? Native Americans were very much interested in a spiritual life and balanced co-existence with nature: they would not have knowingly done anything to their bodies that was so destructive. Now, we have huge multi-national corportations pushing cigarattes around the world, in the same way drug dealers push dope, but with the sanction of the world market and governments.
My perception of this situation is from that of a former smoker...18 years altogether on and off: I have quit 3 times, the last time was the last time, 4 years ago. I am not a born again type who gets all worked up about people smoking, but I do find it funny the justifications smokers make for smoking, including suggesting it is a human right. The issue of human rights is a very serious issue, the issue of smoking is one of a rather pathetic addiction, like a drug, like abusing alcohol, like abusing food.
Hi, what a great post.
I do see your point about human rights, people do get them confused.
This thread was also in the internationals and a gent over there asked me this, 'So you are saying it is a not a human right to have the choice to smoke'
Now, those sort of comments, are painful for me to read, I do find myself exasperated, but I respond in the best way I can.
I believe that the thread title, is the meant to represent 'has the ban removed our freedom to choose, so whilst the thread title is misleading and attaching it to smoking, then I think it was more to do with freedom.
Still, we still have the freedom to smoke, that has not been taken away from us either, just not in certain areas.
Non-smokers should at least be happy that there are non-smoking public areas for them now? Smokers are restricted to where they are allowed to smoke. So what is this huge problem?
Howcome Non-smokers get so het up over this issue? Smokers are those who are standing outdoors having a peaceful smoke, they are not worrying anyone, they are not screaming for "equal rights", they are not forcing their smoke on anyone else.
This, to me, is much like a Vegetarian ranting and raving at anyone eating a steak! To each their own, and mind your own business.
Does anyone here ever approach an obese person, stick a finger in their stomach, and tell them they are killing themselves with food?
I dont believe it is healthy to suck down raw slimy seafood or eat raw fish (sushi) .... but I`m not making comments to those who do....Even though there are warnings about diseases contained in raw fish.
Take the Influeza Virus ..... people continue to spread the virus at work and school .... instead of having the decency to confine themselves to their own home until it is no longer contagious.
Howcome Non-smokers get so het up over this issue? Smokers are those who are standing outdoors having a peaceful smoke, they are not worrying anyone, they are not screaming for "equal rights", they are not forcing their smoke on anyone else.
This, to me, is much like a Vegetarian ranting and raving at anyone eating a steak! To each their own, and mind your own business.
Does anyone here ever approach an obese person, stick a finger in their stomach, and tell them they are killing themselves with food?
I dont believe it is healthy to suck down raw slimy seafood or eat raw fish (sushi) .... but I`m not making comments to those who do....Even though there are warnings about diseases contained in raw fish.
Take the Influeza Virus ..... people continue to spread the virus at work and school .... instead of having the decency to confine themselves to their own home until it is no longer contagious.
smoky: Non-smokers should at least be happy that there are non-smoking public areas for them now? Smokers are restricted to where they are allowed to smoke. So what is this huge problem?
Howcome Non-smokers get so het up over this issue? Smokers are those who are standing outdoors having a peaceful smoke, they are not worrying anyone, they are not screaming for "equal rights", they are not forcing their smoke on anyone else.
This, to me, is much like a Vegetarian ranting and raving at anyone eating a steak! To each their own, and mind your own business.
Does anyone here ever approach an obese person, stick a finger in their stomach, and tell them they are killing themselves with food?
I dont believe it is healthy to suck down raw slimy seafood or eat raw fish (sushi) .... but I`m not making comments to those who do....Even though there are warnings about diseases contained in raw fish.
Take the Influeza Virus ..... people continue to spread the virus at work and school .... instead of having the decency to confine themselves to their own home until it is no longer contagious.
Howcome Non-smokers get so het up over this issue? Smokers are those who are standing outdoors having a peaceful smoke, they are not worrying anyone, they are not screaming for "equal rights", they are not forcing their smoke on anyone else.
This, to me, is much like a Vegetarian ranting and raving at anyone eating a steak! To each their own, and mind your own business.
Does anyone here ever approach an obese person, stick a finger in their stomach, and tell them they are killing themselves with food?
I dont believe it is healthy to suck down raw slimy seafood or eat raw fish (sushi) .... but I`m not making comments to those who do....Even though there are warnings about diseases contained in raw fish.
Take the Influeza Virus ..... people continue to spread the virus at work and school .... instead of having the decency to confine themselves to their own home until it is no longer contagious.
I'm a smoker and am more then happy with the way things are currently, Austria, we have smoking and non smoking areas.
Sommerauer71: I'm a smoker and am more then happy with the way things are currently, Austria, we have smoking and non smoking areas.
Ja, me too!I dont enjoy smoking if I know my smoke is drifting over another person. I will move away to downwind, as most smokers do.
I choose the restaurants I eat in ... there are many who have two sections ..... because human nature is more inclined to want to please than to dis-please others.
Here in Switzerland there is choice, at least in my village, to have a restaurant for smoking, or non-smoking, or to have 2 sections. I even found restaurants like this in Zurich city.
What is amazing me is the hysteria of non-smokers? No-one smokes inside shops/offices/enclosed areas anymore! (unless in their own little cordoned off legit area)
In Germany (in the two towns near me) there is Zero tolerance and NO smoking in any of the restaurants - but they got little sheltered balconies where one can go light up, outdoors.
Only a total idiot pleb would DARE to light a cigarette indoors where smoking is banned!
Anyway, lots of non-smokers die from the same things as smokers, with their smug-ness intact.
smoky: Ja, me too!
I dont enjoy smoking if I know my smoke is drifting over another person. I will move away to downwind, as most smokers do.
I choose the restaurants I eat in ... there are many who have two sections ..... because human nature is more inclined to want to please than to dis-please others.
Here in Switzerland there is choice, at least in my village, to have a restaurant for smoking, or non-smoking, or to have 2 sections. I even found restaurants like this in Zurich city.
What is amazing me is the hysteria of non-smokers? No-one smokes inside shops/offices/enclosed areas anymore! (unless in their own little cordoned off legit area)
In Germany (in the two towns near me) there is Zero tolerance and NO smoking in any of the restaurants - but they got little sheltered balconies where one can go light up, outdoors.
Only a total idiot pleb would DARE to light a cigarette indoors where smoking is banned!
Anyway, lots of non-smokers die from the same things as smokers, with their smug-ness intact.
I dont enjoy smoking if I know my smoke is drifting over another person. I will move away to downwind, as most smokers do.
I choose the restaurants I eat in ... there are many who have two sections ..... because human nature is more inclined to want to please than to dis-please others.
Here in Switzerland there is choice, at least in my village, to have a restaurant for smoking, or non-smoking, or to have 2 sections. I even found restaurants like this in Zurich city.
What is amazing me is the hysteria of non-smokers? No-one smokes inside shops/offices/enclosed areas anymore! (unless in their own little cordoned off legit area)
In Germany (in the two towns near me) there is Zero tolerance and NO smoking in any of the restaurants - but they got little sheltered balconies where one can go light up, outdoors.
Only a total idiot pleb would DARE to light a cigarette indoors where smoking is banned!
Anyway, lots of non-smokers die from the same things as smokers, with their smug-ness intact.
Hi smoky.
I saw this earlier, I wanted to respond, but time was against me.
I am sick of hearing non smokers screech about human rights.
I am sick about non smokers scream about how they do not have a choice.
Well, they do, just as smokers have a choice, we can take it to a smokers area, or we can go outside.
They, as non smokers can sit inside.
You are absolutely right, about smoke free buildings, any person that is good, will honour the rules, as we do on plane, trains, buses.
We seem to be the outcasts, and to associate the smoking ban with human rights, is just ridiculous.
Still, what do you expect from a soceity that sees having a child as a human right?
Sommerauer71: Hi smoky.
I saw this earlier, I wanted to respond, but time was against me.
I am sick of hearing non smokers screech about human rights.
I am sick about non smokers scream about how they do not have a choice.
Well, they do, just as smokers have a choice, we can take it to a smokers area, or we can go outside.
They, as non smokers can sit inside.
You are absolutely right, about smoke free buildings, any person that is good, will honour the rules, as we do on plane, trains, buses.
We seem to be the outcasts, and to associate the smoking ban with human rights, is just ridiculous.
Still, what do you expect from a soceity that sees having a child as a human right?
I saw this earlier, I wanted to respond, but time was against me.
I am sick of hearing non smokers screech about human rights.
I am sick about non smokers scream about how they do not have a choice.
Well, they do, just as smokers have a choice, we can take it to a smokers area, or we can go outside.
They, as non smokers can sit inside.
You are absolutely right, about smoke free buildings, any person that is good, will honour the rules, as we do on plane, trains, buses.
We seem to be the outcasts, and to associate the smoking ban with human rights, is just ridiculous.
Still, what do you expect from a soceity that sees having a child as a human right?
Of course anything that takes your freedom of choice away is associated with Human Rights...
Google Human Rights and there is mention of being FREE to make choices....
Tamarin: Of course anything that takes your freedom of choice away is associated with Human Rights...
Google Human Rights and there is mention of being FREE to make choices....
Google Human Rights and there is mention of being FREE to make choices....
I don't google anything that I am sure of.
Freedom of choice is a human right, a smoking ban that is in place is not removing our rights as a human.
Because we are still free to smoke.
I fail to see how human rights can be associated with a smoking ban.
For me it is like asking the sky to stop raining.
I am a smoker and I do not feel that my freedom has been taken away.
I see it as respect, being asked not to smoke in certain places.
Sommerauer71: I don't google anything that I am sure of.
Freedom of choice is a human right, a smoking ban that is in place is not removing our rights as a human.
Because we are still free to smoke.
I fail to see how human rights can be associated with a smoking ban.
For me it is like asking the sky to stop raining.
I am a smoker and I do not feel that my freedom has been taken away.
I see it as respect, being asked not to smoke in certain places.
Freedom of choice is a human right, a smoking ban that is in place is not removing our rights as a human.
Because we are still free to smoke.
I fail to see how human rights can be associated with a smoking ban.
For me it is like asking the sky to stop raining.
I am a smoker and I do not feel that my freedom has been taken away.
I see it as respect, being asked not to smoke in certain places.
A smoking BAN does not ask it tells you that you can not...
Tamarin: A smoking BAN does not ask it tells you that you can not...
Cannot smoke inside pubs, restaurants, and public places. I never did anyway, so therefore, it is not a ban, it is a ban to enforce something that causes controversy. Like smoking on planes 20 years ago, that was banned. I never complained, I went along with it, as I have this one, a ban, a prohibition.
You still think our human right to freedom has been taken away?
I don't see that our freedom has been.
I don't see that this issue can at all be measured against human rights.
The government may call it a ban, we get fined if we breach that, to me I define that as being asked not to do something.
And if a 'BAN' tells you cannot, then some people will take exception at being told what to do, how to think, how to act and not conform. Claim to be a non conformist.
I don't.
I see it as respecting the law, I can still smoke, it is not banned for me, just I cannot smoke in certain areas. Like if I visit friends, who do not want smoke in their house. I don't.
More Threads
1830's Music
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
How far is too far?
everything is changing
Nature
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Reality Check
Icebergs Still Around
rarotonga
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
I do smoke but there are times when I want to enjoy what I am doing without the taste and/or smell of burning tobacco. When I am by the sea I prefer to smell the breeze. When I am eating I prefer to taste my food. When I am having a good wine I want to enjoy it. After the meal though I do walk outside to smoke. I also do when I get a pint.
Further to this, the fact that smoking is not good for health is a proven fact and to have non smokers suffer is not just. They should enjoy a public place as much as smokers do without 'The Benefit'.