|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I don't care what you accept. The law will force your compliance, and that's good enough for me on this topic. |
Come on Fox...
And what does that law mean? Fines? Jail for repeat offenders? More money going to the courts, lawyers, and the police state? Random Smokehilyzer testing for people suspected of smoking outdoors?
| Quote: |
| Smoking isn't a need. Needs don't enter into the equation. It's our wants against your wants, in a situation where there are no applicable principles or rights. As such, best to simply put it to a vote, which is just what is happening. |
Are issues of wants vs. wants the appropriate sphere for legislation?
Ugh.
To LDJS- Dude, people will still go to bars and many non-smoking places are cool places to be.
That and a sensible ban is no problem. I just find indoor bans silly, and especially for any place that is open after 10. I actually favor an outdoor ban. There people ARE forced to smell smoke and have a right not to smell it. Sidewalks and parks ARE public places and SHOULD be smoke free.
But the whole indoor ban and bars and restaurants, private place, is silly and a complete fail of self-control, discipline, understanding democracy and free-will on the part of non-smokers. They claim to be forced, they are not. They claim they care about their health, but really they don't. They even claim that they want to smell nice, after all Vodka Tonics are roses (especially to the police) compared to a few Camels.
The way to avoid second smoke at restaurants and bars is simple- don't go to restaurants and bars that have smoking.
It's the same as vegetarians not eating animal products- Don't go to McDonald's!
Stick to arguing the principles involved.
| Quote: |
| it's the constant stench in bars that drives me nuts. |
You do realize how bars smell when you don't have smoke right? They smell like puke and urine.
That or they smell like booze, which to non-drinkers smells terrible as well.
Maybe non-drinkers should ban alcohol in restaurants. It stinks, it endangers people's lives, produces no discernible public good, it costs our health industry money, and non-drinkers are forced to be around it when they take their families out to dinner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LDJS wrote: |
[
Why should smokers accept your compromise?
Anyway let's be honest, your smokeless clubs and bars would be dull as hell. I can imagine it now. After an hour in a bar devoid of smokers -
Non smoker 1.
"Man this is dull. All the cool and attractive, interesting people are at the smaoking bar. We're just a bunch of dull nerds staring at the walls and borinjg each other. I'm off to the smoking club where all the fun, hot people are!
Non smoker 2.
"Yeah you're right. They have kinda smelly breath and it makes my clothes smell, but heck when they're not around it's like all the juice has been drained out of life. Come on, let's go to Smokey's Saloon..." |
You don't have to accept anything. It's not going to be a compromise...it's going to be law. Around 40% of Korean men smoke (a minority) according to various Google sources. Most Korean men and women do not smoke. This ban in public places is the first step...just like it was back home.
I do not regard people as either fun or hot when they are bent over coughing up a lung on the sidewalk or in a ashtray at the bar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fines? Jail for repeat offenders? More money going to the courts, lawyers, and the police state? Random Smokehilyzer testing for people suspected of smoking outdoors? |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Presumably the same as back home. What would happen if someone lit up a ciggie back home in a non-smoking place? |
| Steelrails wrote: |
You do realize how bars smell when you don't have smoke right? They smell like puke and urine.
That or they smell like booze, which to non-drinkers smells terrible as well. |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| I don't know too many non-drinkers that go to bars... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Come on Fox...
And what does that law mean? Fines? Jail for repeat offenders? |
I believe what it actually means is that establishments are responsible for preventing it on their property or they will be fined. That's the model I support at least. The law will compel, but it will compel through the agency of businesses, who will refuse you service if you smoke on their grounds.
I doubt it's an issue that will be taking much court or police time up. It hasn't in my home town anyway; I think there's been one court case over it.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Are issues of wants vs. wants the appropriate sphere for legislation? |
When they are mutually exclusive wants which a large portion of the population feels strongly about, yes, they are a valid target for legislation.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Maybe non-drinkers should ban alcohol in restaurants. It stinks, it endangers people's lives, produces no discernible public good, it costs our health industry money, and non-drinkers are forced to be around it when they take their families out to dinner. |
There are limitations regarding what establishments can or cannot sell alcohol. There are also laws in many muncipalities illegalizing public drunkenness. They aren't as severe as smoking bans in most cases, but they exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Maybe non-drinkers should ban alcohol in restaurants. It stinks, it endangers people's lives, produces no discernible public good, it costs our health industry money, and non-drinkers are forced to be around it when they take their families out to dinner. |
The difference being that other people's alcohol consumption has, violence aside, no bearing on my or other non-smoker's health so that's a pretty poor comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
candyteacher
Joined: 08 Jan 2009
Location: where ever i want
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Anyway let's be honest, your smokeless clubs and bars would be dull as hell. I can imagine it now. After an hour in a bar devoid of smokers -
Non smoker 1.
"Man this is dull. All the cool and attractive, interesting people are at the smaoking bar. We're just a bunch of dull nerds staring at the walls and borinjg each other. I'm off to the smoking club where all the fun, hot people are!
Non smoker 2.
"Yeah you're right. They have kinda smelly breath and it makes my clothes smell, but heck when they're not around it's like all the juice has been drained out of life. Come on, let's go to Smokey's Saloon..." |
Seriously!! Is this actually where your going with this?? Smoking is cool and non smokers are nerds. What are you 15 or something? Heck even nowadays alot of 15 year olds know better.
What ever argument you put up before has just lost all credability. Suggesting that smokers and smoking makes a night fun is probally the most ignorant this on this thread. If you cant see that, then you seriously need a shake up! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MMagidson
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DeMayonnaise wrote: |
Smoking bans in the US have had tremendous results. They are in affect in many cities and states (mostly progressive ones).
And guess what? People STILL go out to bars and restaurants even though they can't smoke in them. Gee imagine that...people out having fun, and not having to deal with second hand smoke or their clothes reeking at the end of the night.
I know you have the right to smoke, but I also have the right to not have to smell it. |
And its nice going to bowling alleys without feeling completely disgusting. Only partially. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| ... and it's the exact compromise I proposed that Taiwan has adopted that you spat on. |
Why should non-smokers accept your compromise? Why should it be the case that we have the check the hours on every public bar we go to late at night to ensure it's non-smoking? How does that benefit us in any way?
No, I'm sorry, but this nonsense is going to end. Sooner or later, regardless of the hour, any public place whose fundamental purpose doesn't revolve around smoking will be illegal to smoke in. You can keep your compromise, it's worse than what we can get for ourselves at the ballot box, and there's no valid principle which might cause non-smokers to take your side. |
By that logic, smoking bars could easily exist where smoking was the main activity and alcohol was the side dish. Kind of like a PC Bang where gaming is certainly the prerogative, but noodles are also served.
As for no valid principle, I know plenty of non-smokers who don't support blanket smoking bans on the basis of libertarianism. It is possible to have public smoking without bothering you, but the Rob Reiner anti-smoking crowd won't stop until cigarettes are illegal entirely (which will definitely have unintended consequences). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| By that logic, smoking bars could easily exist where smoking was the main activity and alcohol was the side dish. Kind of like a PC Bang where gaming is certainly the prerogative, but noodles are also served. |
I would not personally object to a provision in a city-wide ban that allowed for locales where smoking was the fundamental purpose of the establishment (things such as hookah bars, cigar shops with a smoking room, or so forth), so long as:
1) The locale was clearly externally labelled.
2) Licensing was involved, and the licensing requirements were strict enough to differentiate between establishments whose fundamental purpose revolves around smoking, and establishments which are simply trying to get a license because they think it will get them some sort of competitive edge.
Being clearly labelled and having a purpose that revolved around smoking, non-smokers would have no earthly reason to enter (something that cannot be said of, for example, bars that open after 9 o'clock at night). However, anyone who objects to public smoking on the basis of worker's rights (I'm not one of them, but there are many such people) would be unlikely to accept such a proposal.
| northway wrote: |
| As for no valid principle, I know plenty of non-smokers who don't support blanket smoking bans on the basis of libertarianism. |
I included the term "valid" in there for a reason. I clearly don't consider Libertarian principles to be valid ones. After all, a political principle is only as good as the results it creates, and we've tried what amounts to Libertarianism with regards to public smoking. It didn't create the results many of us want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NYC_Gal
Joined: 08 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are smoking bars in NYC. Because their purpose is smoking (cigars and hookahs, for the most part), it's perfectly legal.
Most smokers in the city go to the non-smoking establishments, and take their cigs outdoors.
If someone wants to smoke, I don't feel that that right should be taken away. I believe that it should be done in the privacy of one's home (away from children). I feel the same way about other substances, even though I don't partake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As much as I can't stand smoking, I think banning smoking in one's own car and in the outside sections of malls in San Francisco (or will ban) is going too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LDJS
Joined: 22 Aug 2010
Location: Earth
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not that you non smkers opinions are any more valid than those of us smokers but -
Fox, NYG, TUM et al -
So how would you feel if establishments that were given the 'smoking liscence' also sold alcohol, that is, bars for smokers essentially.
You know most of the smokers would all go there (Instead of other bars) and then there would be smokers bars and no smokers bars.
Kind of wierd but hey if you guys think smokers are not going to revolt if Big GOVT says we can oonly smoke in our own homes....
Basically if there is enough of us to form a group to be recognised, we can claim the right to have private establishments where we can smoke or drink.
If not, I'm off to Saudi Arabia as even that sounds more fun than the neo nazi, anti freedom of choice Boring New World you guys envision.
Going to a bar where I can't smoke whilst I drink my beer, play pool, darts and chat up hotties is like a pizza with no cheese on it or a hot chick that when you take her clothes of she has a beep.
If the govt does not allow bars that sell both lisenced booze and has a 'smoking liscence' democracy fails.
John Wayne, Bogie and the Rat Pack would be spinning in their graves faster than the rate of expansion.
Why do you want these people to be unhappy in their graves?
Ya ya - Lol, big hearted you allowing us to smoke in our cars and outside strip malls.
You are FASCISTS - Acknowlege it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LDJS wrote: |
Kind of wierd but hey if you guys think smokers are not going to revolt if Big GOVT says we can oonly smoke in our own homes....
|
There are several countries with smoking bans - my own country included. There were no revolts at all in the UK as far as I'm aware. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NYC_Gal wrote: |
| There are smoking bars in NYC. Because their purpose is smoking (cigars and hookahs, for the most part), it's perfectly legal. |
There are also bars that are simply bars that allow smoking, as they've installed air filtration systems that meet city guidelines to allow cigarette smoking. Is that tolerable, despite the business not being geared towards smoking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| morrisonhotel wrote: |
| LDJS wrote: |
Kind of wierd but hey if you guys think smokers are not going to revolt if Big GOVT says we can oonly smoke in our own homes....
|
There are several countries with smoking bans - my own country included. There were no revolts at all in the UK as far as I'm aware. |
As far as I'm aware, you can still have a smoke outside of your house in the UK, which is what he was talking about... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
