|
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 |
Wad
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:02 pm Post subject: How far do we take these bans? |
 |
|
How far are the anti-smokers prepared to take these bans? I get the feeling their mission would be a complete ban on smoking...everywhere!
I've heard recently that in some places the police may issue citations for people who are smoking in their cars if children are present.
What if I throw a party in my private residence and non-smokers show up. Am I to ban all smoking in my own house? What about a card game with my buddies on a Friday night...smoking not allowed?
Lets take this a step further. Am I to also enforce drinking limits on my guests, because we all know that excessive amounts of alcohol can cause traffic accidents, violence, and civil disobedience? What about the food I serve...does it have to be gluten free? Would peanuts be allowed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DaeguKid
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Smoking is unhealthy. Second hand cigarette smoke is unhealthy. Any smoker will tell you that. Any non-smoker will tell you that. Anyone who says any different is lying to themselves and others.
All smoking should be subject to outdoors and in the case of high traffic areas, a well marked location off to the side so that non-smokers can avoid it.
Props to Korea for getting smokers out of their bars and restaurants. Folks here can twist the argument all they want and/or compare it to something else. Pointless. This is about smoking indoors and banning it.
Smokers will turn their cars around if they forgot their pack at home. They sure as hell will walk 25m for a dart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All smoking should be subject to outdoors and in the case of high traffic areas, a well marked location off to the side so that non-smokers can avoid it. |
I actually think there should be more outdoor bans than indoor bans. Outdoors is a public space and should be smoke free. Bars and restaurants and clubs are private places of entertainment and have voluntary entry and the public is free to choose whether or not to enter them.
Smoking should be free to take place in bars or clubs if the owners want to. This is especially true because such places regulate the age of their patrons and in the case of clubs, many pay a cover charge. If you don't want to be around smoke, don't enter. Just like if you don't want to see violence, sex, and nudity, you don't turn on HBO and you don't buy GTA:V. The fact that this is even an issue is utterly baffling. We all agree how ridiculous it would be to ban nudity on HBO, ban explicit lyrics on rap albums, ban explicit content in video games, and to ban fast food, cola, or alcohol. Many of us here question the wisdom of drug laws.
The "public health danger" has about as much credibility as Saddam Hussein's Iraq posing an existential threat to the free world and him being loaded with weapons of mass destruction. It works in theory on paper, but anyone with half a brain knows how utterly laughable it is. Apparently cigarettes are the margin of error in your health as you chug down a tower of beer, bomb soju, and eat deep fried food. Go open up some trendy healthy non-smoking tapa-serving cocktail lounge if you want that.
To quote It's a Wonderful Life, this is what a bar is for- "Hey look, mister. We serve hard drinks in here for men who want to get drunk fast, and we don't need any characters around to give the joint "atmosphere".
In other words, you don't even patronize the bar I go to to get drunk and smoke and chill with my buddies. What gives you the right to stroll in and tell us what to do? We've been steady customers. You're some yahoo off the street. What you think everywhere you go should exist to make you happy and people should sublimate their long-held traditions to your temporary whims? Shouldn't the issue of smoking be up to the regular patrons of the bar in conjunction with the owner? You know, the customers who plunk down their hard earned money and the person whose livelihood is based on their patronage? Or should it be some twit who has never entered there, has no intention of entering there, and who believes the entire world should follow his vision of what constitutes healthy living and entertainment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It's definitely spread to the provinces. I'd say a good 80% of places won't let you light up inside. Occasionally there will be a rogue business that might let you smoke inside. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaeguKid
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
*I actually think there should be more outdoor bans than indoor bans. Outdoors is a public space and should be smoke free. Bars and restaurants and clubs are private places of entertainment and have voluntary entry and the public is free to choose whether or not to enter them.
So smoking in department stores and movie theaters is ok too? After all they are indoors. Public has the right to choose whether or not to enter them. 
Tell ya what, let us go another step further! How about all factories knock down their smokestalks and let the factory workers suck in the toxins. After all, it is their choice to work there. 
*Smoking should be free to take place in bars or clubs if the owners want to.
And what about the people that work there. Should they put up with it as well? I will assume you will say yes. It is there choice to work there, right? Heaven forbid someone have a healthy work enviorment.
*Just like if you don't want to see violence, sex, and nudity, you don't turn on HBO and you don't buy GTA:V. The fact that this is even an issue is utterly baffling. We all agree how ridiculous it would be to ban nudity on HBO, ban explicit lyrics on rap albums, ban explicit content in video games, and to ban fast food, cola, or alcohol. Many of us here question the wisdom of drug laws.
Welcome to Daves. Home of the twists to make one's argument correct.
*The "public health danger" has about as much credibility as Saddam Hussein's Iraq posing an existential threat to the free world and him being loaded with weapons of mass destruction. It works in theory on paper, but anyone with half a brain knows how utterly laughable it is.
Oh, this is gold. Cigarettes and WMD's. Of course there is a correlation.
*Apparently cigarettes are the margin of error in your health as you chug down a tower of beer, bomb soju, and eat deep fried food. Go open up some trendy healthy non-smoking tapa-serving cocktail lounge if you want that.*
Doing real well here. Lets twist this BIG TIME! We went from just not having ciggies in a bar to margin of error on one's health to beer, soju and fried food. Now because we don't want ciggies, it is a tapa-serving cocktail lounge. How much further can you warp this conversation? We are talking about ciggys in a bar, not what drink is served or side dish can be ordered. Amazing. You should call yourself 6 Flags with all the twists and loops you have like their rollercoasters.
*To quote It's a Wonderful Life, this is what a bar is for- "Hey look, mister. We serve hard drinks in here for men who want to get drunk fast, and we don't need any characters around to give the joint "atmosphere". [/quote]
The above quote never mentions anything about smoking. Zilch. Nadda. So....
This may come as a shock to you, what if the people who voted for this are smokers? What if other smokers are for this? For the record, I am a smoker. I don't mind going outside for a dart. I actually prefer it. I would rather not blow smoke in my friends face and stink up the room. Would you? Are you that selfish? I would rather stand on the street and blow my filthy poisoned filled air into the direction where no one is.
I will stand by my original post. Smoking is dirty and unhealthy. Am I an idiot for puffing away? Hells yeah! No one should be exposed to it indoors. Patrons, employees and ownership. You want to have a dart, get off one's arse, go outside, burn down and then go back to a cleaner room. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tophatcat
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Location: under the hat
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails defends smoking and the captain of the SEWOL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Squire
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Location: Jeollanam-do
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DaeguKid wrote: |
So smoking in department stores and movie theaters is ok too? After all they are indoors. Public has the right to choose whether or not to enter them.
And what about the people that work there. Should they put up with it as well? I will assume you will say yes. It is there choice to work there, right? Heaven forbid someone have a healthy work enviorment.
|
He said if the owners want it to be allowed. That won't happen in department stores and cinemas so it's a moot point.
Yes, it is their choice to work there and that should be the end of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaeguKid
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Squire wrote: |
| DaeguKid wrote: |
So smoking in department stores and movie theaters is ok too? After all they are indoors. Public has the right to choose whether or not to enter them.
And what about the people that work there. Should they put up with it as well? I will assume you will say yes. It is there choice to work there, right? Heaven forbid someone have a healthy work enviorment.
|
He said if the owners want it to be allowed. That won't happen in department stores and cinemas so it's a moot point.
Yes, it is their choice to work there and that should be the end of it. |
And why isn't allowed it in department stores? We all know this answer....Because it is unhealthy.
Yes, you are right, it is one's choice to work where they work, but not for everyone. People need to get by in life and sadly deal with what they got.
I find it baffling that people defend this. But as it goes. Ideally, and I stress ideally, we have governments to make the right decisions for the people they govern. For example, wear a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. Life expectancy. Buckle up. Once again, life expectancy. Don't surround yourself with ciggy smoke...life expectancy. It is not a law created on shits and giggles. It is made with substanial reasoning. Not all laws are, but this one surely is. At least, that is how I feel.
I will go out on a limb here, that in Korea, as a whole, more people now enjoy going out to the non-smoking bars and that the smokers are not too bothered with going outside. Win win. That is how I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So smoking in department stores and movie theaters is ok too? After all they are indoors. Public has the right to choose whether or not to enter them. Rolling Eyes |
In theory, yes. If someone wants to have smoking in their dept. store, then fine. However I doubt they'd get much business. Same with a movie theater. Would it be wrong to open up a movie theater to cater specifically to smokers?
| Quote: |
| And what about the people that work there. Should they put up with it as well? I will assume you will say yes. It is there choice to work there, right? Heaven forbid someone have a healthy work enviorment. |
First, most people who work at bars and restaurants smoke themselves. Usually its a way for them to relieve their stress from dealing with lordly, uptight, sanctimonious customers who see them as existing in order to make their lives happy.
Why don't you let those employees speak for themselves instead of condescendingly treating them like children and that you know what's best for them. Don't presume to speak for them. You haven't asked their opinion, so you don't know it.
| Quote: |
| Would you? Are you that selfish? |
If my friends don't want me to smoke around them or to go to a smoking establishment, they can say so. We're friends. We talk to each other and share our opinions and speak honestly. That's why we're friends. I'll gladly refrain from doing so. However if the people I'm hanging out with are all smokers, why shouldn't we be able to freely choose to be around other smokers in a bar that caters to smokers?
| Quote: |
| I would rather not blow smoke in my friends face and stink up the room. |
Why is what goes on between you and your friends, any of the government's business? Why does the government have to step in and regulate what should be a discussion between you and your friends over what behavior to do around them?
| Quote: |
| No one should be exposed to it indoors. Patrons, employees and ownership |
Well if the patrons all smoke, the employees smoke, and the owner smokes or they don't care, then why not? Shouldn't they be able to freely associate with each other and enjoy a perfectly legal activity in a private business together?
| Quote: |
| Yes, you are right, it is one's choice to work where they work, but not for everyone. |
WRONG. Slavery and indentured servitude is illegal. You DO have the choice where you work, just because the choice may be difficult and may have consequences does not mean you do not have a choice.
| Quote: |
| we have governments to make the right decisions for the people they govern. For example, wear a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. Life expectancy. Buckle up. Once again, life expectancy. Don't surround yourself with ciggy smoke...life expectancy. |
We have governments to regulate matters of governance, not to dictate people'e private lives and who they freely associate with and certainly not to regulate a disagreement between friends over which bar to go to- smoking or non.
So, do you think the government should regulate what people eat? Obesity and bad diet is a bigger killer than smoking is these days. Should we regulate that?
| Quote: |
| It is made with substanial reasoning. Not all laws are, but this one surely is. At least, that is how I feel. |
A law may be well-reasoned, that doesn't make it wise.
I disagree. It is a law based on personal disgust that retroactively searched for a justification. Again, sort like Saddam Hussein. First we decide we're disgusted by him, then we retroactively search for a reason to justify our position and engage in a fear'n'smear campaign. And like the War in Iraq, the War on Tobacco will eventually reap poor long-term consequences. Some places will try prohibition, fueling organized crime. Same with excessive taxes, which are currently fueling organized crime and even terrorists. Our governments have ceased using tobacco tax revenue as "bonus" money or to pay for health care but instead have come to rely upon it for funding education. Of course this has created a paradox where our schools are dependent upon that money while our government is trying to reduce the number of smokers and the tax base that supplies that money for the schools!
And that's why its not always a good idea for government to jump in and regulate things. It sometimes creates more problems than it solves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So smoking in department stores and movie theaters is ok too? After all they are indoors. Public has the right to choose whether or not to enter them. Rolling Eyes |
In theory, yes. If someone wants to have smoking in their dept. store, then fine. However I doubt they'd get much business. Same with a movie theater. Would it be wrong to open up a movie theater to cater specifically to smokers?
| Quote: |
| And what about the people that work there. Should they put up with it as well? I will assume you will say yes. It is there choice to work there, right? Heaven forbid someone have a healthy work enviorment. |
First, most people who work at bars and restaurants smoke themselves. Usually its a way for them to relieve their stress from dealing with lordly, uptight, sanctimonious customers who see them as existing in order to make their lives happy.
Why don't you let those employees speak for themselves instead of condescendingly treating them like children and that you know what's best for them. Don't presume to speak for them. You haven't asked their opinion, so you don't know it.
| Quote: |
| Would you? Are you that selfish? |
If my friends don't want me to smoke around them or to go to a smoking establishment, they can say so. We're friends. We talk to each other and share our opinions and speak honestly. That's why we're friends. I'll gladly refrain from doing so. However if the people I'm hanging out with are all smokers, why shouldn't we be able to freely choose to be around other smokers in a bar that caters to smokers?
| Quote: |
| I would rather not blow smoke in my friends face and stink up the room. |
Why is what goes on between you and your friends, any of the government's business? Why does the government have to step in and regulate what should be a discussion between you and your friends over what behavior to do around them?
| Quote: |
| No one should be exposed to it indoors. Patrons, employees and ownership |
Well if the patrons all smoke, the employees smoke, and the owner smokes or they don't care, then why not? Shouldn't they be able to freely associate with each other and enjoy a perfectly legal activity in a private business together?
| Quote: |
| Yes, you are right, it is one's choice to work where they work, but not for everyone. |
WRONG. Slavery and indentured servitude is illegal. You DO have the choice where you work, just because the choice may be difficult and may have consequences does not mean you do not have a choice.
| Quote: |
| we have governments to make the right decisions for the people they govern. For example, wear a helmet if you ride a motorcycle. Life expectancy. Buckle up. Once again, life expectancy. Don't surround yourself with ciggy smoke...life expectancy. |
We have governments to regulate matters of governance, not to dictate people'e private lives and who they freely associate with and certainly not to regulate a disagreement between friends over which bar to go to- smoking or non.
So, do you think the government should regulate what people eat? Obesity and bad diet is a bigger killer than smoking is these days. Should we regulate that?
| Quote: |
| It is made with substanial reasoning. Not all laws are, but this one surely is. At least, that is how I feel. |
A law may be well-reasoned, that doesn't make it wise.
I disagree. It is a law based on personal disgust that retroactively searched for a justification. Again, sort like Saddam Hussein. First we decide we're disgusted by him, then we retroactively search for a reason to justify our position and engage in a fear'n'smear campaign. And like the War in Iraq, the War on Tobacco will eventually reap poor long-term consequences. Some places will try prohibition, fueling organized crime. Same with excessive taxes, which are currently fueling organized crime and even terrorists. Our governments have ceased using tobacco tax revenue as "bonus" money or to pay for health care but instead have come to rely upon it for funding education. Of course this has created a paradox where our schools are dependent upon that money while our government is trying to reduce the number of smokers and the tax base that supplies that money for the schools!
And that's why its not always a good idea for government to jump in and regulate things. It sometimes creates more problems than it solves. |
Your tax argument, as it has been from the beginning, is nonsense. Local school districts do not "rely on it."
Just like you're addicted to nicotine, you seem to be addicted to lying.
This is not an example of government regulation creating more problems that it solves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| This is not an example of government regulation creating more problems that it solves. |
Yes, that's true. Now we need sugar regulation (worldwide), to stop the metabolic syndrome / obesity epidemics. And gun regulation (USA) to stop the senseless death. These are not examples of government regulation that create more problems than they solve, they are all win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| This is not an example of government regulation creating more problems that it solves. |
Yes, that's true. Now we need sugar regulation (worldwide), to stop the metabolic syndrome / obesity epidemics. And gun regulation (USA) to stop the senseless death. These are not examples of government regulation that create more problems than they solve, they are all win. |
The vote on a soda sales tax in Berkeley (and San Francisco), if it wins, could hopefully be the start of a national movement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| This is not an example of government regulation creating more problems that it solves. |
Yes, that's true. Now we need sugar regulation (worldwide), to stop the metabolic syndrome / obesity epidemics. And gun regulation (USA) to stop the senseless death. These are not examples of government regulation that create more problems than they solve, they are all win. |
The vote on a soda sales tax in Berkeley (and San Francisco), if it wins, could hopefully be the start of a national movement. |
LOL, voting?? Yeah right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| KimchiNinja wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| This is not an example of government regulation creating more problems that it solves. |
Yes, that's true. Now we need sugar regulation (worldwide), to stop the metabolic syndrome / obesity epidemics. And gun regulation (USA) to stop the senseless death. These are not examples of government regulation that create more problems than they solve, they are all win. |
The vote on a soda sales tax in Berkeley (and San Francisco), if it wins, could hopefully be the start of a national movement. |
LOL, voting?? Yeah right. |
Yes, right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KimchiNinja
Joined: 01 May 2012
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't follow politics, did Koreans vote for this smoking ban? |
|
| 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
