|
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 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| More and more often, the majority is falling into the camp that doesn't want smoking in public. That's life. |
A restaurant's not public: it's a privately owned establishment. I see no problem with, and even support banning smoking in public places. My problem lies in the forcing of restaurant and bar owners into compliance. |
Really? Can you sit naked in one?
I was under the impression that it was privately owned, yet still open to the public - and thus, had to abide by certain public laws. |
Ever been to the nudie bar to see some bigguns? |
Do you feel that those places are representative of all restaurants? Honestly, there are regulations in various cities and countries regarding numerous acts in private establishments.
I don't see the problem with smoking being added to that list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, I probably would like that aspect of Canada. I do not support tobacco products being illegal, but the idea that tobacco users have the "right" to light up in public places is very perplexing to me. |
I don't think it should be a right, and it's not in much of the world. We're more or less in agreement. But, why should no, absolute zero, restaurants be allowed to permit smoking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On a side note, Korea is making steps, albeit small ones, in eliminating some of the public smoking. Recently I noticed that at the Gangnam bus terminal they've moved the garbage cans indoors and are actively telling people not to smoke on the platform; however, the no-smoking signs preceded actual enforcement by a few years... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, I probably would like that aspect of Canada. I do not support tobacco products being illegal, but the idea that tobacco users have the "right" to light up in public places is very perplexing to me. |
I don't think it should be a right, and it's not in much of the world. We're more or less in agreement. But, why should no, absolute zero, restaurants be allowed to permit smoking? |
Well, ultimately, this is one of the rare cases where I feel local law rather than national law is the answer. Should some restaurants be allowed to have smoking? That should be left for each city to decide for itself. I personally really dislike smoking, feeling it's annoying, and would be happiest if it were exiled from all places public. However, in my hometown in America, enough people feel that bars specifically should be allowed smoking that an exception is made for them. I don't like it, but I can content myself with it.
Rather than some overall principle, I think the answer is that the people of a community should have the right to set policy as they see fit on the matter. If that means no smoking in public, I'm happy. If that means smoking being allowed everywhere, I'm not very happy with it, but my will needn't triumph over the majority; I can either live with it or move. If some mix is decided upon wherein some restaurants are legally smoke free and others aren't, it's better than nothing.
I'm more arguing that cities are within their rights to ban smoking in public than demanding smoking be banned in all institutions in all cities everywhere, while accompanying that with the rationale behind my own preferences on the subject. I'm more here to argue against the people who think smoking bans are unreasonable than to demand a universal public smoking ban over the entire world (though if one were to happen, I wouldn't be sad, so long as the majority in each community supported it). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoholDiver
Joined: 03 Oct 2009
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not hard to have higher life expectancy than USA. It's been dropping for years while other countries are rising for the most part.
Sex has been said to be healthy. As is exercise, though both are bad in excess. Is smoking in any way good for you?
Celibacy, no. My wife wouldn't have me.
Diet and health care are important, but I bet if Japan's smoking rate dropped, their life expectancy would go up even more.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
Smokers are people who forced themselves through a nasty unpleasant experience repeatedly knowing they were addicting themselves to a product that will shorten their lives, make them smell, cost them hundreds of dollars a year, and hurt the people around them.
It is overly optimistic to expect good decision making from this group. |
FDR and Churchill were smokers. Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito were not.
Long Live Godwin's Law.
Obama's a smoker, W. Bush was not.
| Quote: |
| Korea does not have a higher life expectancy than western countries |
You are right! I meant to say higher than the States.
| Quote: |
| It causes a spike in heartrate and blood pressure. causing stress. |
So does exercise. And sex. I await your pledge of celibacy.
| Quote: |
| It causes stress in non-smokers who have to suck in second-hand smoke |
Only if said non-smoker chooses to expose themselves to smoke by going to an establishment that allows smoking.
| Quote: |
| Japan has good medical care and a fairly healthy diet (traditionally). Korea has neither |
Then wouldn't that imply that a greater factor in one's health is medical care and diet and not exposure to smoke or rates of smoking?
| Quote: |
| Yes, but like most things it smells a lot less nice when you set it on fire. |
I was being a bit over the top with that one as was indicated by what I wrote later. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I believe restaurant and bar owners already reserve the right to eject patrons based on their behavior. I don't see why an entire city (or indeed country) would need to legislate a ban on smoking, barring government owned, entirely public places, when individual establishments are already entirely capable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoholDiver wrote: |
| Diet and health care are important, but I bet if Japan's smoking rate dropped, their life expectancy would go up even more. |
Then there's a question of whether that's a good thing or not. More people living further past the age of retirement means more people living off social programs and welfare. Of course you can always raise the age of retirement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| I believe restaurant and bar owners already reserve the right to eject patrons based on their behavior. I don't see why an entire city (or indeed country) would need to legislate a ban on smoking, barring government owned, entirely public places, when individual establishments are already entirely capable. |
Because regardless of what restaurant owners can do, they've very little motivation to risk it. The restaurant business is all ready tight enough without forcing restaurant owners to limit their own customer base. Most restaurants simply aren't willing to ban smokers, instead settling on a totally ineffective smoking vs non-smoking section.
A city ordinance takes the choice out of their hands, but it also takes the responsibility and competitive element out of their hands. They no longer have to worry about whether or not they're alienating smoking patrons; if no one accepts smoking, then it isn't a competitive disadvantage for them.
What I and many others (based on the trends we can see) care about is results. Letting the restaurant owners in our cities choose simply didn't result in what we wanted. This does. With restaurant owners timid about offending customers, and smokers often unconcerned with the sensibilities of others, people who are sickened by people lightning small, mildly toxic fires indoors took action. That seems reasonable to me. It doesn't seem like tyranny. It seems like the majority standing up for itself against a behavior that actively affected us. Smokers are free to smoke, as long as they do it at home, or -- depending on the city in question -- at bars or other sactioned areas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| Other people all day long are considerate of you. |
Are non-smokers automatically courteous by default then? Should all discourtesies be banned?
How does the saying go? I won't do it myself, but I'll defend the right to. Personally, I think the world would be boring if we tried to eliminate everything anyone finds offensive. |
People like you who take what someone says to the ridiculus extreme are already being disingenuous. In this case, doubly so since I already answered that question when I wrote two sentences later that discourtesy shouldn't be made illegal because sometime we need to be discourteous.
I certainly never said anything about banning everything anyone finds offensive.
You have made yourself ridiculus.
Still, I have a sincere question for you. Don't you feel bad knowing you have to be dishonest to make your point? Doesn't that make you question the side you're on?
You and Steelrails are cut from the same cloth. Try responding to the things people actually say, and not what you would like for them to have said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seonsengnimble
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Location: taking a ride on the magic English bus
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
A restaurant's not public: it's a privately owned establishment. I see no problem with, and even support banning smoking in public places. My problem lies in the forcing of restaurant and bar owners into compliance.
Really? Can you sit naked in one?
I was under the impression that it was privately owned, yet still open to the public - and thus, had to abide by certain public laws. |
I see no ethical problem with sitting naked in a restaurant and think this should be legal.
| Fox wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| I see no problem with, and even support banning smoking in public places. My problem lies in the forcing of restaurant and bar owners into compliance. |
I suppose you're also against health codes, then? They also force restaurant and bar owners to obey particular standards despite their private ownership. I further suppose you're also against laws illegalizing discrimination in lending practices? After all, banks are private entities, they should be able to do business as they wish, right?
There are many laws in our nation that regulate how private businesses can or cannot do business. Smoking bans are just one such example. If your opposition to a smoking ban is on principle, then you should be opposing health codes, anti-discriminatory practices, etc on principle as well. I for one find all those things reasonable. If I enter a restaurant, I'd like the state to ensure that it meets certain standards, and the lack of cigarette smoke is a totally reasonable addition to that list of standards. |
While I for the most part agree with you, the examples given have some differences.
In regards to discrimination laws, ideally they should not exist, but they end up serving a greater good(One could say the same about smoking bans, but stay with me here).
I personally believe that if an employer doesn't like Laplanders, and he owns a private business, he should be able to only hire those who aren't Laplanders. In reality, though, this works poorly. It ends up giving minorities considerably fewer opportunities and forces them to live as second class citizens. While many employers would be fair and hire based on skill, the end results are pretty unfavorable.
The same is true for health codes. Ideally, one should be able to go into a restaurant and order a burger with a side of feces. The customer should however have information readily available that they are consuming something which is unhealthy and can lead to disease. The problem with this, however, is that there are so many possible things which can carry diseases or toxins that it's not practical for restaurants to list every dangerous ingredient or every thing that the food may have come into contact with. Most customers also do not wish to consume all of the possible toxins their food could come into contact with if there were no health codes. It's much simpler to have health codes.
The big difference with smoking is that anyone who chooses to smoke or to sit in a place where smoking is permitted is that everyone involved is aware of the risks and unpleasantness. If I sit down and eat a burger, I don't assume that there's rat poison or feces in it. If I sit down in a restaurant with smoking, I know that people are smoking.
What I don't understand is what is so wrong with a simple compromise in laws. Before I smoked, there were laws requiring non smoking sections and smoking sections. I was never bothered by the faint smell of smoke coming over from the smoking section of restaurants. This seems like the ideal situation, but instead we have Korea where smoking is everywhere and most Western countries/states/provinces where there is no smoking permitted outside of little boxes spread around public places. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
littlelisa
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Smoke bothers me to no end. That said, actually, things aren't so bad here in Korea. There's no smoking in most restaurants (I think, actually all, other than the hofs and other places where they serve a lot of alcohol), no smoking in dance studios, and I just don't go to bars or clubs, so other than outside, I'm not around much smoke. On top of that, they're putting up more and more non-smoking signs.
Ever been to Jordan? OMG they smoke everywhere there. I wanted to kill myself and everyone around me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| seonsengnimble wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
A restaurant's not public: it's a privately owned establishment. I see no problem with, and even support banning smoking in public places. My problem lies in the forcing of restaurant and bar owners into compliance.
Really? Can you sit naked in one?
I was under the impression that it was privately owned, yet still open to the public - and thus, had to abide by certain public laws. |
I see no ethical problem with sitting naked in a restaurant and think this should be legal. |
Are you a parent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nautilus
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| people who forced themselves through a nasty unpleasant experience repeatedly knowing they were addicting themselves to a product that will shorten their lives, make them smell, cost them hundreds of dollars a year, and hurt the people around them. |
Do you drink?
....because thats even worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Yes, I probably would like that aspect of Canada. I do not support tobacco products being illegal, but the idea that tobacco users have the "right" to light up in public places is very perplexing to me. |
I don't think it should be a right, and it's not in much of the world. We're more or less in agreement. But, why should no, absolute zero, restaurants be allowed to permit smoking? |
Well, ultimately, this is one of the rare cases where I feel local law rather than national law is the answer. Should some restaurants be allowed to have smoking? That should be left for each city to decide for itself. I personally really dislike smoking, feeling it's annoying, and would be happiest if it were exiled from all places public. However, in my hometown in America, enough people feel that bars specifically should be allowed smoking that an exception is made for them. I don't like it, but I can content myself with it.
Rather than some overall principle, I think the answer is that the people of a community should have the right to set policy as they see fit on the matter. If that means no smoking in public, I'm happy. If that means smoking being allowed everywhere, I'm not very happy with it, but my will needn't triumph over the majority; I can either live with it or move. If some mix is decided upon wherein some restaurants are legally smoke free and others aren't, it's better than nothing.
I'm more arguing that cities are within their rights to ban smoking in public than demanding smoking be banned in all institutions in all cities everywhere, while accompanying that with the rationale behind my own preferences on the subject. I'm more here to argue against the people who think smoking bans are unreasonable than to demand a universal public smoking ban over the entire world (though if one were to happen, I wouldn't be sad, so long as the majority in each community supported it). |
Cant really say I'm in disagreement with that. After all a community should be able to regulate something like that.
I think a state-wide ban is a bit much, but a local ban is fine with me. I feel that way about most 'vice laws'. If one county wants to ban smoking in bars, that's fine. Let the people do what they want to do.
I'm more in favor of it being in the hands of private establishments, but in this world a local ban is the lesser of two evils and even then its not really an evil because you get the good of local control and the will of the people with it.
If this were a negotiation I'd vote to agree with Fox's proposal of leaving such bans up to local communities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanExile
Joined: 04 May 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nautilus wrote: |
| AmericanExile wrote: |
| people who forced themselves through a nasty unpleasant experience repeatedly knowing they were addicting themselves to a product that will shorten their lives, make them smell, cost them hundreds of dollars a year, and hurt the people around them. |
Do you drink?
....because thats even worse. |
I would be interested in the line of logic that supports that conclusion.
In answer to your question, yes but not much. I am content to be mocked for drinking water most of the time. Not because I'm a puritan but because I have alcoholism on both sides of my family tree. The Irish / German combo is a killer. On the plus side, I am rarely late. |
|
| 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
