Smokers vs Non Smokers Rights

Impact

Registered Member
V.I.P.
#1
I wasn't sure where to put this, so move accordingly if its in the wrong place.

Last night, I was having a discussion with a friend over smoking, and smoking laws, and it got rather heated. We couldn't agree on whether the rights of the smoker or the non-smoker should be put first. The law against smoking inside public places (pubs, restaurants, etc) came up. There are going to be complaints either way. The smokers complaining because they're getting kicked outside to smoke, or the non-smokers because they have to breath in the second hand smoke, so whose rights should be put first? I'm not sure 'rights' is the correct term, but i'm sure you all get the gist of what I mean.

Thoughts?
 

Twitch

Registered Member
#2
Well, isn't it the owner's choice to make them go outside? It's his right to do that, just like it's his right to let them stay inside, or have smoking rooms, etc.
 

Impact

Registered Member
V.I.P.
#3
Well, isn't it the owner's choice to make them go outside? It's his right to do that, just like it's his right to let them stay inside, or have smoking rooms, etc.
Here it's law that there's no smoking inside in public places. The owner doesn't get the choice. I should have guessed it would have been different over there.
 

Mirage

Administrator
Staff member
V.I.P.
#6
Here it's law that there's no smoking inside in public places. The owner doesn't get the choice. I should have guessed it would have been different over there.
Actually in a lot of cities here it's now illegal to smoke inside. It's also illegal to smoke outside too though in public areas in a lot of the same areas.

Let's put the question into perspective.

Who's rights are more important? The people who want to swim in the pool or the people who want to poop in the pool?

That's how I see it.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#7
Last night, I was having a discussion with a friend over smoking, and smoking laws, and it got rather heated. We couldn't agree on whether the rights of the smoker or the non-smoker should be put first. The law against smoking inside public places (pubs, restaurants, etc) came up. There are going to be complaints either way. The smokers complaining because they're getting kicked outside to smoke, or the non-smokers because they have to breath in the second hand smoke, so whose rights should be put first? I'm not sure 'rights' is the correct term, but i'm sure you all get the gist of what I mean.

Thoughts?
Smokers are harming those around them, thus they should only be allowed to smoke in private establishments or in specified areas. It's a gross habit but neither the smoker or nonsmoker are "more important". Both have made their decision regarding smoking and those choices should be respected. However, smoking has all kinds of nasty side effects and can have short term effects especially on people with asthma so they should have the common courtesy and decency to go outside or away from people that don't wish to breathe that nasty shit in.

Not all of us enjoy shaving years off of our lives.
 

AnitaKnapp

It's not me, it's you.
V.I.P.
#8
IMO, it should be up to the owners of the establishments. There should be regulations in place to where smoking is in a separate room with the type of ventilation system that will suck up the smoke.

However, I look at it more like it's a gross violation of the owner's rights. If you own a business, what right does the government have to tell you that a legal action cannot take place on your property? That's just bullshit.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#10
Non-smokers have rights, smokers have privileges.

Its as simple as that.
No, it's not. Both have rights. Like I said previously and Anita did as well, the real point of this conversation is public versus private. All public areas should be smoke free. Private establishments should be allowed to choose simply because they're private. A public place should be devoid from smoking.
 
Top