Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
But your reasoning is not self evident, as you present it to be. It works only for the one who can speak from a position of power. Currently, smokers have the power. They, however, are a minority, and the democratic majority are about to take that power from them. The situation will then appear thus:
If going into a smoke-free establishment is so unreasonable, don't do it.
If the need to smoke in a pub is greater than your own health concerns, then frankly, what are you complaining about?
If a pub's smoke-free status is too much for you, don't go in there. Simple as that. (You can smoke at home).
Either you accept the wishes of the majority and go in, without your fags, or if you can't go without your fags, you don't.
|
The power lies with the establishment owner.
The majority of the UK population may be non-smokers like myself, but the majority of customers at the Nag's Head down the road are smokers.
Anyone who enters that establishment currently has the choice to do so or not, knowing full well the dangers of going in.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Salu
You are repeating a lot of the thread's previous discussed issues. The problem with that arguement is that alcohol does not have an impact on my health anywhere near the degree that passive smoking does.
|
Really?
How many deaths on the road are due to people under the influence of nicotine?
How many people end up in hospital because someone under the influence of nicotine has attacked them?
How many people are unable to get emergency treatment because the A&E department is full of people under the influence of nicotine?
The problem with your argument against it is that you are forgetting that you have the choice not to go into a smokey pub, therefore the choice of whether to partake in passive smoking or not.