The moralising about saving people from themselves. Especially funny when it comes from Christians/Jews.
Again: this isn’t just a moral argument, but a practical one. Unhealthy people are a drain on society and on the health care system. Secondhand smoke is an important issue but not the only one - yes, I do think saving people from themselves is important. If the smoking ban saves ten lives a year who would otherwise succumb to lung cancer or other diseases, I think it’s worth it.
I don’t think the “give them a ride” argument stands. You are doing someone a favour there. If the smoke is that much of a problem call a cab. Also, you should never lend your car
Perhaps I’ll allow you trucks. But if you’ve got a car, and you have a wife and/or small children who ride in that car often, your smoking will indeed be extremely detrimental to their health. One could even go so far as to argue that it’s a form of abuse (though I probably wouldn’t).
I have to admit I’d never heard of a “head buzz” when it comes to smoking, and yes, the vast majority of people I’ve queried about their first smoke did say it was awful. The social aspects are most probably the most important thing at this point - but the actual act of smoking itself is not beneficial. Even the minor ideas of “head buzz” and intoxicant amplification are far outweighed by the enormous health problems inherent in smoking (far worse than alcohol or marijuana).
Also, many smokers will inconveinence themselves if other people don’t want smoke around them.
The point of law is not to protect individuals from nice people - it’s to protect them from mean ones. As long as there’s a significant number of people who don’t care about non-smokers - and there is - the protection of these people from secondhand smoke should be considered.
If you can’t make the snap decision of whether you want to go to a smoke-free restaurant or not, are you even conscious enough to worry about your health?
Again, the problem isn’t really going to eat there, but the health of the workers at these places.
starveling
I don’t think that’s a word. It does sound impressive, though, which I guess is the most important criteria.
The real test of so called “cultural superiority” is to look at what countries watch in their cinemas and listen to on their radios. Oh, sorry! Your country had to pass laws just to keep Canadian music from being drown out from the airwaves.
That has more to do with the vast amounts of cash and media coverage available to American companies than the lack of Canadian talent or impact. There’s a huge number of American hitmakers who are actually Canadian (Celine Dion, Alanis Morissette, Barenaked Ladies, and Avril Lavigne come to mind).
In short, there is no reason for a health-oriented person to go to a bar, ever!
Unfortunately, for most people looking for a date, bars are apparently one of their only recourses. Wouldn’t know firsthand, though.
The question, then, is why they chose to work at that restaurant, when there are hundreds of places that simply don’t allow smoking?
Sometimes people have to take what they can get. It’s not like waitressing is a particularly in-demand job at any time where people can pick and choose their place of work.
Or better yet, work at a factory! They take anyone at factories, the work is easy, and the pay is outstanding.
I think people might argue against work being “easy” at factories - especially for women, who usually comprise a big chunk of restaurant/bar employees.
Is that what you’ll say when they prove that video games lead to self-degenerative and occasionally aggressive behavior, and ban them?
Again: the scientific evidence towards this is minimal, spotty, and won’t stand up to rigorousness. The evidence of the health risks of smoking are overwhelming and undeniable.