|
|
"True American"
|
[ New Topic]
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
 |
| 6594 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by Gum Tree 1187 days ago |
  |
I met a guy in HK airport who was bemoaning that back in the States, he was no longer able to smoke in restaurants, bars etc. He said "I am a true American, I believe in my rights". OK, he was a recognisable type, so it is not just a US bashing thing. But ... it occurred to me that once a country starts promoting a bill of rights etc that the average citizen starts to think it is all about their own personal rights, not the rights of everybody. So - is it a good idea to have a 'bill of rights' enshrined in law? I doubt it.
"Marooned on a rock with 80,000 and now 90,000 alcoholics and counting"
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 492 Posts |
| But not new |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by Gweilo 1187 days ago |
|
American schoolkids for ages have had to debate in classrooms whether someone has the "right" to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Some years ago it would just have been a practical joke. Now it would probably get someone thrown in the can. There are rights, and then there are rights. That's what being in a society is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
| Junior Member |
 |
| 578 Posts |
| in |
| Australia |
|
| posted by npg 1187 days ago |
|
look at russle crowe. he is now facing 8 years for throwing a phone at some one.
to the case of the guy you met in the airport. he is just a selfish pig!
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 83 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by HKGringo 1187 days ago |
|
There is not a 'right to smoke' in the Bill of Right's or in the Constitution. This guy's just a whiner.
However...this is a problem with the US govt. getting too big and butting into personal issues. It should be the individual establishments that make a determination that it will be a non-smoking rest/bar, not the govt dictating that.
The problem here is that you (not singling you out) and many others view the bill of rights and the constitution improperly.
(and if Russel Crowe wants to assault a desk clerk with a telephone, why should he not face charges on that??)
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6594 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by Gum Tree 1187 days ago |
|
No, gringo, twasn't me that viewed it that way - it was this guy. But when I told him that my daughter (a non-smoker) worked bars in Europe in her gap year and would be working bars as a student, and that I was p*ssed off because we protected her against second hand smoke for her health and WhyTF should HER health be compromised because he thought he had a right to smoke ... well, he did back down and agree. I just thought that the first gunfire of "my rights" in his case was from the Bill. And countries that don't have one don't tend to talk like that. My observations.
Agree about Crowe btw. Assault, unlike some other laws, is pretty easy to distinguish. But 8 years??????? Something has to be done about sentences.
"Marooned on a rock with 80,000 and now 90,000 alcoholics and counting"
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 83 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by HKGringo 1187 days ago |
|
first off, Russel Crowe, this is what the media has listed as the maximum possible sentence for 3 charges...it's what he was booked with...you and I both know that he most likely won't spend a day behind bars. 2 charges will probably be dropped right off the bat and he'll receive a fine and probation for the other...I'll never understand why people immediatly fall for whatever the mainstream media feeds them...
Now...to the issue at hand. If this guy believes that it's his 'right' under the const. to smoke in a bar than he's an idiot...agreed. But, your daughter is old enough to make her own decisions...if she chooses to work in a bar where they allow smoking, then it's a risk that she accepts as an adult. I don't want my country to turn into a nanny state...her health is compromised b/c she chooses to work in a bar that allows smoking, not b/c this guy decides to have a beer there one day and lights up.
It all boils down to taking responsibilty for your own actions. Conratulations on raising your child away from second hand smoke. It's now time for her to make her own decisions and live her life as she sees fit...you taught her right, she'll make the right decisions on her own.
It seems to me that you may not have read the Bill of Rights. Please do so before condemning it as you have. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
I challenge you to find one amendment in here that you don't feel people in any free country should be entitled to.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6594 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by Gum Tree 1187 days ago |
|
Ummm for a kid who is studying or touring, there aren't many choices for employment that takes in the hours. Bar work, waitressing and all the service industries are common workplaces for these kids. Why should people who choose a carcinogenic substance (their free choice) be allowed to subject others to it? And I say that as a committed smoker for many years.
I have not condemned the Bill of Rights per se. I just think that when you enshrine rights, you can very easily cause the general populace to think in terms of their own, individual, 'rights' rather than the common 'rights' of all people. I think the Bill's writers intended it to be about all people, not individuals.
Just like my comments on making rules for this site, I think that if you enshrine stuff in writing, you allow the opportunity for people to stop thinking for themselves. They point to a piece of paper/ a site and argue about that instead of focussing on what THEY did.
The idiotic gun people in the US are a case in point. They have totally re-interpreted the Bill to suit their own purposes.
I haven't followed and am not particularly interested in Russell Crowe. But 8 years, if that is the sentence, just seems absurd on the surface. However, I don't know the facts and he is known to be a d*ckhead.
"Marooned on a rock with 80,000 and now 90,000 alcoholics and counting"
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 83 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by HKGringo 1186 days ago |
|
Again...I think you need to read the Bill of Rights. It doesn't 'enshrine' any rights to people that they shouldn't already have living in a free Democratic Republic.
It IS about the common rights of all the people...including the guy that owns the bar...a private establishment...he's not forcing anyone to work there, he's not forcing anyone to eat there...why is it not his right to determine if people can smoke there?
Your looking at the problem from a very European socialistic attitude (I'm not knocking this, it's just how I see it)...We are a very capitalist nation, for better or worse, and were raised on free market economics...let the market sort out it's own problems. If enough people want non smoking bars, then the market will create non smoking bars...the govt. doesn't need to intervene. It really has NOTHING to do with the Bill of Rights.
Here's an example...I grew up in a semi rural town. It eventually became a rather large suburb of a major city. A lot of cowboys and rednecks still there...tons of country bars and places that you'd associate with lots of second hand smoke, right? There is no mandate for non smoking restaurants and bars, however the majority of places you go to are completely non smoking...why? B/C people voted with their feet and stopped going to the smoky places, those closed down or adapted to the change...it was sorted out on it's own w/o big govt sticking it's nose in.
People aren't idiots...if you let them make their own decisions you will find that the vast majority do the right thing on their own. Problem is you have to cut the umbilical cord to get it done...this seems to be rather difficult for the socialist mentality (again, not a knock) to accept.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6594 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by Gum Tree 1186 days ago |
|
Gringo that is a classic economist argument - the presumption that the market will regulate. It is alright in theory but doesn't wash in reality. The assumption is that all things are equal and all people have equal access to the market and equal ability to affect the market forces, which is not the case. Also, if it is the case in the US why does the US create and enforce laws about other drugs eg illegal ones and alcohol? Why not let the market decide about the use of heroin, for example. Heroin users only affect themselves, not other people, unlike smoking.
Reason is that the US, like all mature democracies realise that a simple capitalistic model doesn't work for all things and that sometimes people have to be protected from the activities of others. Eg children have to be protected from abusive parents, non-smokers have to be protected from second hand smoke. The bar owner who allows smoking is putting people at risk of illness and death, especially his/her own staff. Even if they are smokers themselves, the additional dangers from the second hand smoke are huge. Would those employees have the same ability to control the smoking as the owner, no. Their only option is to not work there, but is that fair to put them under the burden of changing jobs, if that is possible? Who has the power here and therefore, who has the responsibility?
And lastly - if the market forces really worked in this case, how come it has taken so long after we learned that smoking kills, for all workplaces to become smoke free? Because people sometimes need governments to protect them from their own stupidity and the irresponsibility of others who have greater power over them. We are talking about a lethal substance, not a new model of car.
"Marooned on a rock with 80,000 and now 90,000 alcoholics and counting"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 145 Posts |
| in |
| Australia |
|
| posted by AxT 1186 days ago |
|
HKGringo, I have to disagree with some of what you have said.
First of all, I think it is pretty obvious that human nature dictates self interest. If it were left up to the bars themselves to enforce no smoking, it would not happen. Look at what is happening here in HK with the non-smoking issue. The locals here are no better or worse than what it was like 8 years or so ago in Australia before the screws really started getting put on places to provide non smoking areas. Before I left Melbourne in 2002, restaurant owners were still using a loop hole to let people smoke in certain parts of their restaurants.
People may vote with their feet but have you tried doing that in HK? You know yourself that in any business here where personal / customer service is concerned, the service is s*&t because they don’t care if YOU don’t like it or not – there are millions of others that will come along after you anyway.
I think the point Gumtree has made is accurate – the bill of rights is not just about personal rights, its about the good of everyone. Look at other parts of this board where us Expats are really p**sed about stuff. Common denominator? In HK we are confronted by a society that really doesn’t care about the next person, or think beyond their own box. This is why there are ads on television suggesting helpfulness by service providers, or helping other people with simple stuff like say sharing your umbrella when its wet (yeah, like that’s going to happen here).
The concept of other people’s rights does not enter when it comes to smoking. As much as I am alarmed at how much the US government is beginning to infringe on personal freedoms, when it comes to air pollution I think intervention of a much severer kind is warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 3523 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by sunwaterandsky 1186 days ago |
|
Rights come with responsibilities. Sure there are some rednecks who believe that their rights supercede all others, but that is certainly not the intention. He has a right to smoke... perhaps, he also has a right to be sued for damages.
He was just a bit of a redneck sounding off. If intelligent Americans really believed that he was right, there wouldn't be whole cities enacting no smoking laws.
|
|
|
|
|
| Newbie |
|
| 83 Posts |
| in |
| Hong Kong |
|
| posted by HKGringo 1186 days ago |
|
I have less issues with states enacting non smoking laws. It's more of a state's rights issue anyway. I'm just not a fan of big govt sticking it's nose in every aspect of our lives...I don't believe that this guy has a 'right' to smoke in a bar...I just don't believe it's the govt's place to tell him he can't.
And fwiw...I'm not a redneck, I'm from NY. I'm also not a smoker and don't particularly enjoy smoky bars or restaurants...again, I'm just not a fan of nanny states.
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regular Member |
|
| 6594 Posts |
| in |
| United Kingdom |
|
| posted by Gum Tree 1186 days ago |
|
Aw, you're no fun gringo. Here was I wanting a full on ding-dong battle. Tell me, do you think your fellow citizens know what the bill of rights actually means? Or do they just quote the amendments in movies and tv shows?
"Marooned on a rock with 80,000 and now 90,000 alcoholics and counting"
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Junior Member |
|
| 1219 Posts |
| in |
| Thailand |
|
| posted by life 1180 days ago |
|
Good argument
I'm bored, I'm pi*sy, and, I have no shame.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
