NationStates Jolt Archive


Proposal: Ban on Public Smoking

Pope Adolf
06-03-2005, 18:08
UNDERSTANDING that smoking should be done at the proper time, and IN THE PROPER PLACE.

REALIZING that not all "No Smoking!" signs are taken seriously.

HOPING that this can all be changed with this resolution.

All human beings have a right to activities, hobbies, or addictions that they allow themselves to be exposed to. Public Smoking in a "No Smoking!" area is an infringement of this right. This resolution will make it a bigger deal to smoke in a non-smoking area of the public.

Public, as in not private, is defined as being in the open, in front of (thereby affecting) beings in the area that may or may not want the same things that you want.

The general public all fit under two categories. These categories are that of Smoking, and Non-Smoking. It is understood that some people, whether it be stress related or just something you like to do, smoke. However, this activity should not and will not be prohibited in areas of the public where it is not acceptable.

Example given, in a national park. Parks are where children play, tourists go to site-see, and people just generally hang out. These places should have signs up that say "No Smoking!" just for the protection of the public from second-hand smoke.

It is true that individuals should have the rights to participate in acts that they desire to without the interference of the government. However, this is not so when the rights of the public are infringed upon. When a "smoker" decides to sit at an empty table in the non-smoking section of a restaurant and smoke, he is ignoring the specific requests of his fellow consumers to NOT be around smoking.

Human beings should have the right to stay away from smoking if they choose. Whether it be for their health benefit, or just their personal preferences, smoke free areas should stay smoke free.

This resolution requests that the smoker, no matter the age or race, that ignores the posted law of no-smoking be fined HEAVILY in order to deter such things from happening.
Pilot
06-03-2005, 18:12
In trying to formulate an opinion in my head over what jurisdiction the United Nation has in banning public smoking, my head did this: o.O
Nargopia
06-03-2005, 18:13
We don't believe that this is a matter of international concern, and therefore will not support this proposal.
Frisbeeteria
06-03-2005, 19:05
We don't believe that this is a matter of international concern, and therefore will not support this proposal.
All of our objections from this discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402356) apply here. Our principal objection is the absence of an overriding international need for such legislation. The dangers of smoking and the annoyance of secondhand smoke are clear and obvious. Less obvious is the need to involve the UN.
Loratana
06-03-2005, 19:50
In my nation's opinion, the UN doesn't need to hear about this, especially since there's already a national issue about it.