Hypothetical

[Fire]

I had what ended up being quite a heated discussion with one of my mates the other day. We were arguing about this situation. One man is standing at the train station and a second man is standing upwind of him. The second man then starts smoking, knowing that the first may experiance discomfort.
Now, in this situation, who do you believe has the responsibility to move?

1) The second man is responsible as he has not considered how is actions have affected others. If he choses to smoke that is fine, but he has the responsibility to ensure others arent affected by it, especially when he could just as easily move to another position.

2) The first man is responsible because he is the one who has a problem. The second man isnt breaking any laws, and he should be allowed to smoke his cigarette. If anyone else has a problem with it, they can just as easily move to another position.


I realise now that this is an interesting scenario, and can speak volumes on how people percieve socioty should function. I wont say who took whatever side for now, its not importaint. Neither of us are smokers.

 

[littleduck]

I had what ended up being quite a heated discussion with one of my mates the other day. We were arguing about this situation. One man is standing at the train station and a second man is standing upwind of him. The second man then starts smoking, to the discomfort of the first.

Now, in this situation, who do you believe has the responsibility to move?

1) The second man is responsible as he has not considered how is actions have affected others. If he choses to smoke that is fine, but he has the responsibility to ensure others arent affected by it, especially when he could just as easily move to another position.

2) The first man is responsible because he is the one who has a problem. The second man isnt breaking any laws, and he should be allowed to smoke his cigarette. If anyone else has a problem with it, they can just as easily move to another position.


I realise now that this is an interesting scenario, and can speak volumes on how people percieve socioty should function. I wont say who took whatever side for now, its not importaint. Neither of us are smokers.

I think the answer could go either way and thus depends on further facts... like how close are they, was the cigarette already lit before the 2nd fella got there, is the wind strong.

If the smoker was already smoking by the time the 2nd person got there, the 2nd person with the problem should move himself once he realised he was upwind.

If they are within say 5 feet of each other and there is a strong wind blowing directly at the nonsmoker than the smoker should move as a matter of courtesy.

If they are 10+ feet away from each other with no wind, then the nonsmoker should move if he has a problem.

 

[PAFC2004]

The smoker should move. The other man standing there is not affecting him in any way. If the 2nd man is stupid enough to smoke, he should do so in a way that does not affect other people. Why should people who make the decision not to smoke have to move because some inconsiderate person decides to smoke near them?

 

[Fire]

As I said, they are both standing to begin with before the second man starts smoking.

And yes, I can see that this could just get bogged down in specifics. Just try to think about the general principal behind it - The smakier knows that his actions may offend the non-smoker, so they are not standing on opposite ends of the station.

 

[crocodileman]

As I said, they are both standing to begin with before the second man starts smoking.

And yes, I can see that this could just get bogged down in specifics. Just try to think about the general principal behind it - The smakier knows that his actions may offend the non-smoker, so they are not standing on opposite ends of the station.

It has got nothing to do with a smoker's actions offending the non-smoker, it has got to do with a smoker's habit physically harming another person.

This is a ridiculous hypothetical as it is offensive to anyone who has lost a friend or family member because of cancer caused by passive smoking. The dangers and damage have been well documented in medical journals - grow up.

The poll should be how would you punish the smoker in your case scenario?

 

[Fire]

This is a ridiculous hypothetical as it is offensive to anyone who has lost a friend or family member because of cancer caused by passive smoking. The dangers and damage have been well documented in medical journals - grow up.

Mate, its just a poll. Its not intended to offend anyone.

 

[mantis]

If they were standing so close that the smoke would blow into the non smokers face & he lit the cigarette after they were both there, then the smoker shold move to where it won't affect the other guy, well that's what I used to do.

If he had already been smoking, then the non smoker shouldn't have stood that close.

 

[Fire]

If he had already been smoking, then the non smoker shouldn't have stood that close.

Thats not the case in thei scenario.

 

[littleduck]

It has got nothing to do with a smoker's actions offending the non-smoker, it has got to do with a smoker's habit physically harming another person.

This is a ridiculous hypothetical as it is offensive to anyone who has lost a friend or family member because of cancer caused by passive smoking. The dangers and damage have been well documented in medical journals - grow up.

The poll should be how would you punish the smoker in your case scenario?

With suggestions of punishing smokers it sounds like you want smoking to be illegal?

 

[crocodileman]

With suggestions of punishing smokers it sounds like you want smoking to be illegal?

Would be a GOOD start, sure!

 

[mantis]

Thats not the case in thei scenario.

Well derrrr, I voted according to the scenario, but also pointed out what should happen in the other scenario I mentioned.

 

[bunsen burner]

If they were standing so close that the smoke would blow into the non smokers face & he lit the cigarette after they were both there, then the smoker shold move to where it won't affect the other guy, well that's what I used to do.

If he had already been smoking, then the non smoker shouldn't have stood that close.

First time you've said something logical in 5 years.

 

[CharlieG]

If the smoker a) lights up after both have chosen to stand there, or b) arrives after the non-smoker, then he/she has the responsibility to move. It's their actions that are causing the situation.

If the non-smoker walks onto the platform and stands near the smoker, he/she can't complain if the cop some smoke. In that situation, it's the non-smoker's actions that are causing the situation.

Basically, it comes down to an individual's responsibility to co-exist with other individuals.

 

[- PC -]

Originally Posted by crocodileman
It has got nothing to do with a smoker's actions offending the non-smoker, it has got to do with a smoker's habit physically harming another person.

This is a ridiculous hypothetical as it is offensive to anyone who has lost a friend or family member because of cancer caused by passive smoking. The dangers and damage have been well documented in medical journals - grow up.

The poll should be how would you punish the smoker in your case scenario?

Once again Croc has diverted the argument away from the original path..Do you go around to ALL your family and tell them to stop smoking or you will have nothing to do with them?
It is not a ridiculous hypothetical, I find it to have many levels of action and non-action. If smoking is so bad why doesnt the government ban it? Until they do stop with the ''grow up '' comments

With suggestions of punishing smokers it sounds like you want smoking to be illegal?

I am a non-smoker and the question to me can be answered in the following manner.The smoker doesnt know if the other person is a nonsmoker or not..the smoker doesnt know if the nonsmoker is offended by smoke. To move from a comfortable position where he can view the train arriving, knowing that his carriage will stop at that spot,is to put himself out.

If the nonsmoker is offended then the nonsmoker should move.It is an open air situation and as far as I am aware smoking hasnt been banned in open air yet.The smoker should not have to take into account wind speed or direction.

 

[crocodileman]

It is an open air situation and as far as I am aware smoking hasnt been banned in open air yet.

Wrong again! Yes it has been banned in the open air - take a look at some national papers and see what laws have just come into place in Qld, for example.

You cannot smoke on a patrolled beach under this law. Also, many Sydney councils have banned smoking in the "open air" as you like to put it!

Further, even before this legislation, it was still against the law to smoke in the "open air" as far as el fresco dining was concerned.

If you're going to try to attack someone, at least check your facts before making silly comments. BTW, I thought you had me on ignore, yet you respond to nearly every post I make!