Smoking Bans

[keepngoal]

Keepngoal, you're assuming that I'm walking into an establishment where people are already smoking. Say I sit down at a restaurant, nobody smoking at the time, and someone comes in after me and lights up right next to me. That would be me involuntarily ingesting his smoke, sure I could leave but I was there, eating a meal peacefully, when he came in and started smoking. I didn't choose anything, it was chosen for me, even if I leave right after I notice him smoking, I still had to breathe it. Now, I know that being around smoke for a minute isn't going to do much in the long run but I'm talking more about the idea here. And chances are if I'm in the middle of a meal I can't just get up and leave immediately, I have to wait for my check and pay and what not.

you rolled the dice KNOWING that the place was NOT a smoke free environment ... honestly, you knew that. Either choose smoke free places or sit in an area that doesn't bother you if the place allows smoking in areas. (of course only make that choice if it is that important to you, which might not be to others). Personally we sometimes have to go out of our way to finda smoke-free or smoke-friendly place with our kids at a PRIVATE establishment. Kudos to that PRIVATE establishment for creating an atmosphere like that for me (selfishly) and my family to enjoy. I try to support those that make my life safer, friendlier and easier.

Each of us has control of who/what we choose to be around. I love it when the all inclusion crowd decides what is to be included and what is not to be included.

Maybe some don't realize the power they truly have in choice, and instead prefer to exercise the use of the gov'ts powers to make their life 'easier'.

- keep.

 

[chadm]

See I take issue to even title of you link.... Involuntary?!!?? Where is that? Either you chose to be around smoking people or you don't. :idea:

We voluntarily choose not to be around them .... Why isn't that good enough??

-keep.

Well it was nice to meet you the two times I have. Yes I smoke. Don't do it in peoples houses or restaurants. Only bars, home, and outside.

 

[keepngoal]

Well it was nice to meet you the two times I have. Yes I smoke. Don't do it in peoples houses or restaurants. Only bars, home, and outside.

hahahaha.....

To clarify, when we are out with the kids and sometimes when not. But not you personally ChadM. But, it is nice of you to be considerate of others with your dirty, dirty habit. :wink:

Myself, I could really care less what people do to themselves .... Lord knows I have done enough.


But at least I got you to post in the politics section. Looks like you are now in charge of mod'ing it..... :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

-keep.

 

[cmoneyr]

I completely understand I have a right to choose, and I do choose to go places that don't allow smokers, or atleast don't allow them where I'm eating. I've only rarely been bothered by smokers, but just because I don't go places where smoking is a problem that makes it not a problem for anyone? Why do you accept that you have to be pidgeonholed into choosing only certain places to eat at? I guess you're ok with being forced into a limited number of choices, I would prefer to be able to go wherever I please. Why do you agree to go out of your way to accomodate smokers? They choose to have the habit, they choose to do something that affects others negatively, shouldn't they be the ones to go out of their way?

 

[alaskaguy]

Cyclone#1 you claim that there are people well over 100 that smoke, drink and eat McDonalds french fries on a regular basis. Are these the norms or the exceptions? As an analogy, I used to live in Las Vegas and witnessed people winning large jack pots from playing slot machines. So should I be emulating their actions and playing slot machines?

I don't see banning smoking in restaurants, taverns, and casinos as any type of slippery slope. It represents a health risk to the employees and can be eliminated without substantial employer effort.

Should a chemical company have the right to expose an employee to toxic chemicals if they provide some disclosure of the related health risks/ or the employee is aware of the risk? Should mining companies be required to provide safety equipment for their employees? Should mining companies filter non-toxic air into mine shafts or just find employees that will assume the health risks of working in an unhealthy environment? Should busineesses be required to install fire suppression equipment or should employees be subjected to the danger of being burned as long as they have the right to choose between working for a company that would do a better job of protecting them from heath and safety issues?

 

[keepngoal]

Why do you accept that you have to be pidgeonholed into choosing only certain places to eat at?

The more ppl support non-smoking establishments, the more there will be.

Why do you agree to go out of your way to accomodate smokers?

I don't feel like I do go out of my way. Heck, most places have take-out/drive-thru, and many times we choose that.

They choose to have the habit, they choose to do something that affects others negatively, shouldn't they be the ones to go out of their way?

Because they are ppl too? And it isn't against the law and you have other options available to you...

I guess it boils down to this: Do you want the gov't (again any level) to tell you what is allowed or not allowed when you have a choice to not be affected? Personally, I don't, big time. And it sounds like you don't mind it (or at least at this issue but many not others?). To me that isn't a fair shake for all.

Either way, that is why I am getting into local politics in my community, to keep it all a level playing field.

-keep.

 

[cmoneyr]

So you're trying to decide where to go for dinner, and you think choosing drive-thru is a viable option? Since the restaurant you want to go to is smoking, you have to go to the drive-thru and that's ok with you? If you were planning on going to a restaurant I fail to see how drive-thru is a comparable alternative. And if you were going to get drive-thru to begin with then that has no bearing on this discussion.

The more ppl support non-smoking establishments, the more there will be.

So, your thinking is that even though you only have a handful of places to choose from, the fact that there will be more later makes it ok.

 

[herbiedoobie]

I've always been curious: Why, apart from the "OMG the gubment is knocking at my door to talk away all my FREEEEDOMS", is it so bad for you to have to wear a seatbelt or helmet? Are you just a 13yo kid at heart and you just can't stand being told what to do? Why go through all the hassle of financial liability and criminal charges for those who don't wear them, and just have them wear them in the first place?

As far as speed limits, I don't know you, but I would trust you about as far as I can throw you to know what the "safe-limits of your car" are, same for anyone. What gives you the expertise to decide what's safe when I'm on the same road as you? Are you a safety engineer, perhaps an expert in the field of aerodynamics or car safety? And criminial and financial liabilities are all well and good if you hit me because you don't know what's safe. But that does me a whole lotta good when I'm injured, maimed or dead.

I don't think you read the whole post. I'm a seatbelt-wearing, helmet-wearing motorist, who lives in a country that functionally, does not have a speed limit. I was just countering the "seatbelt/helmet laws are oppressive" argument with a call for more responsibility. The anti-seatbelt/helmet law folks ARE fundamentally immature, and are asking for special "rights" without the responsibility of actually paying for their immaturity/irresponsibility.

Otherwise, I agree with you.

 

[cyclonenum1]

I completely understand I have a right to choose, and I do choose to go places that don't allow smokers, or atleast don't allow them where I'm eating. I've only rarely been bothered by smokers, but just because I don't go places where smoking is a problem that makes it not a problem for anyone? Why do you accept that you have to be pidgeonholed into choosing only certain places to eat at? I guess you're ok with being forced into a limited number of choices, I would prefer to be able to go wherever I please. Why do you agree to go out of your way to accomodate smokers? They choose to have the habit, they choose to do something that affects others negatively, shouldn't they be the ones to go out of their way?

Classic...don't limit my choices - but it's OK to limit the choices of smokers (because I'm not one)...ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC!!

In case you haven't noticed, all of the accomodations are being made to accomodate non-smokers. The reason is simple...smokers are the minority. But that does not mean that their personal liberties should be taken away. If you disagree, think about this...what if women were the minority of the population and we allowed the government to pass a law allowing rape (because women by virtue of being a minority don't have the political clout to stop it)...would you be OK with that? Certainly not! Yet, you are OK with the government limiting the personal liberties of our smoking population...I don't get that!

 

[alaskaguy]

Classic...don't limit my choices - but it's OK to limit the choices of smokers (because I'm not one)...ABSOLUTELY CLASSIC!!

In case you haven't noticed, all of the accomodations are being made to accomodate non-smokers. The reason is simple...smokers are the minority. But that does not mean that their personal liberties should be taken away. If you disagree, think about this...what if women were the minority of the population and we allowed the government to pass a law allowing rape (because women by virtue of being a minority don't have the political clout to stop it)...would you be OK with that? Certainly not! Yet, you are OK with the government limiting the personal liberties of our smoking population...I don't get that!

The reason for "accomodating non-smokers" has no bearing on that smokers are the minority. Minorities are often provided greater rights than majorities by our government (have you ever heard the term reverse discrimination?). Another example would be the government's protection of fringe hate groups freedom of speech rights.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Cyclone#1 you claim that there are people well over 100 that smoke, drink and eat McDonalds french fries on a regular basis. Are these the norms or the exceptions? As an analogy, I used to live in Las Vegas and witnessed people winning large jack pots from playing slot machines. So should I be emulating their actions and playing slot machines?

I don't see banning smoking in restaurants, taverns, and casinos as any type of slippery slope. It represents a health risk to the employees and can be eliminated without substantial employer effort.

Should a chemical company have the right to expose an employee to toxic chemicals if they provide some disclosure of the related health risks/ or the employee is aware of the risk? Should mining companies be required to provide safety equipment for their employees? Should mining companies filter non-toxic air into mine shafts or just find employees that will assume the health risks of working in an unhealthy environment? Should busineesses be required to install fire suppression equipment or should employees be subjected to the danger of being burned as long as they have the right to choose between working for a company that would do a better job of protecting them from heath and safety issues?

Statistically speaking...anyone that makes it to 100 years of age is "the exception".

Employees choose to work where they work...no one is forced to work in a certain place...I believe slavery was outlawed long ago.

Your last paragraph is ludicrous...your tone indicates that you think, left to their own devices, employers would gladly risk the safety of their employees. The reality is the exact opposite...the vast majority of employers understand that their employees are their greatest asset and they go to great lengths to cater to their various needs.

 

[cmoneyr]

Herbie, sorry, my mistake.

Cyclone#1, wow, that was the most amazing tangent I've ever seen. You went from outrage that smokers should be given the same rights, to an example saying women should be raped because they're a minority? Brilliant. Maybe that would hold water if instead of forcing smokers to not smoke in restaurants, they were stoned to death in public. Naturally I would be against the murder of smokers for smoking in public, but that is a huge leap from what we're talking about here. Just rediculous.

Smokers aren't being inconvenienced because they are a minority, they are inconvenienced because what they do causes harm to others.

You liken the government stopping smokers from smoking in public to the rape of women, holy hell. I don't even know where to go with that argument, it barely resembles the current discussion.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this (pointing to a picture of Chewbacca) is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie! But Chewbacca lives on planet Endor. Now, think about that. THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE! Why would a Wookie — an eight foot tall Wookie — want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more important, you have to ask yourself, what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

...Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense!

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... Does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."

 

[alaskaguy]

Statistically speaking...anyone that makes it to 100 years of age is "the exception".

Employees choose to work where they work...no one is forced to work in a certain place...I believe slavery was outlawed long ago.

Your last paragraph is ludicrous...your tone indicates that you think, left to their own devices, employers would gladly risk the safety of their employees. The reality is the exact opposite...the vast majority of employers understand that their employees are their greatest asset and they go to great lengths to cater to their various needs.

I agree that the majority of employers understand that their employees are their greatest asset and go to great lengths to cater to their various needs.

Nevertheless, there are numerous examples where companies give little consideration to employee safety and health risks. It is naive to not recognize that this is the case and that government regulation in this area is unwarranted. If you believe otherwise, why not insist that all government health and safety regulations be repealed. After all they are nothing more than unwarranted governmental intrusions into our way of life (the sarcasm is intentional).

If companies cared so dearly about their employees they would not risk their employees health by requiring them to be exposed to second hand smoke.

 

[keepngoal]

If companies cared so dearly about their employees they would not risk their employees health by requiring them to be exposed to second hand smoke.

How did they become employees in the first place?

honestly, I feel like I am shoving a square peg through round hole.....

- keep.

 

[cyclonenum1]

Herbie, sorry, my mistake.

Cyclone#1, wow, that was the most amazing tangent I've ever seen. You went from outrage that smokers should be given the same rights, to an example saying women should be raped because they're a minority? Brilliant. Maybe that would hold water if instead of forcing smokers to not smoke in restaurants, they were stoned to death in public. Naturally I would be against the murder of smokers for smoking in public, but that is a huge leap from what we're talking about here. Just rediculous.

Smokers aren't being inconvenienced because they are a minority, they are inconvenienced because what they do causes harm to others.

You liken the government stopping smokers from smoking in public to the rape of women, holy hell. I don't even know where to go with that argument, it barely resembles the current discussion.

I'm actually a little surprised that you would not be for stoning smokers to death in public! You have no problem telling them where they can go and where then cannot go...why stop there. I was just making a point about how absurd I find your argument by giving you a hypothetical situation that I was pretty certain you would find absurd yourself.

The bottom line is that if you don't like smoke...stay away from smokers...don't limit their personal freedoms!

 

[cyclonenum1]

I agree that the majority of employers understand that their employees are their greatest asset and go to great lengths to cater to their various needs.

Nevertheless, there are numerous examples where companies give little consideration to employee safety and health risks. It is naive to not recognize that this is the case and that government regulation in this area is unwarranted. If you believe otherwise, why not insist that all government health and safety regulations be repealed. After all they are nothing more than unwarranted governmental intrusions into our way of life (the sarcasm is intentional).

If companies cared so dearly about their employees they would not risk their employees health by requiring them to be exposed to second hand smoke.

This is comical...businesses and people in our country are so over-regulated it is not even funny. Clearly, I could think of some regulations that I think would be prudent but the mountain of regulations that we have allowed our government to subject us to at this point in time is assinine.

The bottom line is that you have no problem with the government limiting the personal liberties of some of its citizens (smokers in this case)...I just hope you never have any of the personal liberties you enjoy taken away by government!

Again...employees choose who they work for...no one is "required to be exposed to second hand smoke".

 

[cmoneyr]

Cyclone I'm beginning to think the history of the "slippery slope" begins with you. You honestly, HONESTLY now, think that I or anyone who is against smoking in public places would see NO difference if the smokers were stoned to death instead? I guess that's one way to win an argument, be so absurd until the other person gives up.

We limit people's freedoms all the time, and very often for reasons of public health or safety. People are selfish, people are stupid, people make bad choices, and many times people need to be told that what they are doing is wrong and they need to stop. Back to your drunk driving example, drunk driving is illegal because it leads to very bad consequences for people who are involuntarily put into a dangerous situation. By your account, and don't give me the "drunk driving is direct and smoking is indirect" argument, drunk driving should be legal? Both kill people, you said yourself that secondhand smoke "accelerates death", so why is one legal and another isn't?

If smoking was just annoying, and didn't have any far reaching health consequences then fine, smoke wherever you please. Smoker's made a stupid choice, they harm themselves with what they do, that's fine, screw 'em. But why, since they are the ones choosing to hurt others, is it the rest of us that have to accommodate?

 

[cyclonenum1]

Cyclone I'm beginning to think the history of the "slippery slope" begins with you. You honestly, HONESTLY now, think that I or anyone who is against smoking in public places would see NO difference if the smokers were stoned to death instead? I guess that's one way to win an argument, be so absurd until the other person gives up.

We limit people's freedoms all the time, and very often for reasons of public health or safety. People are selfish, people are stupid, people make bad choices, and many times people need to be told that what they are doing is wrong and they need to stop. Back to your drunk driving example, drunk driving is illegal because it leads to very bad consequences for people who are involuntarily put into a dangerous situation. By your account, and don't give me the "drunk driving is direct and smoking is indirect" argument, drunk driving should be legal? Both kill people, you said yourself that secondhand smoke "accelerates death", so why is one legal and another isn't?

If smoking was just annoying, and didn't have any far reaching health consequences then fine, smoke wherever you please. Smoker's made a stupid choice, they harm themselves with what they do, that's fine, screw 'em. But why, since they are the ones choosing to hurt others, is it the rest of us that have to accommodate?

My response to your rant:

-That is precisely the problem...we are far too willing to allow our freedoms to be limited by our government.

-So who is to preside over determining what is selfish, stupid, or a bad choice? You? The President? Congress? Some beaurocrat at HHS? Probably you would be the best choice since, as a non-smoker, you are smarter than they typical person.

-Did I say drunk driving should be legal? Frankly, if smoking is so terrible then why not just make it illegal. Hopefully, you do realize that smoking a cigarette is still a legal activity.

-I do believe that "smoking has far reaching health consequences" but I don't believe second hand smoke does. Again, if you don't like to breath second hand smoke then just avoid smokers...don't limit their personal liberties!

 

[Schriner]

Personally, I find the "if you don't like to breath second hand smoke then just avoid smokers" argument laughable.

Stuck in traffic, getting to breath the smoke of my fellow commuters? Check.
Standing on top of the highest point in the lower 48, another hiker walks up and lights up? Check. Although to be fair, I was more amazed than annoyed.
Getting to walk past the smokers congregated outside the entrance to the building I work in? Check.
Riding past a pack of smokers (pun intended) during a mountain bike race? Check. But, they were in front of me!

But I suppose I could find a job that allows me to work from home, and stop doing things that I enjoy in order to avoid the smokers.

 

[Steve]

Personally, I find no redeeming value in smoking. Given that belief, anything that reduces smoking is fine by me.

It's no surprise that California has probably the most restrictions on smoking along with a very low smoking population percentage. Someplace like Kentucky has very few restrictions along with a very high percentage of smokers. I've got to go with California on this one.

The personal liberty, owner choice argument just doesn't hold up. Would anyone even think of setting foot in a restaurant that operated with absolutely no government regulation?

A smoking ban is simple and would not involve excessive paperwork and red tape to enforce so the big brother argument doesn't apply. Our government isn't always perfect, but does a pretty good job of responding to the majority while protecting the constitutional rights of the minority.