No smoking

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

Your argument might have merit, except for four words in your final sentence, "...make your own decisions..."

It is not the person, but the nicotine, which is making the decision. If you don't think so, consider this the next time you pass a tall office building on a cold rainy day.

Why the hell are these numb skulls standing out here in the rain having a smoke? They had to stop work, leave their desks, grab a raincoat or umbrella, take the elevator down, come out here for a smoke, take the elevator back up, drop off the raincoat or umbrella, go back to their desks, and resume work.

Are these the rational actions of persons making their own decisions?

No. These are the actions of persons addicted to nicotine who were beginning to get the shakes as the stuff was wearing off and needed a smoke "to calm their nerves." How many times have we heard those four words -- to calm my nerves?

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact09.html

If you're hooked, you'll deny it. That's the way it is with any addiction. If you're not hooked, be thankful and stop trying to discourage others from getting "unhooked".

I was not writing about a person's decision to smoke. I was writing about a person's right to decide if their business is smoking or non-smoking.

Of course people are addicted to nicotine. That is not what this thread is about. It is about laws imposed on business owners.

 

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

Banning smoking is taking care of yourself. If you want to smoke you can go somewhere else as well. The burden should be on the more harmful side I think.

If I own a business and I allow smoking, and you do not like it, you are the one who should go elsewhere. It is my business, not yours, so it is my decision. What right do you have to tell another person how to run their business?

 

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

Well do you have the right to breathe the best clean air you can get?

Yes. No one is removing that right. Go elsewhere. It is primarily the business owner's right to decide.

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

If I own a business and I allow smoking, and you do not like it, you are the one who should go elsewhere. It is my business, not yours, so it is my decision. What right do you have to tell another person how to run their business?

Agreed...

You would think that if a business owner was so concerned about it, they would go "no smoking" on their own, and not wait for a law to tell them so.

 

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

Agreed...

You would think that if a business owner was so concerned about it, they would go "no smoking" on their own, and not wait for a law to tell them so.

Agreed. When a business owner sees people leaving, they will change to get more potential business. That is my point. Why allow the government to babysit? Let business owners decide on their own.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Re: No smokeing

I was not writing about a person's decision to smoke. I was writing about a person's right to decide if their business is smoking or non-smoking.

Of course people are addicted to nicotine. That is not what this thread is about. It is about laws imposed on business owners.

Business owners are regulated by local laws. They cannot choose which laws they will observe, and which they will not.

They cannot serve tainted food legally because it makes their customers sick. They cannot allow smoking in their establishment because it makes their customers sick. The state legislates to protect it's citizens. To say it should be voted on doesn't hold weight either since the lawmakers are elected officials and they represent us.

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

Agreed. When a business owner sees people leaving, they will change to get more potential business. That is my point. Why allow the government to babysit? Let business owners decide on their own.

Let's just sit here and agree with each other all night...:rofl

If there was a market for "non-smoking" places of business, there would
be more "non-smoking" places of business.

 

[akyron]

Re: No smokeing

Business owners are regulated by local laws. They cannot choose which laws they will observe, and which they will not.

They cannot serve tainted food legally because it makes their customers sick. They cannot allow smoking in their establishment because it makes their customers sick. The state legislates to protect it's citizens. To say it should be voted on doesn't hold weight either since the lawmakers are elected officials and they represent us.

OMG I agree with the champ. Its a basic health issue that serves the citizens best by trying to make them healthier. Now if they would only ban mocha mullatis...mmm

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

Business owners are regulated by local laws. They cannot choose which laws they will observe, and which they will not.

They cannot serve tainted food legally because it makes their customers sick. They cannot allow smoking in their establishment because it makes their customers sick. The state legislates to protect it's citizens. To say it should be voted on doesn't hold weight either since the lawmakers are elected officials and they represent us.

These two statement are argumentative to each other....

The state does NOT legislate to protect its citizens. Want proof? Go down the street and buy a pack of smokes.

The state wants to get the taxes from smokers, and yet "look good" by preventing them from using the product bought publicly and with the state's blessing.

 

[Deegan]

Re: No smokeing

There is no good argument I have seen here yet to convince me that smoking should be banned from private business. This is just the most extreme case of the "government knowing what is best for you" that I have ever witnessed. If this passes in your state, it's only going to get worse! Next you will be told that you can't eat what you want, or drink what you want. More people are killed by drunk drivers, then will ever be killed by second hand smoke, and the difference is you can keep yourself smoke free, but you'll never keep the roads drunk free. This is just arrogant, aggresive, and intrusive, and it can't be tolerated. I am all for not smoking in ball parks, supermarkets, malls, and other areas where people have to be able to function without the fear of the evil of second hand smoke, but to tell a private business, that depends on this freedom, what to do with their space, this is UnAmerican.

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

There is no good argument I have seen here yet to convince me that smoking should be banned from private business. This is just the most extreme case of the "government knowing what is best for you" that I have ever witnessed. If this passes in your state, it's only going to get worse! Next you will be told that you can't eat what you want, or drink what you want. More people are killed by drunk drivers, then will ever be killed by second hand smoke, and the difference is you can keep yourself smoke free, but you'll never keep the roads drunk free. This is just arrogant, aggresive, and intrusive, and it can't be tolerated. I am all for not smoking in ball parks, supermarkets, malls, and other areas where people have to be able to function without the fear of the evil of second hand smoke, but to tell a private business, that depends on this freedom, what to do with their space, this is UnAmerican.

Exactly...

If it's such an issue of health, then BAN SMOKING ALTOGETHER!

Don't take the taxes and then tell people how to run their lives or businesses.

This nit-pick over restrictions is very disturbing.

 

[akyron]

Re: No smokeing

These two statement are argumentative to each other....

The state does NOT legislate to protect its citizens. Want proof? Go down the street and buy a pack of smokes.

The state wants to get the taxes from smokers, and yet "look good" by preventing them from using the product bought publicly and with the state's blessing.

Is that not what is in contention?

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

These two statement are argumentative to each other....

The state does NOT legislate to protect its citizens. Want proof? Go down the street and buy a pack of smokes.

The state wants to get the taxes from smokers, and yet "look good" by preventing them from using the product bought publicly and with the state's blessing.

Is that not what is in contention?

That's what it IS, but not what it SHOULD BE...."Why are they letting cigarettes be sold in the first place?" should be the contention...

And, of course, we all know the answer...

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm at work, and must go outside for a smoke....:2wave:

 

[Alex]

Re: No smokeing

That's what it IS, but not what it SHOULD BE...."Why are they letting cigarettes be sold in the first place?" should be the contention...

And, of course, we all know the answer...

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm at work, and must go outside for a smoke....:2wave:

I'll go have one too. I have tried to quit but those patches are so hard to light.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: No smokeing

I am guessing this is for your state or city?

The state of California already has this - I have no issues for that state as it was VOTED on by the people.

Here in Dallas, there is a ban of ALL public places including bars and cigar shops. Somehow the major "proved" that she had gotten breast cancer from second hand smoke and it was never voted on but went into affect through council. This is flat out wrong. Let the people vote on it.

New York, California, Kentucky, and I believe a few other states already have bans on smoking in public indoor places. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

To the people who say "If you don't like it, leave," what if you're a poor single parent working as a waitress in a Dennys? Should you be forced to breathe in smoke every day? If you can't wait the hour it takes to eat your meal to have another cigarette, you're addicted baddddd.

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

I'll go have one too. I have tried to quit but those patches are so hard to light.

I've narrowed it down to only smoking when I'm awake....saves on cash.

And I smoke Marlboro Lights, so I get those little miles on the side...I'm saving up for an iron lung....:doh

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: No smokeing

The next step is almost certainly attacks on our rights within our own personal property. Of course, it will first be framed as "for the children". I mean, after all - if smoking is this deadly wouldn't it be child abuse to smoke around your child? Or with your child in the car? And once we have protected the children, what about adults? Isn't that charming door-to-door salesman worth as much as a child? What if he enters your home and is forced to be exposed to that horrible, deadly, second-hand smoke?

Check out this article about a ruling by my old boss:

http://dennisprager.com/smoke.html

...a New York Supreme Court Justice, Robert F. Julian, has banned a divorced mother from smoking when her son stays with her. The 13-year-old boy, who lives with his father and grandparents, has overnight visits with his mother, but she will lose the right to these visits if she smokes while he is there...

 

[Deegan]

Re: No smokeing

New York, California, Kentucky, and I believe a few other states already have bans on smoking in public indoor places. I have no problem with this whatsoever.

To the people who say "If you don't like it, leave," what if you're a poor single parent working as a waitress in a Dennys? Should you be forced to breathe in smoke every day? If you can't wait the hour it takes to eat your meal to have another cigarette, you're addicted baddddd.

How about this mystery woman serving said evil smoker a drink, what if he smashes in to her car in a drunken stuper? Should the poor lady not drive to work, because the poor lady at the local Denny's might get killed in a car accident? Please, what a silly argument, it's almost laughable, but I know too many folks killed by drunk drivers. On the other hand, I know absolutely no one killed by second hand smoke!:roll:

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: No smokeing

How about this mystery woman serving said evil smoker a drink, what if he smashes in to her car in a drunken stuper? Should the poor lady not drive to work, because the poor lady at the local Denny's might get killed in a car accident? Please, what a silly argument, it's almost laughable, but I know too many folks killed by drunk drivers. On the other hand, I know absolutely no one killed by second hand smoke!:roll:

Hrmmm. Hokay.

First off, drinking in and of itself does not result in damage to those around you. It is completely possible to drink every day of your life, and never drive drunk, if you're a responsible person. However, it is not possible to smoke every day of your life, and remain completely healthy.

At the same time, if I as a bartender serve you drinks every day of your life, and you get drunk and hit my car, that's a result of you being completely irresponsible and breaking a law. If as I serve you your dinner every day, you smoke half a pack in the hour you're there, then you and I will both get sick, and smell like smoke, whether or not you're breaking a law.

If businesses want to serve liquor, they have to apply for and receive a liquor license. Why not make businesses apply for smoking licenses? I know several bars around me in NYC that decided to cordon off a separately ventilated smoking room rather than outright ban smoking in their establishments altogether. This way, nobody has to breathe in smoke who doesn't want to.

And you don't know anyone killed by second hand smoke? You don't know anyone whose life has been shortened or ended because their husband/wife smoked their entire life? You don't know anyone who died young after spending their entire life working in smoke filled bars? You should get out more.

 

[Stinger]

Re: No smokeing

The law will not allow the owner to decide. You can smoke at your house

That's the point, it should be the owners decission, it's his private business on private property and no one is required to go there.

Ex-smoker

 

[Deegan]

Re: No smokeing

Hrmmm. Hokay.

First off, drinking in and of itself does not result in damage to those around you. It is completely possible to drink every day of your life, and never drive drunk, if you're a responsible person. However, it is not possible to smoke every day of your life, and remain completely healthy.

At the same time, if I as a bartender serve you drinks every day of your life, and you get drunk and hit my car, that's a result of you being completely irresponsible and breaking a law. If as I serve you your dinner every day, you smoke half a pack in the hour you're there, then you and I will both get sick, and smell like smoke, whether or not you're breaking a law.

If businesses want to serve liquor, they have to apply for and receive a liquor license. Why not make businesses apply for smoking licenses? I know several bars around me in NYC that decided to cordon off a separately ventilated smoking room rather than outright ban smoking in their establishments altogether. This way, nobody has to breathe in smoke who doesn't want to.

And you don't know anyone killed by second hand smoke? You don't know anyone whose life has been shortened or ended because their husband/wife smoked their entire life? You don't know anyone who died young after spending their entire life working in smoke filled bars? You should get out more.

Your argument is just weak and silly sir.

Second hand smoke is not an issue we need to get excited about, drunk driving certainly is! Serve someone enough drinks, and they leave you establishment, and kill a family of five, that's a problem sir. Serving someone a plate of fatty food is more dangerous then any second hand smoke they may inhale, the gas from my fart is ten times more dangerous then that of a cigarette, should we ban passing gas. I hope you see how ridiculous your argument is, but I doubt you do, that's fine though, I hear you, I just don't agree.

 

[cnredd]

Re: No smokeing

If as I serve you your dinner every day, you smoke half a pack in the hour you're there, then you and I will both get sick, and smell like smoke, whether or not you're breaking a law.

I don't remember the law forcing anyone to work at an establishment that has smoking...

 

[Fantasea]

Re: No smokeing

I was not writing about a person's decision to smoke. I was writing about a person's right to decide if their business is smoking or non-smoking.

Of course people are addicted to nicotine. That is not what this thread is about. It is about laws imposed on business owners.

Easy, there. Don't get your knickers in a twist. It seemed like a perfect fit.

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: No smokeing

Your argument is just weak and silly sir.

Second hand smoke is not an issue we need to get excited about, drunk driving certainly is! Serve someone enough drinks, and they leave you establishment, and kill a family of five, that's a problem sir. Serving someone a plate of fatty food is more dangerous then any second hand smoke they may inhale, the gas from my fart is ten times more dangerous then that of a cigarette, should we ban passing gas. I hope you see how ridiculous your argument is, but I doubt you do, that's fine though, I hear you, I just don't agree.

But the two are not at all comparable. First off, it's against the law to serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. Secondly, if the person drinking harms someone else through drunk driving, they did that through their own irresponsible behavior, they have broken a law, and they will pay for it. If the person smoking harms someone else through second hand smoke, what recourse is there?

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: No smokeing

I don't remember the law forcing anyone to work at an establishment that has smoking...

So non-smokers just shouldn't work at places that have smoking? I guess handicapped people shouldn't work at places with stairs either.