• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

No smoking

Re: No smokeing

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

Fruits that aren't comparable.
 
Re: No smokeing

Deegan said:
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.

If a drunk driver causes property damage and/or personal injury as a result of his/her drinking, it is easy to identify the person responsible and punish them appropriately. How exactly are you going to make such an identification regarding damage caused by second hand smoke?
 
Re: No smokeing

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

Some people don't have that choice. Some people have to work at Waffle House or some similiar eating establishment just to put food on the table. Of course, the alternative is having that person go on welfare and other forms of public assistance. I thought it was the left that endorsed that, not the right?
 
Re: No smokeing

cnredd said:
Fruits that aren't comparable.

You're telling someone that because they don't wish to risk severe damage to their health, certain professions should be off limits to them. This is acceptable in the few industries where there are dangers, i.e. logging, construction, ultimate fighting, but I hardly think that waitressing should count.

What about the waitress who works at a restaurant for 10 years, then as the clientele begins to change, smoking begins to be more and more common, and she begins to feel sicker and sicker? Should she be forced to quit her job, or should people have the common decency to wait until they get outside to poision themselves?

Edit: To give you an example: In NYC, it is city mandated that there is no smoking in cabs. This prevents cab drivers who don't smoke from having to deal with second hand smoke and the smell in their cars, and also protects passengers who don't want to deal with smoke from cabbies. Is this law wrong?
 
Last edited:
Re: No smokeing

RightatNYU said:
What about the waitress who works at a restaurant for 10 years, then as the clientele begins to change, smoking begins to be more and more common, and she begins to feel sicker and sicker? Should she be forced to quit her job, or should people have the common decency to wait until they get outside to poision themselves?

The lack of sensitivity that some smokers have for the rights of nonsmokers is incredible. I am not in favor of the criminalization of smoking, though the incivility of some smokers sometimes gives me cause to think that it may in fact be a good idea.
 
Re: No smokeing

RightatNYU said:
You're telling someone that because they don't wish to risk severe damage to their health, certain professions should be off limits to them. This is acceptable in the few industries where there are dangers, i.e. logging, construction, ultimate fighting, but I hardly think that waitressing should count.
What about the waitress who works at a restaurant for 10 years, then as the clientele begins to change, smoking begins to be more and more common, and she begins to feel sicker and sicker? Should she be forced to quit her job, or should people have the common decency to wait until they get outside to poision themselves?

You say waitressing shouldn't count, and then in the next breath(pun intended), you say how she could get sick because of it.

How many people die from logging?...How many people die from secondhand smoke?...I'm guessing the second one.

How many people die from secondhand smoke?...How many people die from firsthand smoke?...I'm guessing the second one.

Any argument is moot because you are not going after the core of the problem. Only punishing the ones who've been sucked in by that core.

It's like you're saying, "Smoking is wrong, and I'd love to have it banned, but since that won't happen, I'll just punish the addicted themselves."

Abortions?...No problem....Make drugs legal?....Why not?...Sex & Murder on TV?...No one is offended...Sex without commitment?...step right this way...

Smoker?.....OH MY GOD!; IT'S THE DEVIL HIMSELF!...DIE HERETIC!
 
Re: No smokeing

ludahai said:
Some people don't have that choice. Some people have to work at Waffle House or some similiar eating establishment just to put food on the table. Of course, the alternative is having that person go on welfare and other forms of public assistance. I thought it was the left that endorsed that, not the right?

Wow....I mean...just "wow"...."Have to work at Waffle House"...that's just ringing in my ears..."Have to work at Waffle House"...no "education"...no "moving away"...no "seeking other employment"...no "creating my own business"....just "Have to work at Waffle House"...no other options available...welfare or Waffle House...
 
Re: No smokeing

cnredd said:
You say waitressing shouldn't count, and then in the next breath(pun intended), you say how she could get sick because of it.

She could, if people are allowed to create an unhealthy working environment for her.

How many people die from logging?...How many people die from secondhand smoke?...I'm guessing the second one.

How many people die from secondhand smoke?...How many people die from firsthand smoke?...I'm guessing the second one.

Any argument is moot because you are not going after the core of the problem. Only punishing the ones who've been sucked in by that core.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here.

It's like you're saying, "Smoking is wrong, and I'd love to have it banned, but since that won't happen, I'll just punish the addicted themselves."

Telling them to wait until they're not in an enclosed public space is punishing them? If an alcoholic is in McDonalds, are they punishing him by not having beer on tap?

Abortions?...No problem....Make drugs legal?....Why not?...Sex & Murder on TV?...No one is offended...Sex without commitment?...step right this way...

Smoker?.....OH MY GOD!; IT'S THE DEVIL HIMSELF!...DIE HERETIC!

Well, without getting too off topic, none of the first things you mention, if done by someone else, will harm me. If someone smokes around me, it DOES harm me.
 
Re: No smokeing

cnredd said:
Wow....I mean...just "wow"...."Have to work at Waffle House"...that's just ringing in my ears..."Have to work at Waffle House"...no "education"...no "moving away"...no "seeking other employment"...no "creating my own business"....just "Have to work at Waffle House"...no other options available...welfare or Waffle House...

I like to bash the poor as much as anyone else, but you're a bit over the edge here. Think about this: Say that waitress decided to get an education, and ends up moving away. Guess what happens now? Someone else takes her job. It's not as if these service jobs will ever go away. No matter what, there will always be the same number of people working in bars and restaurants. So your argument is pointless.
 
Re: No smokeing

cnredd said:
Wow....I mean...just "wow"...."Have to work at Waffle House"...that's just ringing in my ears..."Have to work at Waffle House"...no "education"...no "moving away"...no "seeking other employment"...no "creating my own business"....just "Have to work at Waffle House"...no other options available...welfare or Waffle House...

Some people don't have the funds to go to school. Perhaps they have a ten year old boy they are trying to raise and they are doing the best the can. No money to move, and even if they did, move to where? Another place to get a job at a different Waffle House? Where is the capital to build a small business.

I like to have a bit more respect for people trying to recover from earlier bad decisions through work rather than taking welfare checks from the government, which would be easier in this case. Of course, it seems you have no sensitivity whatsoever to someone actually trying to do the right thing now rather than milk off the public teat!
 
Re: No smokeing

I despise threads that have misspellings in the titles
 
Yeah, and anyways, bashing waitresses is offensive to SOME PEOPLE HERE. I'm just saying. The restaurant I work at is a little more upscale than IHOP, but people are still too poor to leave. It happens. Trust me, if people could do something other than waiting tables their whole life, they would.
 
Re: No smokeing

RightatNYU said:
I despise threads that have misspellings in the titles

Like "Shoudl we get rid of the board of miseducation? " :rofl I pointed out the irony. Nobody got it. Maybe the shoudl go back to school?
 
I would LOVE it if they would ban smoking in public places here. It is a public health risk and is frankly downright nasty. I do think that bars should probably be exempt, but as far as I'm concerned anywhere else is fair game.
 
Kelzie said:
Yeah, and anyways, bashing waitresses is offensive to SOME PEOPLE HERE. I'm just saying. The restaurant I work at is a little more upscale than IHOP, but people are still too poor to leave. It happens. Trust me, if people could do something other than waiting tables their whole life, they would.

Kelzie - are we finding something on which we at least somewhat agree? I believe this calls for a celebration. :party :party
 
ludahai said:
Kelzie - are we finding something on which we at least somewhat agree? I believe this calls for a celebration. :party :party

Hey. Nothing wrong with disagreeing civilly. I certainly didn't come here to find people I agreed with. Although they are an added bonus...
 
Kelzie said:
Hey. Nothing wrong with disagreeing civilly. I certainly didn't come here to find people I agreed with. Although they are an added bonus...

Though we rarely agree, I believe we have maintained a civil tone toward one another.

I just think it is nice that we agree on being civil to waitresses (or to be politically and gender correct, servers).
 
ludahai said:
Though we rarely agree, I believe we have maintained a civil tone toward one another.

I just think it is nice that we agree on being civil to waitresses (or to be politically and gender correct, servers).

Thank you! Finally, another person that calls them servers!
 
ludahai said:
Everywhere I ever worked as a server while paying my way through school used the term "server."

ME TOO! I got crap from some people here for being too PC.
 
Kelzie said:
ME TOO! I got crap from some people here for being too PC.

I am not exactly PC, but I have no objection to reasonable changes in nomenclature to reflect the notion that American culture, like so many others, have become more open to people of both genders participating in many lines of work that were generally closed to them before.
 
Kelzie said:
ME TOO! I got crap from some people here for being too PC.

Podiatristically Clumsy?
 
cnredd said:
Podiatristically Clumsy?

Yes. Yes, that's right. I have very clumsy feet. Thanks for telling everyone.:lol:
 
Kelzie said:
Yes. Yes, that's right. I have very clumsy feet. Thanks for telling everyone.:lol:

I was referring to the broken one...:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom