sbrettt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2013
- Messages
- 2,724
- Reaction score
- 783
- Location
- Prospect park, PA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Why does your right to clean air trump the business owners rights as the property owner, but not the rights of the homeowner?
On the property-rights issue, I'd be somewhat inclined to agree.
There is also a worker-safety issue, however. We have it pretty solidly established, these days, that a worker has a right to a reasonably safe workplace. The health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke are well-enough established that to allow smoking in a place where any nonsmoker works would certainly violate that worker's right to a safe workplace.
They can find work at a different establishment. They don't have to be there.On the property-rights issue, I'd be somewhat inclined to agree.
There is also a worker-safety issue, however. We have it pretty solidly established, these days, that a worker has a right to a reasonably safe workplace. The health effects of secondhand tobacco smoke are well-enough established that to allow smoking in a place where any nonsmoker works would certainly violate that worker's right to a safe workplace.
Both are privately owned. A bystander can exercise their right to clean air simply by going to a difference business. That way, both parties win because the property owner also retains their right to allow smoking on there property.Because a home is a private accommodation, and a business is a public accommodation
The numbers I've seen on second hand smoke (admittedly some 20 years ago) showed that prolonged exposure increased your chances of lung cancer by 30%. Specifically, the numbers showed that the probability of getting lung cancer increased from 32 in a million to 43 in a million, or about the same probability that your life will end by falling from one level to another. In fact, the risk from second hand smoke was (and is) greatly exaggerated.
Because the era itself of public smoking has ended. Some of you old farts will nember the end of the era of NO SPITTING signs, that replaced spittoons just as NO SMOKING is replacing the public ashtrays. You can smoke all you want in your house, your car, certain bars in certain states and there are even a few states that pretty much allow it all. But it is dying. Japanese, who LOVE to smoke, can no longer smoke on city streets - my understanding is you don't dare try it either.
The times they are a changin'.
Both are privately owned. A bystander can exercise their right to clean air simply by going to a difference business. That way, both parties win because the property owner also retains their right to allow smoking on there property.
They can find work at a different establishment. They don't have to be there.
The risk is definitely there and worth noting. It is also avoidable.
Different things; different rules
libertarians can exercise their right to not have to comply with those rules by not owning a business that runs as a public accommodation.
i'd love to send all these libertarian type whiners to Singapore and watch their heads explode as someone explains *their* laws.
So your position reverses when it's easy to find work?A false premise since it's hard to find work.
This is a straw man. It's up to the parents whether or not their kids are exposed to smoke.Using this logic, we should have no worker protection laws, like the good old days when owners of capital sent kids into mines, and had women inhaling asbestos all day.
You would understand my view if you didn't look at the world through a toilet paper roll.What a sick view of the world conservatives have.
That bill was passed to combat discrimination. It is not discrimination to smoke on your own property.
Same strawman. Supporting someone's right smoke on their property doesn't mean you support child labor.Maybe someday your kid will someday face starvation or working in an asbestos factory without any worker protections due to your voting choices.
So that's Ok with you, eh?
I think you ascribe a political aspect to everything but in this issue (and many others), it's not at all about politics, it's about evolutionary process. Things change. People don't like change. Eventually, they get over it and find something else to fret about.
Personally, I hate change. Everything in my house is exactly where I put it in the first place. Move one pen and you can destabilize me. I was a nearly lifelong smoker who remembers well complimentary cigarettes on airplanes. I've even smoked in theaters before those laws were implemented (for fire reasons). Despite being saved by E-cigs this year, I'm a smoker through and through and I feel their pain. It is what it is. Something changed.
A no smoking bill was passed to combat discrimination?
What have you been smoking?
If you read the OP, which frames this discussion in terms of rights, there is no doubt that there is a political aspect to this, and it wasn't I who introduced it.
WRT smoking, I am a smoker and I feel their pain. However, I support every legal effort to eliminate smoking.
The original public accommodations law was about discrimination.
OK, I blamed everything on you and you were only partly guilty. Mea ****ing Culpa Hombre.
If you quit for 3 days and get a strong enough E-cig, you'll be smoking happily on a plane just as I did during my trip to MN last week. 3 bad days. Then the angel caresses you. You can do this. I smoked since I was 12. I'm a natural born addict. My willpower is 2 on a scale of 10. Just saying that if a ***** like me can do it, anybody can
Your story is similar to mine. I started when I was 12 too.
Even worse, I once quit cold turkey (albeit with the aid of an alternative) for about 5 years. There's goes my "At least I can excuse my habit on youthful ignorance" excuse!
And I do have a lot of willpower, but not when it comes to tobacco. I just love smoking
However, having said that, I support every and any law against tobacco. If someone proposes a law that lets people stick pins in smokers, that candidate has my vote
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?