Smoking Bans - Page 6

**CingularDuality** · 11-19-2003, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Employees, even of private clubs, have the right to work in a safe environment. If you have a club that allows smoking, then you either require your non-smoking employees to breathe smoke, or you discriminate against non-smokers by only hiring employees who do smoke. You can't (and shouldn't) do either.

BS. Nobody has a right to a job. If you don't want to work there, don't. There are many other jobs that have unavoidable occupational hazards, I don't see why this should be any different.

<If my tone seems harsh, please understand that it's directed towards your comments and not towards you. I don't take anything personally in these types of discussions, and I hope you don't either... I almost removed the first two letters of my response in order to be more pleasant, but it was honestly the first thing that came to mind so I felt I should include it.

>

jex · 11-19-2003, 10:37 AM

Since you have to work, it's not an option not to, then you have to find a job that you actually like do you not think that people are entitled to not having to breath in fumes.

Cing: Your argument about other hazards in the workplace and relating that to smoking in the woking place completely falls over. Some jobe are dangerous because that is their nature. their is nothing that can be done about that. Smoking isn't part of any job that I know of. If it is classed as a hazard then by law some sort of protective gear must be issued.

But... If they have the right to smoke do I have the right to defend my safety? Can I attack someone on the basis that I am defending myself against their poisonous smoke? Mmmm wonder how that would work lol.

Ender: your car starts emitting fumes as soon as the engine is turned on, what ever vehicle you are in, but my point was that nobody complains about car fumes and what they do to our lungs, why should smoking in public places be any different?

I imagine our laws are similar to yours in respect to exhaust fumes in that there is a certain limit on what is coming out. Go over that limit and you're breaking the law.

As for driving in restaurants, I don't see why I should be singled out and not allowed to drive in one.

**CingularDuality** · 11-19-2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

Since you have to work, it's not an option not to, then you have to find a job that you actually like do you not think that people are entitled to not having to breath in fumes.

Cing: Your argument about other hazards in the workplace and relating that to smoking in the woking place completely falls over. Some jobe are dangerous because that is their nature. their is nothing that can be done about that. Smoking isn't part of any job that I know of. If it is classed as a hazard then by law some sort of protective gear must be issued.

What I'm saying is that an employee can choose to only work at NON-SMOKING restaurants/bars/whatevers... That's the beauty of freedom, you get to decide what you're going to do. If you decide to stay unemployed because you don't want to walk/drive/ride an extra 15 minutes to a non-smoking business, then that's your choice.

And what is this nonsense about protective gear? If there's a hazard in the workplace then protective gear must be issued? By who? The business? The Gov't? The customers? Over here we have OSHA, but they don't cover every hazard, their enforcement is without teeth, and they simply can't go out to every business... Their strength is in education.

BTW, I read some US Army medical report a few years back, and unfortunately I haven't been able to find it since... Anyway, one of the things I distinctly remember from this report was this:

Quote:

Performing aerobic activity (walking, jogging, etc...) beside a moderately busy highway (15-45 cars per minute) for a half hour does the same damage to your lungs as smoking a PACK of cigarettes.

I was in the Marines when I first read this, and I tried to use it to get out of running every morning. When I showed the report to my Gunny, he just went off on some rant about soldiers being a bunch of cats or felines or kitties or something...

**leejo** · 11-19-2003, 12:52 PM

Right. Employers could adopt all sorts of policies that society has rejected using Cing's argument....don't like 18 hr shifts without a break? Go to hell! Don't like getting your butt squeezed little lady? Hit the road. Don't like working with hazardous chemicals without gloves? Go work at the Commieland theme park, pinko!

11-19-2003, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Right. Employers could adopt all sorts of policies that society has rejected using Cing's argument....don't like 18 hr shifts without a break? Go to hell! Don't like getting your butt squeezed little lady? Hit the road. Don't like working with hazardous chemicals without gloves? Go work at the Commieland theme park, pinko!

OMFG LOL!!!!!

**CingularDuality** · 11-19-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Right. Employers could adopt all sorts of policies that society has rejected using Cing's argument....don't like 18 hr shifts without a break? Go to hell! Don't like getting your butt squeezed little lady? Hit the road. Don't like working with hazardous chemicals without gloves? Go work at the Commieland theme park, pinko!

LOL!

You're right, except that there's a large portion of our population that enjoys participating in this "hazard". With the possible exception of a few freaks, nobody wants to work without a break, be harassed or have their hands melt. LOTS of people want to be able to smoke.

Look this issue is about freedom. Not occupational safety. Not personal health. Not anything else. If we allow this to happen, what next? "City Council just voted 5-2 in favor of banning the sale of Pepsi Cola within the city limits. Vendors will be subject to fines of up to $500 per sale for violations of this new statute. In other news, Coca-Cola Corporation has just announced that it will be donating $11 million to the new Institute for the Arts to be built downtown...."
Sound crazy? Think about what exactly it is that you're allowing when you accept a smoking ban as a good thing. Think about exactly what types of freedoms you're giving up, whether you're a smoker, non-smoker, business owner or bum.

My whole beef with this issue is that the problem can be solved with much less infringement on people's freedoms. And yet the sheeple don't care...

Lirix · 11-19-2003, 01:33 PM

I think that would be a major point worth looking at Leejo. The government has been passing laws restricting privately owned businesses for some time. I'm curious how many people complain about other laws that they've passed(For example: minimum wage).

Personally, I'm a non-smoker and greatly prefer non-smoking environments. I've got nothing against a little smoke now and again, but anyplace where it congegrates makes my eyes water and starts to impact my ability to breathe. Plus, smoking is expensive and I need my computer upgrades. :P

As for cars being just as bad....I'm more concerned about the lack of conscious thought displayed by other drivers. I might actually prefer going back to horses.

NothingMore. · 11-19-2003, 01:38 PM

You people should be thanking the bans =P think of all the money you'll save conserving your ciggerettes. And maybe, just *maybe* you'll all quit, like smart people.

Edit:: And if your in a bar, and you need a cig, take the money you saved, and buy another beer.

**CingularDuality** · 11-19-2003, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AreYouBreathing?

You people should be thanking the bans =P think of all the money you'll save conserving your ciggerettes. And maybe, just *maybe* you'll all quit, like smart people.

Edit:: And if your in a bar, and you need a cig, take the money you saved, and buy another beer.

It doesn't work that way. Here in Dallas, bars are going out of business. Restaurants are making much less money.

This is why: I simply drive across the freeway and into the city of Irving for lunch/dinner/drinks. Dallas is losing a LOT of business, especially conventions. Members of City Council have already expressed regret in passing the ban, but don't feel that they can repeal it...

NothingMore. · 11-19-2003, 01:47 PM

So buy more beer! They'll stay in buisness =P

I do understand how it works in texas though, dry towns and all that, I have alot of family down there, In their case, I can see an exception. family lives in rowlette =) In case you were at all interested.

You're still just not buying enough....

**Wolfie** · 11-19-2003, 01:49 PM

They can pass an amendment that changes the ban to public places and define public places (parks, libraries, city hall, anything purchased or run by public money).

We need to educate people that governments really only have control over public funds and public buildings. They can not force a business to not have smoking areas or to not allow people to smoke in their business. However, unfortunately, the neo-anti-smoking crowd belives they have the right to infringe their beliefs onto everyone else.

**leejo** · 11-19-2003, 02:25 PM

I don't think that this issue is about freedom. You may smoke yourself silly in your own home and nobody's stopping you. You may drink yourself silly in your own home and nobody will stop you. But if you do either in a manner that affects my safety, then we have a problem. My health and safety trump your personal freedom.

That's the idea anyway. Is it perfectly enforced? No. Should we add auto pollution and any of a host of other issues? Maybe.

Listen, if you're serious about fighting for personal freedoms, don't pick smoking as your poster child. Smoking is a really nasty thing to do to yourself. Will most people say that you're free to do it in your home? Sure, but they will also shake their heads and feel sorry for you that you're killing yourself.

**CingularDuality** · 11-20-2003, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

I don't think that this issue is about freedom. You may smoke yourself silly in your own home and nobody's stopping you. You may drink yourself silly in your own home and nobody will stop you. But if you do either in a manner that affects my safety, then we have a problem.

But what if I want to do it in my business? Nobody is forcing you to come into my bar... Nobody keeps people from leaving when someone lights up. There is nothing but your personal choice that places you in the presence of a smoker in a private place of business.

Quote:

Listen, if you're serious about fighting for personal freedoms, don't pick smoking as your poster child.

Who said this is my "poster child"? I'm pretty much pro-freedom across the board when it comes to political issues.

**_Ender_** · 11-20-2003, 03:31 AM

I agree with Dave on this issue. I dont think the government should force these places to put bans on smoking. Its not the governments job to tell these places what they can and cant do on property they own and pay taxes on. Whats next? Telling me I cant smoke in my own home because the smoke might effect somebody 2 miles down the road? Its getting retarded now.

jex · 11-20-2003, 07:07 AM

I Apologise, I don't think I made my point clear enough.

I'm not saying that bars/clubs/restaurants should be smoke free - after all we go there to enjoy drink food and a cigarette. If you go for a job here then you have to be prepared to be in a smokey environment. That is because your customers smoke. As long as there is also a section for non smokers then that is fine. You may want your freedom to lay down things how you want them, how about your customers freedom to choose (say, if you should want it all smoking - yeah they can go to another bar but you've not given them the freedom of choice, you are restricting them and that is not freedom) - I'm not saying that you think this, just the thought came to me whilst typing so I included it the same paragraph.

If this was an office then things would be completely different and there is no way you are going to convince me that smoking should be allowed in this environment but if I was on a building site, in fresh air then I wouldn't have a problem.

So yes I agree with you on the bar point, I don't know how you stand on the office point though?

Do you not think it slightly ironic though. here we are discussing freedom to smoke when cigarettes are one of the most addictive things on the planet - is it a freedom to be an addict? weird huh?

11-19-2003, 01:38 PM	#83 (permalink)
NothingMore. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Where ever I really want to be. Posts: 1,007	You people should be thanking the bans =P think of all the money you'll save conserving your ciggerettes. And maybe, just maybe you'll all quit, like smart people. Edit:: And if your in a bar, and you need a cig, take the money you saved, and buy another beer. __________________ - 52

11-19-2003, 01:47 PM	#85 (permalink)
NothingMore. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Where ever I really want to be. Posts: 1,007	So buy more beer! They'll stay in buisness =P I do understand how it works in texas though, dry towns and all that, I have alot of family down there, In their case, I can see an exception. family lives in rowlette =) In case you were at all interested. You're still just not buying enough.... __________________ - 52

11-20-2003, 07:07 AM	#90 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	I Apologise, I don't think I made my point clear enough. I'm not saying that bars/clubs/restaurants should be smoke free - after all we go there to enjoy drink food and a cigarette. If you go for a job here then you have to be prepared to be in a smokey environment. That is because your customers smoke. As long as there is also a section for non smokers then that is fine. You may want your freedom to lay down things how you want them, how about your customers freedom to choose (say, if you should want it all smoking - yeah they can go to another bar but you've not given them the freedom of choice, you are restricting them and that is not freedom) - I'm not saying that you think this, just the thought came to me whilst typing so I included it the same paragraph. If this was an office then things would be completely different and there is no way you are going to convince me that smoking should be allowed in this environment but if I was on a building site, in fresh air then I wouldn't have a problem. So yes I agree with you on the bar point, I don't know how you stand on the office point though? Do you not think it slightly ironic though. here we are discussing freedom to smoke when cigarettes are one of the most addictive things on the planet - is it a freedom to be an addict? weird huh? __________________ Jex

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smoking Ban	Buck Fush	The Sandbox	127	07-24-2006 01:24 PM
Smoking Tarpan	percu	Battlefield 2 - After Action Reports	20	11-21-2005 08:17 PM

11-19-2003, 10:37 AM	#77 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,407	Since you have to work, it's not an option not to, then you have to find a job that you actually like do you not think that people are entitled to not having to breath in fumes. Cing: Your argument about other hazards in the workplace and relating that to smoking in the woking place completely falls over. Some jobe are dangerous because that is their nature. their is nothing that can be done about that. Smoking isn't part of any job that I know of. If it is classed as a hazard then by law some sort of protective gear must be issued. But... If they have the right to smoke do I have the right to defend my safety? Can I attack someone on the basis that I am defending myself against their poisonous smoke? Mmmm wonder how that would work lol. Ender: your car starts emitting fumes as soon as the engine is turned on, what ever vehicle you are in, but my point was that nobody complains about car fumes and what they do to our lungs, why should smoking in public places be any different? I imagine our laws are similar to yours in respect to exhaust fumes in that there is a certain limit on what is coming out. Go over that limit and you're breaking the law. As for driving in restaurants, I don't see why I should be singled out and not allowed to drive in one.

11-19-2003, 12:52 PM	#79 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Right. Employers could adopt all sorts of policies that society has rejected using Cing's argument....don't like 18 hr shifts without a break? Go to hell! Don't like getting your butt squeezed little lady? Hit the road. Don't like working with hazardous chemicals without gloves? Go work at the Commieland theme park, pinko!

11-19-2003, 01:33 PM	#82 (permalink)
Lirix Join Date: May 2003 Location: Aurora, CO Age: 29 Posts: 173	I think that would be a major point worth looking at Leejo. The government has been passing laws restricting privately owned businesses for some time. I'm curious how many people complain about other laws that they've passed(For example: minimum wage). Personally, I'm a non-smoker and greatly prefer non-smoking environments. I've got nothing against a little smoke now and again, but anyplace where it congegrates makes my eyes water and starts to impact my ability to breathe. Plus, smoking is expensive and I need my computer upgrades. :P As for cars being just as bad....I'm more concerned about the lack of conscious thought displayed by other drivers. I might actually prefer going back to horses.

11-19-2003, 01:49 PM	#86 (permalink)
Wolfie Join Date: May 2003 Location: Michigan Age: 33 Posts: 1,405	They can pass an amendment that changes the ban to public places and define public places (parks, libraries, city hall, anything purchased or run by public money). We need to educate people that governments really only have control over public funds and public buildings. They can not force a business to not have smoking areas or to not allow people to smoke in their business. However, unfortunately, the neo-anti-smoking crowd belives they have the right to infringe their beliefs onto everyone else.

11-19-2003, 02:25 PM	#87 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	I don't think that this issue is about freedom. You may smoke yourself silly in your own home and nobody's stopping you. You may drink yourself silly in your own home and nobody will stop you. But if you do either in a manner that affects my safety, then we have a problem. My health and safety trump your personal freedom. That's the idea anyway. Is it perfectly enforced? No. Should we add auto pollution and any of a host of other issues? Maybe. Listen, if you're serious about fighting for personal freedoms, don't pick smoking as your poster child. Smoking is a really nasty thing to do to yourself. Will most people say that you're free to do it in your home? Sure, but they will also shake their heads and feel sorry for you that you're killing yourself.

11-20-2003, 03:31 AM	#89 (permalink)
_Ender_ Join Date: May 2003 Location: I am lost, if you know where I am then please feel free to tell me. Age: 29 Posts: 2,048	I agree with Dave on this issue. I dont think the government should force these places to put bans on smoking. Its not the governments job to tell these places what they can and cant do on property they own and pay taxes on. Whats next? Telling me I cant smoke in my own home because the smoke might effect somebody 2 miles down the road? Its getting retarded now.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links