Smoking Bans - Page 7

Benny_ · 11-20-2003, 11:47 AM

Interestingly and probably too late for y'll now. The ban on smoking in aeroplanes means the air is recycled cr4p. When smoking was allowed the entire air system was vented after relatively short periods. So although the smell is annoying, the risk from passive smoking at those levels is so minimal when compared to the germs and recycled stuff you breath. If you really want I'll go find the source, and I can't really be arsed.

Oh, and lo to the older N42 members.

**Wolfie** · 11-20-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

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.

Freedom of choice is not a Constitutional right nor should it ever be one.

Besides which, they do have a choice. If they want to go to a smoke filled environment, that is there choice. If they don't want to, that is another choice. However, forcing a privately owned business to include a smoke free section is not protecting someone's freedom of choice, it is the government intruding into a section they have no business in (the economy). And in a way, it takes away someone's freedom of choice, the owner that actually paid for the land, the building, the employees, the inventory, the advertising, etc. Joe Public does not have the right to force a business to include a smoke free section, nor does Joe Public have the right to prevent a bar owner from allowing his patrons to light one up.

Lets look at an example. Say Joe P is a non-smoker who hates being in smokey areas while Will smokes 2 packs a day. Bob owns a local bar. Bob decides that smoking is okay in the bar he bought with his own money. Does Joe have the right to force Bob to ban smoking or build a section that caters to his needs? No he doesn't. Joe can show his displeasure by not spending money in Bob's bar, but he doesn't have the right to force Bob to cater to his desires. Bob did not build the bar to cater to people like Joe P. He built the bar and is running it for people like Will to have a place to go to, have a drink, and not get punished for smoking.

And this is what the bans are doing. They are forcing privately owned businesses to cater to certain individuals. This is the equivalent to a ban saying that all religious stores can only stock Christian material.

**CingularDuality** · 11-20-2003, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfie

Besides which, they do have a choice. If they want to go to a smoke filled environment, that is there choice. If they don't want to, that is another choice.

**CingularDuality** · 11-20-2003, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny_

Interestingly and probably too late for y'll now. The ban on smoking in aeroplanes means the air is recycled cr4p. When smoking was allowed the entire air system was vented after relatively short periods. So although the smell is annoying, the risk from passive smoking at those levels is so minimal when compared to the germs and recycled stuff you breath. If you really want I'll go find the source, and I can't really be arsed.

Oh, and lo to the older N42 members.

Where's the goat? Good to see you stop in!

I'd be interested in learning more about this ventilation issue in airplanes.

Geisha · 11-20-2003, 12:43 PM

Well I guess I finally have to come firmly down on the side of "banning smoking in buildings that are not publicly-owned is unconstitutional". Regardless of my personal feelings about smoke and having to breathe it. Interesting points about the car exhaust and airplane air. If anyone runs across the sources, I'm curious (haven't found them myself yet - and I'm not disbelieving, just curious what the actual numbers are).

PS Why does everyone feel the need to correct British or Canadian or Australian spellings? We in the United States do not have the only version of English on the planet. Even US dictionaries have both spellings for "colour" and the New England company slipped "honour" onto our wedding invitations and told us it was more formal. Or am I just missing the implied rib-digging overtones between two old friends?

**Wolfie** · 11-20-2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geisha

Or am I just missing the implied rib-digging overtones between two old friends?

That is the goat, just some rib-digging between old friends :P

jex · 11-20-2003, 01:59 PM

Wow - okay wolfie I'm not talking about the constitution here. I'm talking about freedom of choice - which is a right to all human beings.

If you own a business where you entice people to come in, do you not think it would be fair then to provide area's of none smoking? It's all about respect for others about you. It has nothing to do with your freedom to run a business which in essence, is a dictatorship anyway lol.

As someone who is providing a community service - shouldn't you be obliged to provide places for none smokers too ? If not then wouldn't that be discrimination? As a business owner you have certain responsibilities to the environment and people around you.

**_Ender_** · 11-20-2003, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

If you own a business where you entice people to come in, do you not think it would be fair then to provide area's of none smoking? It's all about respect for others about you. It has nothing to do with your freedom to run a business which in essence, is a dictatorship anyway lol.

As someone who is providing a community service - shouldn't you be obliged to provide places for none smokers too ? If not then wouldn't that be discrimination? As a business owner you have certain responsibilities to the environment and people around you.

Yes they can, but its not a requirement.

**Wolfie** · 11-20-2003, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jex

If you own a business where you entice people to come in, do you not think it would be fair then to provide area's of none smoking? It's all about respect for others about you. It has nothing to do with your freedom to run a business which in essence, is a dictatorship anyway lol.

No, I don't think it would be fair (as in non-discriminating). I would think it would be a business choice to get a different type of customer into the bar. However, most patrons to a bar enjoy a good smoke.

Quote:

As someone who is providing a community service - shouldn't you be obliged to provide places for none smokers too ?

Community service/public places? Yes they should cater so that non-smokers don't have to inhale second hand smoke.

Quote:

As a business owner you have certain responsibilities to the environment and people around you.

So going by this train of thought, a Christian bookstore would have to supply Muslim religious books, even if the owners are Christians and setup the store to supply Christian literature to fellow Christians. Seems like you are not "protecting freedom of choice", but instead are forcing a company to sell products (or in the case of bars, provide a "service") against the owner's wishes.

**leejo** · 11-20-2003, 04:58 PM

A Christian bookstore doesn't have to sell Muslim literature because freedom of speech is protected under the US Constitution and a central idea of freedom of speech is that one cannot be compelled to say things one doesn't believe in. Howard Dean supporters cannot be forced to hand out GWB bumper stickers, e.g.

The smoking thing is different in that cigarette smoke is known to kill people. It's even known to kill people who do not smoke, never have smoked, but have been around people who do smoke.

Again, customers do have choice and may or may not enter any particular business. Employees don't really have that choice.

**Wolfie** · 11-20-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

The smoking thing is different in that cigarette smoke is known to kill people. It's even known to kill people who do not smoke, never have smoked, but have been around people who do smoke.

Cars kill people. People that don't drive have been known to be killed by cars......

Should we ban cars next because they might kill someone down the road?

Quote:

Again, customers do have choice and may or may not enter any particular business. Employees don't really have that choice.

They have the choice of working there or looking someplace else. There is no guarantee a person is suppose to have a job or to have the job that they want.

Also show me where in the Constitution does it say that consumers can tell a business what they can or can not do within their own place of business?

**leejo** · 11-20-2003, 08:07 PM

I never suggested that the Constitution gives consumers the power to dictate what a business does. Free markets do that. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that restrains government from removing cigarettes from the market or a restaurant. You have no more "right" to smoke that you have the right to stick a herion needle in your arm or run naked against traffic. It is dangerous, self-destructive, and (I assume) unattractive behavior that one may happen to enjoy, but it isn't free speech, it isn't bearing a firearm, it isn't a religion, and making it illegal doesn't target a particular race or class of people. It simply is not protected behavior. The government - the majority - can make it illegal as it pleases.

Similarly, the majority likes cars. Want to ban cars? I suggest that you will find that the majority of people who use them find cars useful and therefore tolerate the danger. If someone could demonstrate that people who smoke get laid more often, have whiter teeth, make more money, etc., instead of just turning yellow, stinky, and sick over time, you might find more people defending one's "right" to smoke.

**Wyzcrak** · 11-20-2003, 08:10 PM

This hits on a point that is, somehow, relevant. Cars offer a service to society. Cigarette smoking does not.

Wyzcrak

Geisha · 11-21-2003, 12:26 AM

I'd still like to know where all the consumer-generated Non-Smoking Only restaurants are. Discounting towns where legislation is in place, I only know of Chick-Fil-A's and one (count it, one) family diner in Chicago. I support that privately-owned places shouldn't be legislated, but it depresses me that there must be so many smokers out there that to be only non-smoking isn't profitable. (I just KNOW someone is going to mention a yoghurt/tofu restaurant in Colorado, now, aren't they?)

So, what about restaurants in malls? They're open-air to a very large slice of public (including a LOT of kids), but I think the mall property is still privately-owned isn't it?

NothingMore. · 11-21-2003, 12:41 AM

Heh, I know Finigans in newyork is... I was there moday night with my brother, That was fun =P

Saw alot of people smoking outside.

11-20-2003, 01:59 PM	#97 (permalink)
jex Join Date: May 2003 Location: United Kingdom Age: 37 Posts: 3,392	Wow - okay wolfie I'm not talking about the constitution here. I'm talking about freedom of choice - which is a right to all human beings. If you own a business where you entice people to come in, do you not think it would be fair then to provide area's of none smoking? It's all about respect for others about you. It has nothing to do with your freedom to run a business which in essence, is a dictatorship anyway lol. As someone who is providing a community service - shouldn't you be obliged to provide places for none smokers too ? If not then wouldn't that be discrimination? As a business owner you have certain responsibilities to the environment and people around you. __________________ Jex

11-20-2003, 08:10 PM	#103 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,139	This hits on a point that is, somehow, relevant. Cars offer a service to society. Cigarette smoking does not. Wyzcrak __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

11-21-2003, 12:41 AM	#105 (permalink)
NothingMore. Join Date: May 2003 Location: Where ever I really want to be. Posts: 1,007	Heh, I know Finigans in newyork is... I was there moday night with my brother, That was fun =P Saw alot of people smoking outside. __________________ - 52

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Smoking Ban	Buck Fush	The Sandbox	127	07-24-2006 12:24 PM
Smoking Tarpan	percu	Battlefield 2 - After Action Reports	20	11-21-2005 07:17 PM

11-20-2003, 11:47 AM	#91 (permalink)
Benny_ Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 369	Interestingly and probably too late for y'll now. The ban on smoking in aeroplanes means the air is recycled cr4p. When smoking was allowed the entire air system was vented after relatively short periods. So although the smell is annoying, the risk from passive smoking at those levels is so minimal when compared to the germs and recycled stuff you breath. If you really want I'll go find the source, and I can't really be arsed. Oh, and lo to the older N42 members.

11-20-2003, 12:43 PM	#95 (permalink)
Geisha Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 277	Well I guess I finally have to come firmly down on the side of "banning smoking in buildings that are not publicly-owned is unconstitutional". Regardless of my personal feelings about smoke and having to breathe it. Interesting points about the car exhaust and airplane air. If anyone runs across the sources, I'm curious (haven't found them myself yet - and I'm not disbelieving, just curious what the actual numbers are). PS Why does everyone feel the need to correct British or Canadian or Australian spellings? We in the United States do not have the only version of English on the planet. Even US dictionaries have both spellings for "colour" and the New England company slipped "honour" onto our wedding invitations and told us it was more formal. Or am I just missing the implied rib-digging overtones between two old friends?

11-20-2003, 04:58 PM	#100 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,669	A Christian bookstore doesn't have to sell Muslim literature because freedom of speech is protected under the US Constitution and a central idea of freedom of speech is that one cannot be compelled to say things one doesn't believe in. Howard Dean supporters cannot be forced to hand out GWB bumper stickers, e.g. The smoking thing is different in that cigarette smoke is known to kill people. It's even known to kill people who do not smoke, never have smoked, but have been around people who do smoke. Again, customers do have choice and may or may not enter any particular business. Employees don't really have that choice.

11-20-2003, 08:07 PM	#102 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,669	I never suggested that the Constitution gives consumers the power to dictate what a business does. Free markets do that. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Constitution that restrains government from removing cigarettes from the market or a restaurant. You have no more "right" to smoke that you have the right to stick a herion needle in your arm or run naked against traffic. It is dangerous, self-destructive, and (I assume) unattractive behavior that one may happen to enjoy, but it isn't free speech, it isn't bearing a firearm, it isn't a religion, and making it illegal doesn't target a particular race or class of people. It simply is not protected behavior. The government - the majority - can make it illegal as it pleases. Similarly, the majority likes cars. Want to ban cars? I suggest that you will find that the majority of people who use them find cars useful and therefore tolerate the danger. If someone could demonstrate that people who smoke get laid more often, have whiter teeth, make more money, etc., instead of just turning yellow, stinky, and sick over time, you might find more people defending one's "right" to smoke.

11-21-2003, 12:26 AM	#104 (permalink)
Geisha Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 277	I'd still like to know where all the consumer-generated Non-Smoking Only restaurants are. Discounting towns where legislation is in place, I only know of Chick-Fil-A's and one (count it, one) family diner in Chicago. I support that privately-owned places shouldn't be legislated, but it depresses me that there must be so many smokers out there that to be only non-smoking isn't profitable. (I just KNOW someone is going to mention a yoghurt/tofu restaurant in Colorado, now, aren't they?) So, what about restaurants in malls? They're open-air to a very large slice of public (including a LOT of kids), but I think the mall property is still privately-owned isn't it?

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links