CDZ Smoker's Rights

Bonzi

Diamond Member
May 17, 2015
43,020
16,011
2,290
Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?
 
Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.

The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.
 
Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.

The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.

But what about if you are told in advance, this is a job where people are allowed to smoke? Or frequent an establishment?

What if, say, a new restaurant opens and you have the new "Outback" and right next door the "Outback for Smokers"... ? Would that be OK?
 
Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.

The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.

But what about if you are told in advance, this is a job where people are allowed to smoke? Or frequent an establishment?

What if, say, a new restaurant opens and you have the new "Outback" and right next door the "Outback for Smokers"... ? Would that be OK?

As long as it's always upwind (you'd need some big fans) and the unsmoking Outback is always open when the smoking one is, yeah.

Is it worth it?

I mean you create a whole separate building, with superexpesive climate machines, just so that you can take a noxious weed that's been grown by rednecks under government subsidies kept at poverty levels, then shipped off to a multinational corporation that fills it up with carcinogens, mashes trees into pulp that is then washed out of all its natural color with Chlorine (another poison) to wrap around it so that "only pure white touches your lips" and deliberately marketed to addict people who then set that stick on fire and inhale said multipoisonous smoke into their lungs ---- for what? So you can make an ideological point?
 
Is it worth it?

what about making cigarette smoking illegal. I know it won't happen, but, would you be for that? Or is it something you think people should only do where it is "legal" ...
 
Smokers have no rights, except on their own property.

If that property is in a co-operative situation, such as a condo, those rights are secondary to the welfare of the whole community.
 
Last edited:
Non-smokers are too self-centered to associate with. Bottom line is that they consider their comfort more important that anyone elses'.
 
Is it worth it?

what about making cigarette smoking illegal. I know it won't happen, but, would you be for that? Or is it something you think people should only do where it is "legal" ...

Nope. I don't believe in legislating morality. It doesn't work anyway.
But at the same time you can't force people to ingest it. Which is what happens in any room where a smoker lights up.
 
Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

Sure, why not? We who don't like the smell can now just go to Amazon to shop and/or patronize smoke-free businesses.
 
Smokers should have the right to stink up any place they go
 
Smokers, like other addicts, go to great lengths to rationalize their antisocial behavior. As the saying goes, your right to swing you arm ends at the tip of my nose. The same goes for smoking. Smokers have no right to force others to inhale their noxious and carcinogenic fumes.
 
Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?

Are they forced to work there?
Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

Why does your economic advancement trump someone else's right to engage in an activity of their choosing? That's not what this argument is about anyway. This is about property rights and the rights of a business to choose whether or not to allow a perfectly LEGAL activity in his establishment. You, as the employee, don't have a say in that. You can choose not to work there if it bothers you that much. You're not entitled to a job there or anywhere, for that fact.
 
Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.

The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.

But what about if you are told in advance, this is a job where people are allowed to smoke? Or frequent an establishment?

What if, say, a new restaurant opens and you have the new "Outback" and right next door the "Outback for Smokers"... ? Would that be OK?
Like breathing, working isn't optional, at least not for most of us. So when you allow the employees or customers to smoke, other employees are forced to face the hazards of smoking or quit their job.
 
Is it worth it?

what about making cigarette smoking illegal. I know it won't happen, but, would you be for that? Or is it something you think people should only do where it is "legal" ...

Nope. I don't believe in legislating morality. It doesn't work anyway.
But at the same time you can't force people to ingest it. Which is what happens in any room where a smoker lights up.
Smoking bans work because the public supports. With or without legislation most businesses would prohibit workplace smoking. One survey showed 94% of the population supports smoking bans in the workplace. For the employer, it makes good economic sense.
 
people who don't like it can just not do biz with that establishment. that will be PLENTY of incentive for the owner/manager to do the right thing and ban smoking on his premises.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top