CDZ Smoker's Rights

[prison/con.net]

when I have to WORK some place that lets arrogant pukes smoke, that's when. You know, work, like almost everyone HAS to do?

 

[Flopper]

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

That has been the argument against every form of regulation and law to protect workers and customers in the workplace; if they don't like it, they can go someplace else. However, workers and customers don't necessarily have the option of always going someplace else. A person may not be able to find another job. A customer may have limited mobility where they can't just shop somewhere else.

 

[Flopper]

Several of our local beaches have banned smoking

Not because of the second hand smoke but because smokers use the beach as their personal ashtray

Smokers can't help being pigs

1.69 BILLION pounds of butts wind up as toxic trash each year, creating an enormous environmental, health, and economic burden. Contrary to popular belief, cigarette butts are NOT biodegradable! In addition to being unsightly, they are a danger to wildlife as well as human health.

 

[auditor0007]

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, if I can then sue them for being forced to inhale second hand smoke when I shop at their business.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

At this point, it's really impractical. Most businesses that would allow it would lose the vast majority of their customers, because only about 20% of people smoke. The vast majority of businesses saw their business increase when they no longer allowed customers to smoke.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.
The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

No business has a right to maintain an unsafe work environment
Coal mines used the same argument you do. If you don't want the job...work someplace else
The fact that their workers developed black lung in twenty years was not their problem

huh? By allowing smokers to smoke at work is maintaining an unsafe work environment? Not if the people who work there choose to do so voluntarily and the owner is OK with it...

Again, I will ask the simple question that no one will answer....who is forcing anyone to work at or patronize the establishment? What law is forcing you to work there? What big guy is standing outside with a weapon threatening you with violence if you dont go in and buy a good or service from that company?

Using the police power of government to push your agenda on other people rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. Unable to decide things for yourself, something as simple as...do I want to go into this store...oh please big government, tell me what I should do, Im too stupid to make decisions for myself...typical of big government loving losers.

 

[rightwinger]

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

No business has a right to maintain an unsafe work environment
Coal mines used the same argument you do. If you don't want the job...work someplace else
The fact that their workers developed black lung in twenty years was not their problem

huh? By allowing smokers to smoke at work is maintaining an unsafe work environment? Not if the people who work there choose to do so voluntarily and the owner is OK with it...

Again, I will ask the simple question that no one will answer....who is forcing anyone to work at or patronize the establishment? What law is forcing you to work there? What big guy is standing outside with a weapon threatening you with violence if you dont go in and buy a good or service from that company?

Using the police power of government to push your agenda on other people rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. Unable to decide things for yourself, something as simple as...do I want to go into this store...oh please big government, tell me what I should do, Im too stupid to make decisions for myself...typical of big government loving losers.

What complete nonsense. Putting the respsonsibility of stopping other employees from smoking on fellow workers. That is the responsibility of management not workers

You have been looking for work for six months. You finally find a good job and the manager in your department is a heavy smoker. Interview question....Do you mind if I smoke? Answer: No Sir

 

[Imnukingfutz]

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.
The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

It is government's job to protect people from harm due to the choices that others make. It is one of the primary functions of government. For example, it was certainly government's job to enacted laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. These individual choices are known to cause serious harm to others.

Again, same question I have been asking everyone else...How are you being forced to breathe in smoke?

Ever try breathing without using air?
How long can you hold your breath?

You actually need this shit EXPLAINED?? Ain't exactly rocket surgery.... only on USMB would somebody play dumb enough to need an explanation for how air works.

Im a non smoker and establishments where I live allow smoking. I choose not to patronize those establishments...I am expressing my freedom of choice while allowing others to also express their choice. Win win

You want to deprive someone of their freedom to choose but force your choice down their throat.

That's what a smoker in anybody's vicinity does, yes.
Again, for the umpteenth time --- you're free to do whatever you like with your own lungs. That right stops at the trachea of the next nearest person.

Don't like it? Tough titty. Find a way to dispense that carcinogenic shit into a balloon or something, and you can smoke all you like. I don't throw my kitchen garbage on your lawn, and you don't blow carcinogenic smoke into my atmosphere.

First - Im a non-smoker. I dont blow carcinogenic shit anywhere. If you would have read my posts I made that clear from the very beginning but apparently you dont let facts and truth deter your argument.

I also do not use the police power of government to make my decisions for me and force others to follow.

Establishments here where I live allow smoking. If I do not want to patronize that establishment, I am free to go elsewhere and often do. I do not force others to stop what they choose to do in order for me to get my way. Most establishments here do not allow smoking any how, but its their choice not a government mandate.

No one is forcing you to patronize those establishments but for some reason you feel you have the right to force them to not smoke to suit your desires....even in establishments you never have any plans on patronizing.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.
The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

That has been the argument against every form of regulation and law to protect workers and customers in the workplace; if they don't like it, they can go someplace else. However, workers and customers don't necessarily have the option of always going someplace else. A person may not be able to find another job. A customer may have limited mobility where they can't just shop somewhere else.

In todays day and age, that is highly an extremely unlikely and 1 in a million scenario.

If you want to base that as being a basis for regulations, I know a guy who has 2 different sized feet...should government mandate that all shoes made be two different sizes to accommodate people? Some people are allergic to specific spices, should government ban spices?

Mass transportation (busses) are diesel and their emissions smell horrible, in city atmospheres you can smell the stench long after the bus goes past...are we to ban busses?

You cant pick and choose what freedoms are allowed and which ones arent allowed because once you do, you are no longer free to make any decision.

 

[rightwinger]

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

It is government's job to protect people from harm due to the choices that others make. It is one of the primary functions of government. For example, it was certainly government's job to enacted laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. These individual choices are known to cause serious harm to others.

Again, same question I have been asking everyone else...How are you being forced to breathe in smoke?

Ever try breathing without using air?
How long can you hold your breath?

You actually need this shit EXPLAINED?? Ain't exactly rocket surgery.... only on USMB would somebody play dumb enough to need an explanation for how air works.

Im a non smoker and establishments where I live allow smoking. I choose not to patronize those establishments...I am expressing my freedom of choice while allowing others to also express their choice. Win win

You want to deprive someone of their freedom to choose but force your choice down their throat.

That's what a smoker in anybody's vicinity does, yes.
Again, for the umpteenth time --- you're free to do whatever you like with your own lungs. That right stops at the trachea of the next nearest person.

Don't like it? Tough titty. Find a way to dispense that carcinogenic shit into a balloon or something, and you can smoke all you like. I don't throw my kitchen garbage on your lawn, and you don't blow carcinogenic smoke into my atmosphere.

First - Im a non-smoker. I dont blow carcinogenic shit anywhere. If you would have read my posts I made that clear from the very beginning but apparently you dont let facts and truth deter your argument.

I also do not use the police power of government to make my decisions for me and force others to follow.

Establishments here where I live allow smoking. If I do not want to patronize that establishment, I am free to go elsewhere and often do. I do not force others to stop what they choose to do in order for me to get my way. Most establishments here do not allow smoking any how, but its their choice not a government mandate.

No one is forcing you to patronize those establishments but for some reason you feel you have the right to force them to not smoke to suit your desires....even in establishments you never have any plans on patronizing.

The police powers of government tells bar owners the age they can serve, how late they can stay open, how many people are allowed in their establishment and workforce laws

That "nanny state" also tells them they are not allowed to permit customers to foul the air for other customers

 

[Bonzi]

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?

At this point, it's really impractical. Most businesses that would allow it would lose the vast majority of their customers, because only about 20% of people smoke. The vast majority of businesses saw their business increase when they no longer allowed customers to smoke.

I had smaller business in mind. You know, a "mom and pop" shop in a community with a fair amount of smokers (e.g. in the South) - or even a small coffee shop or restaurant. A place for smokers to hang out.

 

[rightwinger]

Government regulation on smoking in the workplace has provided business owners with the only effective means to enplace no smoking in their establishment

Before, it was the individual business who had to be the bad guy. It was Joes Diner who was telling you that you can't smoke. Smoking customers would take out their dissatisfaction on Joe. Now Joe can say....Its not me telling you that you can't smoke, its the government
It also levels the playing field. None of Joes competitors can allow smoking either

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

No business has a right to maintain an unsafe work environment
Coal mines used the same argument you do. If you don't want the job...work someplace else
The fact that their workers developed black lung in twenty years was not their problem

huh? By allowing smokers to smoke at work is maintaining an unsafe work environment? Not if the people who work there choose to do so voluntarily and the owner is OK with it...

Again, I will ask the simple question that no one will answer....who is forcing anyone to work at or patronize the establishment? What law is forcing you to work there? What big guy is standing outside with a weapon threatening you with violence if you dont go in and buy a good or service from that company?

Using the police power of government to push your agenda on other people rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. Unable to decide things for yourself, something as simple as...do I want to go into this store...oh please big government, tell me what I should do, Im too stupid to make decisions for myself...typical of big government loving losers.

What complete nonsense. Putting the respsonsibility of stopping other employees from smoking on fellow workers. That is the responsibility of management not workers

You have been looking for work for six months. You finally find a good job and the manager in your department is a heavy smoker. Interview question....Do you mind if I smoke? Answer: No Sir

LOL...you seem to be of the belief that smokers just want to stink up an establishment and piss non-smokers off...smoking in establishments here is legal and many restaurants here dont allow it...actually most do not allow it. Those that do make you smoke in the outside cafe area of the place.

Imagine, people being allowed to make decisions for themselves and not having government dictate every second of their lives. What a novel idea. Too bad so many people are scared to death of that concept.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

It is government's job to protect people from harm due to the choices that others make. It is one of the primary functions of government. For example, it was certainly government's job to enacted laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. These individual choices are known to cause serious harm to others.

Again, same question I have been asking everyone else...How are you being forced to breathe in smoke?

Ever try breathing without using air?
How long can you hold your breath?

You actually need this shit EXPLAINED?? Ain't exactly rocket surgery.... only on USMB would somebody play dumb enough to need an explanation for how air works.

Im a non smoker and establishments where I live allow smoking. I choose not to patronize those establishments...I am expressing my freedom of choice while allowing others to also express their choice. Win win

You want to deprive someone of their freedom to choose but force your choice down their throat.

That's what a smoker in anybody's vicinity does, yes.
Again, for the umpteenth time --- you're free to do whatever you like with your own lungs. That right stops at the trachea of the next nearest person.

Don't like it? Tough titty. Find a way to dispense that carcinogenic shit into a balloon or something, and you can smoke all you like. I don't throw my kitchen garbage on your lawn, and you don't blow carcinogenic smoke into my atmosphere.

First - Im a non-smoker. I dont blow carcinogenic shit anywhere. If you would have read my posts I made that clear from the very beginning but apparently you dont let facts and truth deter your argument.

I also do not use the police power of government to make my decisions for me and force others to follow.

Establishments here where I live allow smoking. If I do not want to patronize that establishment, I am free to go elsewhere and often do. I do not force others to stop what they choose to do in order for me to get my way. Most establishments here do not allow smoking any how, but its their choice not a government mandate.

No one is forcing you to patronize those establishments but for some reason you feel you have the right to force them to not smoke to suit your desires....even in establishments you never have any plans on patronizing.

The police powers of government tells bar owners the age they can serve, how late they can stay open, how many people are allowed in their establishment and workforce laws

That "nanny state" also tells them they are not allowed to permit customers to foul the air for other customers

Where are you at? Businesses here can stay open as late as they want and often do. Some allow smoking while others dont. People are free to go where ever they wish to go and patronize whatever establishment they wish to.

And please, dont try to mix a drinking age with a business owners choice to allow a certain activity at their establishment. Its an idiom of an argument.

If you are one of the people that needs government to decide things for you, thats fine but dont force others to live the life you see fit for yourself through government regulations.

I hate smoking, its a vial & disgusting habit...but you have the choice and freedom to partake in the habit. I do not have the right to stop you or force you to not smoke. I DO have the ability and right to go elsewhere and patronize an establishment that does not allow smoking and more often than not, I chose to do just that.

In my business you are not allowed to smoke, but thats my choice not a government mandate.

 

[rightwinger]

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

No business has a right to maintain an unsafe work environment
Coal mines used the same argument you do. If you don't want the job...work someplace else
The fact that their workers developed black lung in twenty years was not their problem

huh? By allowing smokers to smoke at work is maintaining an unsafe work environment? Not if the people who work there choose to do so voluntarily and the owner is OK with it...

Again, I will ask the simple question that no one will answer....who is forcing anyone to work at or patronize the establishment? What law is forcing you to work there? What big guy is standing outside with a weapon threatening you with violence if you dont go in and buy a good or service from that company?

Using the police power of government to push your agenda on other people rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. Unable to decide things for yourself, something as simple as...do I want to go into this store...oh please big government, tell me what I should do, Im too stupid to make decisions for myself...typical of big government loving losers.

What complete nonsense. Putting the respsonsibility of stopping other employees from smoking on fellow workers. That is the responsibility of management not workers

You have been looking for work for six months. You finally find a good job and the manager in your department is a heavy smoker. Interview question....Do you mind if I smoke? Answer: No Sir

LOL...you seem to be of the belief that smokers just want to stink up an establishment and piss non-smokers off...smoking in establishments here is legal and many restaurants here dont allow it...actually most do not allow it. Those that do make you smoke in the outside cafe area of the place.

Imagine, people being allowed to make decisions for themselves and not having government dictate every second of their lives. What a novel idea. Too bad so many people are scared to death of that concept.

Actually, yes

When given the chance, smokers do want to stink up the establishment and piss people off. I grew up in the 60s when over 50% of the people smoked. They smoked wherever and whenever they wanted. Restaurants, bars, movie theaters, stores, workplace......Unless you could prove you had a specific health problem, they became outraged if you asked them not to smoke.

Their response was generally the same as you read on this thread. If you don't like my smoking, go somewhere else

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Government regulation on smoking in the workplace has provided business owners with the only effective means to enplace no smoking in their establishment

Before, it was the individual business who had to be the bad guy. It was Joes Diner who was telling you that you can't smoke. Smoking customers would take out their dissatisfaction on Joe. Now Joe can say....Its not me telling you that you can't smoke, its the government
It also levels the playing field. None of Joes competitors can allow smoking either

"It also levels the playing field. None of Joes competitors can allow smoking either"

yea, heavens forbid that one business actually offer something someone else does not...how dare a company try to set itself apart from all the others out there...government is there to make sure everyone is exactly the same.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

No business has a right to maintain an unsafe work environment
Coal mines used the same argument you do. If you don't want the job...work someplace else
The fact that their workers developed black lung in twenty years was not their problem

huh? By allowing smokers to smoke at work is maintaining an unsafe work environment? Not if the people who work there choose to do so voluntarily and the owner is OK with it...

Again, I will ask the simple question that no one will answer....who is forcing anyone to work at or patronize the establishment? What law is forcing you to work there? What big guy is standing outside with a weapon threatening you with violence if you dont go in and buy a good or service from that company?

Using the police power of government to push your agenda on other people rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. Unable to decide things for yourself, something as simple as...do I want to go into this store...oh please big government, tell me what I should do, Im too stupid to make decisions for myself...typical of big government loving losers.

What complete nonsense. Putting the respsonsibility of stopping other employees from smoking on fellow workers. That is the responsibility of management not workers

You have been looking for work for six months. You finally find a good job and the manager in your department is a heavy smoker. Interview question....Do you mind if I smoke? Answer: No Sir

LOL...you seem to be of the belief that smokers just want to stink up an establishment and piss non-smokers off...smoking in establishments here is legal and many restaurants here dont allow it...actually most do not allow it. Those that do make you smoke in the outside cafe area of the place.

Imagine, people being allowed to make decisions for themselves and not having government dictate every second of their lives. What a novel idea. Too bad so many people are scared to death of that concept.

Actually, yes

When given the chance, smokers do want to stink up the establishment and piss people off. I grew up in the 60s when over 50% of the people smoked. They smoked wherever and whenever they wanted. Restaurants, bars, movie theaters, stores, workplace......Unless you could prove you had a specific health problem, they became outraged if you asked them not to smoke.

Their response was generally the same as you read on this thread. If you don't like my smoking, go somewhere else

Its their business and thus it is their choice to allow it or not.

Damn that pesky freedom and choice thing.

 

[rightwinger]

It is government's job to protect people from harm due to the choices that others make. It is one of the primary functions of government. For example, it was certainly government's job to enacted laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. These individual choices are known to cause serious harm to others.

Again, same question I have been asking everyone else...How are you being forced to breathe in smoke?

Ever try breathing without using air?
How long can you hold your breath?

You actually need this shit EXPLAINED?? Ain't exactly rocket surgery.... only on USMB would somebody play dumb enough to need an explanation for how air works.

Im a non smoker and establishments where I live allow smoking. I choose not to patronize those establishments...I am expressing my freedom of choice while allowing others to also express their choice. Win win

You want to deprive someone of their freedom to choose but force your choice down their throat.

That's what a smoker in anybody's vicinity does, yes.
Again, for the umpteenth time --- you're free to do whatever you like with your own lungs. That right stops at the trachea of the next nearest person.

Don't like it? Tough titty. Find a way to dispense that carcinogenic shit into a balloon or something, and you can smoke all you like. I don't throw my kitchen garbage on your lawn, and you don't blow carcinogenic smoke into my atmosphere.

First - Im a non-smoker. I dont blow carcinogenic shit anywhere. If you would have read my posts I made that clear from the very beginning but apparently you dont let facts and truth deter your argument.

I also do not use the police power of government to make my decisions for me and force others to follow.

Establishments here where I live allow smoking. If I do not want to patronize that establishment, I am free to go elsewhere and often do. I do not force others to stop what they choose to do in order for me to get my way. Most establishments here do not allow smoking any how, but its their choice not a government mandate.

No one is forcing you to patronize those establishments but for some reason you feel you have the right to force them to not smoke to suit your desires....even in establishments you never have any plans on patronizing.

The police powers of government tells bar owners the age they can serve, how late they can stay open, how many people are allowed in their establishment and workforce laws

That "nanny state" also tells them they are not allowed to permit customers to foul the air for other customers

Where are you at? Businesses here can stay open as late as they want and often do. Some allow smoking while others dont. People are free to go where ever they wish to go and patronize whatever establishment they wish to.

And please, dont try to mix a drinking age with a business owners choice to allow a certain activity at their establishment. Its an idiom of an argument.

If you are one of the people that needs government to decide things for you, thats fine but dont force others to live the life you see fit for yourself through government regulations.

I hate smoking, its a vial & disgusting habit...but you have the choice and freedom to partake in the habit. I do not have the right to stop you or force you to not smoke. I DO have the ability and right to go elsewhere and patronize an establishment that does not allow smoking and more often than not, I chose to do just that.

In my business you are not allowed to smoke, but thats my choice not a government mandate.

Which state are you in? That doesn't make sense

 

[rightwinger]

Government regulation on smoking in the workplace has provided business owners with the only effective means to enplace no smoking in their establishment

Before, it was the individual business who had to be the bad guy. It was Joes Diner who was telling you that you can't smoke. Smoking customers would take out their dissatisfaction on Joe. Now Joe can say....Its not me telling you that you can't smoke, its the government
It also levels the playing field. None of Joes competitors can allow smoking either

"It also levels the playing field. None of Joes competitors can allow smoking either"

yea, heavens forbid that one business actually offer something someone else does not...how dare a company try to set itself apart from all the others out there...government is there to make sure everyone is exactly the same.

Yes, Government is there to make sure everyone is treated exactly the same

All businesses have to comply with exactly the same labor laws, building codes, fire laws. Now they have exactly the same smoking regulations

 

[Pogo]

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

It is government's job to protect people from harm due to the choices that others make. It is one of the primary functions of government. For example, it was certainly government's job to enacted laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. These individual choices are known to cause serious harm to others.

Again, same question I have been asking everyone else...How are you being forced to breathe in smoke?

Ever try breathing without using air?
How long can you hold your breath?

You actually need this shit EXPLAINED?? Ain't exactly rocket surgery.... only on USMB would somebody play dumb enough to need an explanation for how air works.

Im a non smoker and establishments where I live allow smoking. I choose not to patronize those establishments...I am expressing my freedom of choice while allowing others to also express their choice. Win win

You want to deprive someone of their freedom to choose but force your choice down their throat.

That's what a smoker in anybody's vicinity does, yes.
Again, for the umpteenth time --- you're free to do whatever you like with your own lungs. That right stops at the trachea of the next nearest person.

Don't like it? Tough titty. Find a way to dispense that carcinogenic shit into a balloon or something, and you can smoke all you like. I don't throw my kitchen garbage on your lawn, and you don't blow carcinogenic smoke into my atmosphere.

First - Im a non-smoker. I dont blow carcinogenic shit anywhere. If you would have read my posts I made that clear from the very beginning but apparently you dont let facts and truth deter your argument.

I also do not use the police power of government to make my decisions for me and force others to follow.

Establishments here where I live allow smoking. If I do not want to patronize that establishment, I am free to go elsewhere and often do. I do not force others to stop what they choose to do in order for me to get my way. Most establishments here do not allow smoking any how, but its their choice not a government mandate.

No one is forcing you to patronize those establishments but for some reason you feel you have the right to force them to not smoke to suit your desires....even in establishments you never have any plans on patronizing.

And once more, I'm not referring to what businesses can do and if you had ready my posts you could have seen that, but don't let that fact deter your argument, so don't give me that self-righteous song and dance.

I'm referring -- and have been throughout -- to what smokers can do. Personally.

Urinating is not a crime, right? So I'm going to piss in your half-empty beer mug. By your logic, that's fine.

Same thing.
No wait -- it's not the same thing. My piss in your beer isn't going to kill you.