Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No one has a "right" to smoke. Tobacco is a regulated substance. Sale of it is prohibited to minors. And smoking is intrusive. A smoker has no "right" to impose second hand smoke on anyone.Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
Are they forced to work there?
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.
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?
Businesses are strong supporters of smoke free workplace laws because it benefits them. Without the law, businesses face a number of potential problems such as loss of key employees or customers to businesses that allow or don't allow smoking, higher insurance rates and employee absenteeism if they allow smoking, and personnel problems with smokers and non-smokers. In essence, government solves the problem by making it illegal.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.
How about because of property rights.Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
Are they forced to work there?
If you choose to patronize a business that allows smoking, then no one is imposing second hand smoke on you, you are exposing yourself to it voluntarily.No one has a "right" to smoke. Tobacco is a regulated substance. Sale of it is prohibited to minors. And smoking is intrusive. A smoker has no "right" to impose second hand smoke on anyone.Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
Are they forced to work there?
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.
We do, however, have a right to breathe clean fresh air.
By the way, I hate smoke myself.If you choose to patronize a business that allows smoking, then no one is imposing second hand smoke on you, you are exposing yourself to it voluntarily.No one has a "right" to smoke. Tobacco is a regulated substance. Sale of it is prohibited to minors. And smoking is intrusive. A smoker has no "right" to impose second hand smoke on anyone.Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
Are they forced to work there?
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.
We do, however, have a right to breathe clean fresh air.
Ventilation Does Not Effectively Protect Nonsmokers from Secondhand SmokeI see no reason that non-smokers should object to well ventilated smoking areas other than that they just enjoy being assholes. Such areas should be required in all public areas. Smokers are as much a valid part of the public as non-smokers and their money is used to pay for them same as non-smokers.
Here's the problem. Let's say restaurants permit smoking. Well, one restaurateur sees that his sales are up because his patrons just cannot wait to light up in their cars on the way home. Other restaurateurs take his example. Soon, every restaurant smells like an ashtray and there are no restaurants accommodating non smokers. Where can the non smoker dine without smelling like trailer trash? Where can a non smoker eat without the intrusion of cigarette smoke?If you choose to patronize a business that allows smoking, then no one is imposing second hand smoke on you, you are exposing yourself to it voluntarily.No one has a "right" to smoke. Tobacco is a regulated substance. Sale of it is prohibited to minors. And smoking is intrusive. A smoker has no "right" to impose second hand smoke on anyone.Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
Are they forced to work there?
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.
We do, however, have a right to breathe clean fresh air.
If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because more people don't smoke they do... that would never be an issue in current times.
If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because more people don't smoke they do... that would never be an issue in current times.
And no restaurant that was serious about its food would be allowing smoking anyway. It would undermine everything they're about.
Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.
They are discriminated against for good reason. Smoking is a very intrusive habit. The smoker is not the only one who suffers from this nasty habit. EVERYONE around the smoke gets to smell as an ashtray simply by proximity.I've not found many people smoke on people. Smokers know they will get called out because non-smokers are much more vocal now. Even though it's legal, smokers are VERY discriminated against.
Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.
They are discriminated against for good reason. Smoking is a very intrusive habit. The smoker is not the only one who suffers from this nasty habit. EVERYONE around the smoke gets to smell as an ashtray simply by proximity.I've not found many people smoke on people. Smokers know they will get called out because non-smokers are much more vocal now. Even though it's legal, smokers are VERY discriminated against.
Once again, there is NO RIGHT TO SMOKE. There is, however, a right to breathe clean fresh air. But a "right" to smoke does not exist.Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.
Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!
So far as a restaurant goes, the smoker's option is clear. Wait until you leave the restaurant and get into your own car before you light up.They are discriminated against for good reason. Smoking is a very intrusive habit. The smoker is not the only one who suffers from this nasty habit. EVERYONE around the smoke gets to smell as an ashtray simply by proximity.I've not found many people smoke on people. Smokers know they will get called out because non-smokers are much more vocal now. Even though it's legal, smokers are VERY discriminated against.
I'm saying business should have a right to allow it if they so choose. Use signage to warn non-smokers.
Like I said earlier, these "smoking" business will be in the minority, but at least smokers will have a few, scant options!
