CDZ Smoker's Rights

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.
Yes, non-smoking is good business, not just because it attracts customers but because it reduces costs. Smoking damages merchandise, facilities, and increases employee absenteeism. Most businesses strongly support anti-smoking laws.
 
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.
Yes, non-smoking is good business, not just because it attracts customers but because it reduces costs. Smoking damages merchandise, facilities, and increases employee absenteeism. Most businesses strongly support anti-smoking laws.

The problem in the past was no business owner wanted to be the first to step up and tell smokers they couldn't engage in their filthy habit

If Moes Tavern told smokers they no longer were allowed to smoke, they would blame Moe and take their business elsewhere.
If Moe tells smokers the Government no longer allows smoking, they have nowhere else to go
 
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.
It's an unlikely scenario that a women who has to take care of her kids during the day when her husband works can only find one job in her community? It's an unlikely scenario that an older person with very limited mobility can only shop at a local store? It's unlikely scenario that a person with a serious health or disability can only find a single place they can work. I say B.S. There are plenty of people in this country that don't have the choice of jobs are places to shop.

And yes, we not only can but must pick what freedoms are not allowed. People can not be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences are to others. This is a fundamental reason for government.
 
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.
It's an unlikely scenario that a women who has to take care of her kids during the day when her husband works can only find one job in her community? It's an unlikely scenario that an older person with very limited mobility can only shop at a local store? I say B.S. There are plenty of people in this country that don't have the choice of jobs are places to shop.

And yes, we not only can but must pick what freedoms are not allowed. People can not be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of the consequences are to others. This is a fundamental reason for government.

Coal miners did not have anywhere else to work

They were told if they didn't like the safety in the mines or the black lung that would kill them someday, they could go work elsewhere

Miners looking to support a family were willing to take the risk

The Government had to step in, the mine owners were not willing to consider the safety of their workers on their own
 
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.

Yea, I understand. One of those small town Ma and Pa diners, the only one in town.
 
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.

Yea, I understand. One of those small town Ma and Pa diners, the only one in town.

What happens when a non-smoking couple with an infant enters that diner?
 
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.

Yea, I understand. One of those small town Ma and Pa diners, the only one in town.

What happens when a non-smoking couple with an infant enters that diner?

The non-smoking couple can take their infant and leave the establishment and go home and fix dinner. They aren't required to stay in the smoking establishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting that filthy action removed from all the entire environment, but people still have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions. If it offends you, or the well being of your infant, remove yourself/yourselves.
 
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.

Yea, I understand. One of those small town Ma and Pa diners, the only one in town.

What happens when a non-smoking couple with an infant enters that diner?

The non-smoking couple can take their infant and leave the establishment and go home and fix dinner. They aren't required to stay in the smoking establishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting that filthy action removed from all the entire environment, but people still have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions. If it offends you, or the well being of your infant, remove yourself/yourselves.

You are punishing the victim rather than the one fouling the air

Smokers do have responsibilityfor their own actions and their actions are harming others. That is why we have smoking laws. There is no reason you HAVE to smoke while you are in that diner. There is a reason that you have to breathe
 
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.

Yea, I understand. One of those small town Ma and Pa diners, the only one in town.

What happens when a non-smoking couple with an infant enters that diner?

The non-smoking couple can take their infant and leave the establishment and go home and fix dinner. They aren't required to stay in the smoking establishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting that filthy action removed from all the entire environment, but people still have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions. If it offends you, or the well being of your infant, remove yourself/yourselves.

You are punishing the victim rather than the one fouling the air

Smokers do have responsibilityfor their own actions and their actions are harming others. That is why we have smoking laws. There is no reason you HAVE to smoke while you are in that diner. There is a reason that you have to breathe

My post stated the NON-smoking couple...didn't have to stay and subject their infant to an environment which was allowing smoking. No victim punishment going on here. Maybe you misunderstood.
 
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.

Yea, I understand. One of those small town Ma and Pa diners, the only one in town.

What happens when a non-smoking couple with an infant enters that diner?

The non-smoking couple can take their infant and leave the establishment and go home and fix dinner. They aren't required to stay in the smoking establishment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting that filthy action removed from all the entire environment, but people still have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions. If it offends you, or the well being of your infant, remove yourself/yourselves.

You are punishing the victim rather than the one fouling the air

Smokers do have responsibilityfor their own actions and their actions are harming others. That is why we have smoking laws. There is no reason you HAVE to smoke while you are in that diner. There is a reason that you have to breathe

My post stated the NON-smoking couple...didn't have to stay and subject their infant to an environment which was allowing smoking. No victim punishment going on here. Maybe you misunderstood.
I know it did and you are wrong

The non smoking couple is not forcing others to breathe their filth
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top