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.
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.
They are free to wear scuba gear, or not work there in the first place.Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
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?
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" ...
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?
Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?
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?
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?
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.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?
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.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.