CDZ Smoker's Rights

[OnePercenter]

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.

What about booze? As an employer, I have yet to have an employee late to work or absent from work because they smoked too much the night before. In essence, the politicians pander to the stronger lobby.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

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

 

[bodecea]

Non-smokers are too self-centered to associate with. Bottom line is that they consider their comfort more important that anyone elses'.

You spelled Smokers wrong.....

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers are a dying breed in more ways than one

Not only are they physically dying off before their time, but their activity forces them to be social outcasts. Their numbers are dwindling as their opportunities to engage in their filthy habit diminish

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

 

[Darkwind]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

Use this as a paradigm. There are two really popular restaurants in town. It's a small town, as most are. Young people have employment opportunities in both of these restaurants and the jobs there are ideal for a young man or woman. The hours allow for enrollment in a local small college or university branch campus. The tips offered by either restaurant's patrons are generous. One place has a smoking section, the other is smoke free.

Now, for any young person, working in an environment that contains second hand smoke is a very unhealthy thing. In fact, anyone working in such and environment, the hazards to personal health rise exponentially.

Only one restaurant truly grants an opportunity for advancement while the other stunts it by polluting the workplace.

It's as if there are two coke batteries in town. One follows stringent industrial hygiene methods, the other ignores even the most loose interpretations of workplace safety methodology. Both make money, but only the foolish would work in such an environment that guarantees long term health problems.

Now, I cannot understand the absolute understanding of a smoker's rights. If a smoker dines at a fine restaurant, why is it a personal freedom issue to expect that smoker to light up in his car following his meal rather than at the dining table?

 

[Darkwind]

Are they forced to work there?

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

Use this as a paradigm. There are two really popular restaurants in town. It's a small town, as most are. Young people have employment opportunities in both of these restaurants and the jobs there are ideal for a young man or woman. The hours allow for enrollment in a local small college or university branch campus. The tips offered by either restaurant's patrons are generous. One place has a smoking section, the other is smoke free.

Now, for any young person, working in an environment that contains second hand smoke is a very unhealthy thing. In fact, anyone working in such and environment, the hazards to personal health rise exponentially.

Only one restaurant truly grants an opportunity for advancement while the other stunts it by polluting the workplace.

It's as if there are two coke batteries in town. One follows stringent industrial hygiene methods, the other ignores even the most loose interpretations of workplace safety methodology. Both make money, but only the foolish would work in such an environment that guarantees long term health problems.

Now, I cannot understand the absolute understanding of a smoker's rights. If a smoker dines at a fine restaurant, why is it a personal freedom issue to expect that smoker to light up in his car following his meal rather than at the dining table?

Two things...well, any number of things...but I'll go at it this way.

The entire frame of the debate isn't about a smokers right vs a non smokers right. It is about the business right.

The business can do one of two things.

Allow smoking, or not.

The patrons in your small town will know that one does, one does not. Those who don't smoke will try to seek employment with the non smoking establishment while those who do smoke or are indifferent to the effects, will try to work at either place.

In any case, none of them are 'entitled' to the job at either establishment. Simply put, because I want something does not mean I get to have it. Most parents teach this at about the age of two...

For those who can't get a job at the non smoking establishment and are non smokers, they are free to seek employment at any of the other businesses in this small little town, or travel to the next small town, or even travel to the next largest city to be employed.

Convenience to your place of employment is also NOT a right.

Personally, if I couldn't get a job with either, I'd open a business of My own and put them both out of business. But Americans have had that entrepreneurial spirit beaten out of them by our public schools. Now its just a "I want" mentality.

 

[Pop23]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

And the right to breath clean air is only for those that live in the country

 

[Pop23]

Are they forced to work there?

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

Use this as a paradigm. There are two really popular restaurants in town. It's a small town, as most are. Young people have employment opportunities in both of these restaurants and the jobs there are ideal for a young man or woman. The hours allow for enrollment in a local small college or university branch campus. The tips offered by either restaurant's patrons are generous. One place has a smoking section, the other is smoke free.

Now, for any young person, working in an environment that contains second hand smoke is a very unhealthy thing. In fact, anyone working in such and environment, the hazards to personal health rise exponentially.

Only one restaurant truly grants an opportunity for advancement while the other stunts it by polluting the workplace.

It's as if there are two coke batteries in town. One follows stringent industrial hygiene methods, the other ignores even the most loose interpretations of workplace safety methodology. Both make money, but only the foolish would work in such an environment that guarantees long term health problems.

Now, I cannot understand the absolute understanding of a smoker's rights. If a smoker dines at a fine restaurant, why is it a personal freedom issue to expect that smoker to light up in his car following his meal rather than at the dining table?

And what is the radon level in each?

 

[Darkwind]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

And the right to breath clean air is only for those that live in the country

I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

But if you want don't want to breath contaminated air, don't go where the air is contaminated.

Every city on this planet has bad air. Yes, its been cleaned up a lot, but its still contaminated. The choice to go to the city depends on your need for high class hookers and your willingness to risk the air.

 

[Pop23]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

Employers should have that choice.

If all bans were lifted today, how many businesses do you honestly think would allow smoking?

A few bars, that's about it

 

[Pop23]

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?

There is no right to economic advancement.

And the right to breath clean air is only for those that live in the country

I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

But if you want don't want to breath contaminated air, don't go where the air is contaminated.

Every city on this planet has bad air. Yes, its been cleaned up a lot, but its still contaminated. The choice to go to the city depends on your need for high class hookers and your willingness to risk the air.

Agreed, yet it's the argument isn't it?

Want clean air, don't open the door that says smoking is allowed inside.

But these same folk that support these bans probably never ask what the radon level in those same businesses, even though radon kills far more people by lung cancer than second had smoke

Hypocrites, pure and simple

 

[Darkwind]

Are they forced to work there?

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

Employers should have that choice.

If all bans were lifted today, how many businesses do you honestly think would allow smoking?

A few bars, that's about it

yep...a couple of bowling alleys maybe...

and I'm okay with that.

Being an ex smoker, I like to breathe the air....I think any smart business person would ban smoking in their establishments....

I'm just not for forcing them to do so.

 

[Pop23]

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.

I submit that the greater good is served more by economic advancement than smoking. What do you think?

Not a smoker, (quit in Sept. 2000) and even though I swore I'd never be one of those militant anti-smoker types (I can't stand the smell of it, as it makes Me sick)and I avoid smoking situations whenever possible, it has nothing to do with the greater good.

People of good faith and no little bit of intelligence, when faced with the knowledge that an establishment permits smoking, will simply avoid it and do business or work where that isn't a problem.

I have no problem with employers banning smoking in the workplace and forcing smokers outside.

But I do have a problem with people who think that employment or economic advancement at the expense of others is somehow a right.

Employers should have that choice.

If all bans were lifted today, how many businesses do you honestly think would allow smoking?

A few bars, that's about it

yep...a couple of bowling alleys maybe...

and I'm okay with that.

Being an ex smoker, I like to breathe the air....I think any smart business person would ban smoking in their establishments....

I'm just not for forcing them to do so.

^^^^^ TRUE AMERICAN^^^^^

 

[Nosmo King]

Are they forced to work there?

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.

And the right to breath clean air is only for those that live in the country

I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

But if you want don't want to breath contaminated air, don't go where the air is contaminated.

Every city on this planet has bad air. Yes, its been cleaned up a lot, but its still contaminated. The choice to go to the city depends on your need for high class hookers and your willingness to risk the air.

Agreed, yet it's the argument isn't it?

Want clean air, don't open the door that says smoking is allowed inside.

But these same folk that support these bans probably never ask what the radon level in those same businesses, even though radon kills far more people by lung cancer than second had smoke

Hypocrites, pure and simple

The exposure doses and times for radon and second hand smoke are not analogous. Folks develop cancers from radon because they live in housing with high radon levels. More exposure than that of an eight hour work shift.

But the question concerns business owner's rights.

If smoking in businesses is banned, is that in and of itself a restriction of business owner rights? Are any workplace safety regulations then seen as infringements on business owner's rights? Does a ban on smoking call into question all environmental regulations?

 

[prison/con.net]

why can't smokers just ACKNOWLEDGE that they have no' right to pollute the air that ot!her people are FORCED to breathe, hmm? Just because they don't care if THEIR own lungs are ruined

 

[Pop23]

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.

And the right to breath clean air is only for those that live in the country

I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

But if you want don't want to breath contaminated air, don't go where the air is contaminated.

Every city on this planet has bad air. Yes, its been cleaned up a lot, but its still contaminated. The choice to go to the city depends on your need for high class hookers and your willingness to risk the air.

Agreed, yet it's the argument isn't it?

Want clean air, don't open the door that says smoking is allowed inside.

But these same folk that support these bans probably never ask what the radon level in those same businesses, even though radon kills far more people by lung cancer than second had smoke

Hypocrites, pure and simple

The exposure doses and times for radon and second hand smoke are not analogous. Folks develop cancers from radon because they live in housing with high radon levels. More exposure than that of an eight hour work shift.

But the question concerns business owner's rights.

If smoking in businesses is banned, is that in and of itself a restriction of business owner rights? Are any workplace safety regulations then seen as infringements on business owner's rights? Does a ban on smoking call into question all environmental regulations?

Surely you jest?

Employees can't spend as much if not more time in radon environments at work.

Did a radon test in a building several years ago after the tenant left. Over 50 full time employees worked there.

The radon level was twice the safe level.

 

[Pop23]

why can't smokers just ACKNOWLEDGE that they have no' right to pollute the air that ot!her people are FORCED to breathe, hmm? Just because they don't care if THEIR own lungs are ruined

When are you forced to inhale second hand smoke?