CDZ Smoker's Rights

[Flopper]

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.

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?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.

Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.

Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.

I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.

Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.

 

[Bonzi]

... this thread makes me want to smoke....

Why would a thread about how millions die and get sick because of smoking make you want to smoke? No respect for the gift of life that God gave you?

Well not much for mine anyway.... there are much worse things out there than smoking. For some, it's their only pleasure in life....

 

[Bonzi]

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.

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?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.

Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.

Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.

I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.

Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.

I'm speaking of now, after the fact. If an employer states prior to an employee being hired that they allow smoking, the odds of that being the ONLY place they can get a job is astronomically small!

Why do we cater to the work at the expense of the employer? Especially a small business owner?

 

[kwc57]

Smokers have no rights, except on their own property.

If that property is in a co-operative situation, such as a condo, those rights are secondary to the welfare of the whole community.

What a comrade! Looking out for the collective. Extra bread for you. remember, if you see someone thinking freely instead of complying, report it.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Smoking increases your risk of dying from cancer or heart disease regardless of your cellular propensity.

Perhaps, but smoking does not guarantee you will get cancer or heart disease.

Are you suggesting those gifted with longevity should waste it on inhaling the tobacco smoke of others in public places?

Not at all, but I would suggest that in a free society, those who choose to smoke, and those business owners who choose to permit them should be free to do so without government restrictions. Those who choose not to smoke may go elsewhere.

BTW, I myself do not smoke. Cigarettes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And who paid for that study? Phillip Morris? Bullshit, to put it mildly.

This is one, though not the study I read.

Genes Smoking and Lung Cancer Learn Science at Scitable

 

[paddymurphy]

And who paid for that study? Phillip Morris? Bullshit, to put it mildly.

This is one, though not the study I read.

Genes Smoking and Lung Cancer Learn Science at Scitable

And this is from that report: "Years of study and a mountain of evidence point to tobacco smoking as the single most important risk factor for lung cancer. Nonsmokers (people who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes over the course of their lives) have less than a 1% chance of ever developing lung cancer. Smokers, on the other hand, have about a 14% chance of developing lung cancer at some point during their lifetime—that means their risk is more than ten times higher than that of nonsmokers! But is smoking the only factor that increases a person's risk of lung cancer? The short answer is no, as genetics has been shown to play a role as well." So, smoking is the single most important rick factor for developing lung cancer. And, this is actually the gist of the article: "Smoking is still the number-one cause of lung cancer in humans. Even if a smoker were to test negative for the 15q24 susceptibility locus, smoking could still seriously damage his or her health. Remember, even smokers without the locus have a tenfold greater risk of develop lung cancer than nonsmokers do. In other words, all smokers are at risk of lung cancer, but some smokers are a greater risk than others."

 

[Vandalshandle]

I believe that smokers should be accommodated, wherever possible. For example, a smoking section could be set up on the wing of an aircraft. When we play water volleyball, we allow smoking underwater. They could set up a spot next to the propane tanks outside the hardware store. Out here in the AZ desert, we allow smoking on top of Rattlesnake Butte. The smoking lamp is always lit at our community's mortuary crematorium.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And who paid for that study? Phillip Morris? Bullshit, to put it mildly.

This is one, though not the study I read.

Genes Smoking and Lung Cancer Learn Science at Scitable

And this is from that report: "Years of study and a mountain of evidence point to tobacco smoking as the single most important risk factor for lung cancer. Nonsmokers (people who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes over the course of their lives) have less than a 1% chance of ever developing lung cancer. Smokers, on the other hand, have about a 14% chance of developing lung cancer at some point during their lifetime—that means their risk is more than ten times higher than that of nonsmokers! But is smoking the only factor that increases a person's risk of lung cancer? The short answer is no, as genetics has been shown to play a role as well." So, smoking is the single most important rick factor for developing lung cancer. And, this is actually the gist of the article: "Smoking is still the number-one cause of lung cancer in humans. Even if a smoker were to test negative for the 15q24 susceptibility locus, smoking could still seriously damage his or her health. Remember, even smokers without the locus have a tenfold greater risk of develop lung cancer than nonsmokers do. In other words, all smokers are at risk of lung cancer, but some smokers are a greater risk than others."

I am not arguing the point.

 

[Nosmo King]

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?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.

Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.

Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.

I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.

Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.

I'm speaking of now, after the fact. If an employer states prior to an employee being hired that they allow smoking, the odds of that being the ONLY place they can get a job is astronomically small!

Why do we cater to the work at the expense of the employer? Especially a small business owner?

Do you find it more appealing to screw employees? That's the prevailing attitude among Conservatives. You seem to forget that employees make the profits.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.

Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.

List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.

Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.

I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.

Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.

I'm speaking of now, after the fact. If an employer states prior to an employee being hired that they allow smoking, the odds of that being the ONLY place they can get a job is astronomically small!

Why do we cater to the work at the expense of the employer? Especially a small business owner?

The jobs a person can hold depends on their education, experience, physical condition, access to transportation wages needed to support their family, working hours if they have a second job or children to care for, or a host of other limitation. No one should be faced with a choice of either working in an unsafe environment or not working at all.

 

[prison/con.net]

your "needed wages" have NOTHING to do with what jobs you CAN hold. you could "hold' a job that doesn't pay enough, but why would you want to do so?

 

[prison/con.net]

Smokers have no right whatsoever to pollute air that has to be breathed by other people. OBVIOUSLY, they don't care about THEIR own lungs, so of COURSE they dont care about anyone else's lungs. Also, the ground EXISTS for smokers to throw cigarette butts upon. We all know that.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

As a bar musician, I've spent over a thousand nights in smoked filled rooms over the years and as a non-smoking former smoker, I didn't really care. However, now that smoking has been banned from all but one club where I work, my body has become acclimated to non-smoking venues and when I do work a smoking room it is nauseating and causes throat and breathing irritation.
Still, my main concern is the lax attitude toward pot smoke. Many obnoxious, zealous ant-smokers seem OK with pot smoke. Idiots.
So a smoke (tobacco) that may have a detrimental effect on you if you're exposed to it for decades is more serious than ingesting pot smoke which can have an immediate debilitating effect? Pretty stupid.

 

[rightwinger]

My Grandma smoked from late teens to 82. Stayed active till 96. She lived to 99.

You either do or you don't.

My grandfather chain smoked non filtered Camels his whole life. Choked up a lung at 59

 

[rightwinger]

This no not a debate about smoking and longevity .. it's about whether business should have a right to make the smoking policy THEIR call vs. that of the state or federal gov't.

People smoke, it's legal, we all make choices. You can't say if someone should or shouldn't smoke. Just like drinking. You don't hear people droning on about the ill effects of alcohol on your liver, because drinking is not offensive (to most) - you do, however, hear about drunk driving, quite a bit more serious to others than smoking.

Smoking s a choice. You can decide not only to smoke, but when and where you light up

Once you light up.....the people around you no longer have a choice

 

[rightwinger]

This no not a debate about smoking and longevity .. it's about whether business should have a right to make the smoking policy THEIR call vs. that of the state or federal gov't.

People smoke, it's legal, we all make choices. You can't say if someone should or shouldn't smoke. Just like drinking. You don't hear people droning on about the ill effects of alcohol on your liver, because drinking is not offensive (to most) - you do, however, hear about drunk driving, quite a bit more serious to others than smoking.

The discussion I was having with other was about whether there are health risks from smoking. As for whether the government should be permitted to ban it from public area, of course they should. It can harm others. No one should be forced to be exposed to things that can harm them. And government efforts to curb smoking have worked and millions of lives saved.

this discussion ALMOST makes me want to do research, because frankly, I think that comment "saving millions of lives" I can almost guarantee is a HUGE exaggeration!

Millions easy

It is the biggest healthcare initiative in the last 50 years

 

[Imnukingfutz]

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.

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

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

Why not the smoker?

 

[prison/con.net]

boy, is that ever correct! Let the smokers suffer from their stupidity, instead of getting away with always forcing it upon other people, who at least have enough sense to not pollute their bodies with SMOKE