Smoking Bans

[Skull Pilot]

Hey skull. Smoking bans by a business isn't just about the customers.

Businesses have employees. Some don't smoke. Do they have any rights in your world. Or should they just quit their good job because the boss smokes and allows others to do same?

Don't people have the choice to work where they do?

Can't you ask when you apply for a job whether the establishment allows smoking and then make a decision on whether or not to accept the position?

This stuff really isn't difficult to comprehend. Why do you have such a problem understanding it?

What a 19th century mentality

We had the same attitude with worker protections. You don't like that coal mines kill people.......work elsewhere

Coal mining is dangerous work. Waitressing isn't.

But on either count no one is forced to accept any job.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey skull. Smoking bans by a business isn't just about the customers.

Businesses have employees. Some don't smoke. Do they have any rights in your world. Or should they just quit their good job because the boss smokes and allows others to do same?

Don't people have the choice to work where they do?

Can't you ask when you apply for a job whether the establishment allows smoking and then make a decision on whether or not to accept the position?

This stuff really isn't difficult to comprehend. Why do you have such a problem understanding it?

Hey skull, YOU ever notice their is a shortage of "good" jobs around.

You would't touch the "noise and freedom" issue I raised. How come?

I mean, you don't HAVE to live next to the noisy neighbor. Right? You can move. Just like the person can look for a new job.

I won't indulge in a poor analogy. There are distinct differences between a place of business and a home if you can't see that then that's your problem.

Smoking in a home cannot be compared to loud noise in a home. Allowing smoking in a business and allowing loud music in a business can be compared.

And "good" is subjective.

Do you do do you not have a choice where you work?

 

[zeke]

Let me see if I get this.

You have a business I guess. If you allow an employee to smoke or blare loud rap music all day at work and 90% of your employees QUIT because you allow it, YOU would consider that a rousing success in personal freedoms. Even if it caused your business to fail because YOU didn't want to protect your most valuable employees.

You real sure you are a businessman?

 

[zeke]

Don't people have the choice to work where they do?

Can't you ask when you apply for a job whether the establishment allows smoking and then make a decision on whether or not to accept the position?

This stuff really isn't difficult to comprehend. Why do you have such a problem understanding it?

Hey skull, YOU ever notice their is a shortage of "good" jobs around.

You would't touch the "noise and freedom" issue I raised. How come?

I mean, you don't HAVE to live next to the noisy neighbor. Right? You can move. Just like the person can look for a new job.

I won't indulge in a poor analogy.

Smoking in a home cannot be compared to loud noise in a home.

In other words, there are some "freedoms" that should be "restricted" because they would be objectionable to you.

Glad to know that you have some sensibilities.

But we were not talking smoking in a home now were we. We were talking smoking and freedoms. You want the "freedom" to allow smoking in a private setting, be it home or work.

I want the freedom to blare loud objectionable music at all hours at home or work. And you want to restrict that. You want to restrict my "freedom" because you might find my practicing my freedom a problem.

At least loud music won't kill you like smoke will.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let me see if I get this.

You have a business I guess. If you allow an employee to smoke or blare loud rap music all day at work and 90% of your employees QUIT because you allow it, YOU would consider that a rousing success in personal freedoms. Even if it caused your business to fail because YOU didn't want to protect your most valuable employees.

You real sure you are a businessman?

I don't allow it but that is my choice is it not?

You really are having a hard time comprehending this aren't you?

Let me simplify.

I do not smoke. I never have and never will.

I do not allow smoking in my business.

If a business down the street allows smoking why should it concern me? I don't have to patronize that business do I?

I can take my business to a shop that is smoke free can't I?

I do not allow loud music in my business as it is inappropriate to the venue.

If a business down the street plays loud music why should it concern me?

Both of these situations are different from a residential area.

If a guy smokes like a chimney in his home or on his property it does not matter because no one would even know. If he played loud music all night in a residential area that is a different matter all together.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hey skull, YOU ever notice their is a shortage of "good" jobs around.

You would't touch the "noise and freedom" issue I raised. How come?

I mean, you don't HAVE to live next to the noisy neighbor. Right? You can move. Just like the person can look for a new job.

I won't indulge in a poor analogy.

Smoking in a home cannot be compared to loud noise in a home.

In other words, there are some "freedoms" that should be "restricted" because they would be objectionable to you.

Glad to know that you have some sensibilities.

But we were not talking smoking in a home now were we. We were talking smoking and freedoms. You want the "freedom" to allow smoking in a private setting, be it home or work.

I want the freedom to blare loud objectionable music at all hours at home or work. And you want to restrict that. You want to restrict my "freedom" because you might find my practicing my freedom a problem.

At least loud music won't kill you like smoke will.

How will a guy smoking in his home next door kill me?

On the other hand if I am sleep deprived by a guy making noise all night that might kill me if I fall asleep at the wheel the next day.

 

[zeke]

I won't indulge in a poor analogy.

Smoking in a home cannot be compared to loud noise in a home.

In other words, there are some "freedoms" that should be "restricted" because they would be objectionable to you.

Glad to know that you have some sensibilities.

But we were not talking smoking in a home now were we. We were talking smoking and freedoms. You want the "freedom" to allow smoking in a private setting, be it home or work.

I want the freedom to blare loud objectionable music at all hours at home or work. And you want to restrict that. You want to restrict my "freedom" because you might find my practicing my freedom a problem.

At least loud music won't kill you like smoke will.

How will a guy smoking in his home next door kill me?

On the other hand if I am sleep deprived by a guy making noise all night that might kill me if I fall asleep at the wheel the next day.

You can always move skull. Just like you could change jobs. What is the difference?

You want to restrict some other peoples freedom (loud music) because it could effect you. Just like those that don't like smoking want to restrict some other peoples freedom because smoke makes them ill.

Ain't no difference. Just admit that some "freedoms" that others find objectionable HAVE to be restricted in a respectful society.

And that's what we are talking about. Do others want to be respectful of their neighbors, friends and co workers.

If I have any "respect" for you as my neighbor, I won't keep you awake all night partying. Even if it restricts my "freedom". Same with smoking. Except smoking being an addiction causes other to reach for a cig no matter what. Respect be damned. I got to serve my addiction.

And that's why no smoking bans are used in places of work and shopping. People with that smoking addiction can not be trusted to not smoke on their own. They have to be told NOT TO smoke. And there has to be consequences if they choose to smoke.

My rights as a non smoker trump your addiction to cigs. Just the way it has become.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In other words, there are some "freedoms" that should be "restricted" because they would be objectionable to you.

Glad to know that you have some sensibilities.

But we were not talking smoking in a home now were we. We were talking smoking and freedoms. You want the "freedom" to allow smoking in a private setting, be it home or work.

I want the freedom to blare loud objectionable music at all hours at home or work. And you want to restrict that. You want to restrict my "freedom" because you might find my practicing my freedom a problem.

At least loud music won't kill you like smoke will.

How will a guy smoking in his home next door kill me?

On the other hand if I am sleep deprived by a guy making noise all night that might kill me if I fall asleep at the wheel the next day.

You can always move skull. Just like you could change jobs. What is the difference?

You want to restrict some other peoples freedom (loud music) because it could effect you. Just like those that don't like smoking want to restrict some other peoples freedom because smoke makes them ill.

Ain't no difference. Just admit that some "freedoms" that others find objectionable HAVE to be restricted in a respectful society.

And that's what we are talking about. Do others want to be respectful of their neighbors, friends and co workers.

If I have any "respect" for you as my neighbor, I won't keep you awake all night partying. Even if it restricts my "freedom". Same with smoking. Except smoking being an addiction causes other to reach for a cig no matter what. Respect be damned. I got to serve my addiction.

And that's why no smoking bans are used in places of work and shopping. People with that smoking addiction can not be trusted to not smoke on their own. They have to be told NOT TO smoke. And there has to be consequences if they choose to smoke.

My rights as a non smoker trump your addiction to cigs. Just the way it has become.

The comparison between residential areas and businesses is a poor one.

Freedom is choosing what to partake in not having to partake in everything.

And why is it your business if a person smokes? Why should you have the right to tell him not to smoke if he so chooses?

If a privately owned business allows smoking how does that violate your rights as you see them?

No one is forcing you to patronize that business. Can't you patronize a business that is not catering to addicts as you call them?

That is the defining difference between you and me.

I have no desire to control other people and you clearly do.

 

[zeke]

Nice dodge again skull. I got work to do. Later.

 

[rightwinger]

Don't people have the choice to work where they do?

Can't you ask when you apply for a job whether the establishment allows smoking and then make a decision on whether or not to accept the position?

This stuff really isn't difficult to comprehend. Why do you have such a problem understanding it?

What a 19th century mentality

We had the same attitude with worker protections. You don't like that coal mines kill people.......work elsewhere

Coal mining is dangerous work. Waitressing isn't.

But on either count no one is forced to accept any job.

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous. Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

 

[Skull Pilot]

What a 19th century mentality

We had the same attitude with worker protections. You don't like that coal mines kill people.......work elsewhere

Coal mining is dangerous work. Waitressing isn't.

But on either count no one is forced to accept any job.

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

 

[rightwinger]

Coal mining is dangerous work. Waitressing isn't.

But on either count no one is forced to accept any job.

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

19th century conservatism.......How far we have come
Most of us anyway

 

[Redfish]

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

19th century conservatism.......How far we have come
Most of us anyway

Right, unlike you, most understand what freedom means. You want the government to dictate behavior, we want the citizens to be free to choose their own behavior(as long as that behavior does not injure anyone else). Allowing smoking in a private business does not injure anyone except those who CHOOSE to work there or CHOOSE to spend their money there.

 

[rightwinger]

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?



There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

19th century conservatism.......How far we have come
Most of us anyway

Right, unlike you, most understand what freedom means. You want the government to dictate behavior, we want the citizens to be free to choose their own behavior(as long as that behavior does not injure anyone else). Allowing smoking in a private business does not injure anyone except those who CHOOSE to work there or CHOOSE to spend their money there.

You have it backwards

You can CHOOSE not to smoke
I cannot CHOOSE not to breathe

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nice dodge again skull. I got work to do. Later.

Your analogies do not track.

If you want to compare smoking vs non smoking in businesses we can do that.

If you want to compare loud music in businesses to silence in businesses we can do that.

If you want to restrict those subjects to residential areas we can do that.

Comparing a business to a residence doesn't track.

When you talk of rights there is a definite difference between a home and a business.

So how does a business allowing smoking infringe on your rights when you do not have to patronize that business. How does loud music in a business infringe on your rights?

How does a person smoking in his home infringe on your rights?

Loud music is a different beast altogether.

And I have never once said I was for no restrictions on behavior. I am simply asking how does it harm you if a business that you are not forced to patronize and that you can easily avoid allows some people to smoke.

 

[Skull Pilot]

19th century conservatism.......How far we have come
Most of us anyway

Right, unlike you, most understand what freedom means. You want the government to dictate behavior, we want the citizens to be free to choose their own behavior(as long as that behavior does not injure anyone else). Allowing smoking in a private business does not injure anyone except those who CHOOSE to work there or CHOOSE to spend their money there.

You have it backwards

You can CHOOSE not to smoke
I cannot CHOOSE not to breathe

You can choose where you breathe.

You don't have to breathe the air inside a business that allows smoking. You can choose only to breathe the air in businesses that are smoke free.

 

[rightwinger]

Right, unlike you, most understand what freedom means. You want the government to dictate behavior, we want the citizens to be free to choose their own behavior(as long as that behavior does not injure anyone else). Allowing smoking in a private business does not injure anyone except those who CHOOSE to work there or CHOOSE to spend their money there.

You have it backwards

You can CHOOSE not to smoke
I cannot CHOOSE not to breathe

You can choose where you breathe.

You don't have to breathe the air inside a business that allows smoking. You can choose only to breathe the air in businesses that are smoke free.

You still have it backwards


You can choose where you smoke. Just can't be where others are forced to breathe your filth

 

[Pogo]

Coal mining is dangerous work. Waitressing isn't.

But on either count no one is forced to accept any job.

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

If you live in a circumstance where coal mining is your only option for employment, just to entertain this analogy, then it's your only "choice". Similarly if your circumstance is that some office is your only choice of employment, and that office is removing your right to breathe simple unadulterated air, then your attitude is restricting that worker's choices -- you're giving him FEWER choices --- not more.

If a room prohibits smoking, what's the downside? That a smoker who wants to pollute his own lungs has to take it outside. If a room doesn't prohibit it, what's the downside? Innocent non-smokers get cancer.

You have the "right" to give yourself cancer. You do NOT have the right to give it to me against my will.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

19th century conservatism.......How far we have come
Most of us anyway

It has nothing to do with any political ideology.

It seems like common sense to me.

If you don't like what a business does then don't spend your money there.

Why do have the need to tell them what to do?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Inhaling the filth of others is dangerous.

You do not have to inhale anything. You can choose not to patronize a business that allows smoking. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?

Inhaling coal dust is dangerous

Workers need to be protected. Go work somewhere else if you are not willing to risk your health is not protection

There's a lot more than coal dust that makes mining dangerous.

And workers have choice just like consumers.

If you work in a coal mine you accept a risk. if you work in a bar that allows smoking you accept that risk.

Freedom is choice.

I tend to agree with more choice not less.

If you live in a circumstance where coal mining is your only option for employment, just to entertain this analogy, then it's your only "choice". Similarly if your circumstance is that some office is your only choice of employment, and that office is removing your right to breathe simple unadulterated air, then your attitude is restricting that worker's choices -- you're giving him FEWER choices --- not more.

If a room prohibits smoking, what's the downside? That a smoker who wants to pollute his own lungs has to take it outside. If a room doesn't prohibit it, what's the downside? Innocent non-smokers get cancer.

You have the "right" to give yourself cancer. You do NOT have the right to give it to me against my will.

I do not smoke. How many times do i have to repeat that to you idiots?

If a bar allows smoking what's the downside to you if you drink at another bar that doesn't?

And the there is no option line is bullshit.

If you don't want to work in a coal mine you do not have to.