Smoking Bans

[frigidweirdo]

Name one other legal product not allowed in ANY business

You got it now?

Nope.

Seems you're trying to use precedent.

However I'm sure there are plenty of chemicals that are not allowed at work, that are still legal.

Try things like morphine and so on. Prescribed, fine, not proscribed, well........

 

[rightwinger]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

You're just sayin' what? That you don't get anything? That the world passes you by just as dark matter passes most people by?

Christ, the point here is, if you'd bothered to keep up, is the difference between a home and a business under the law. A home, you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, like murder etc.
In a business you can be prevented from banning people based on things like race, from entering your business. Your business is not so private as your home/

You got it now?

Name one other legal product not allowed in ANY business

You got it now?

Fireworks are legal in many states but you are not allowed to light them inside a business

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Interesting map of smokers -

Now, compare that map with the maps concerning such things as life expectancy, education, income and clean air:

Distractify Visualizing 25 Differences Across America Through Maps

#4 (what each state searches for on google) simply HAS to be a joke.

One can only hope but I suspect its true.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

You're just sayin' what? That you don't get anything? That the world passes you by just as dark matter passes most people by?

Christ, the point here is, if you'd bothered to keep up, is the difference between a home and a business under the law. A home, you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, like murder etc.
In a business you can be prevented from banning people based on things like race, from entering your business. Your business is not so private as your home/

You got it now?

Name one other legal product not allowed in ANY business

You got it now?

Alcohol and marijuana are not allowed in most businesses.

 

[Pop23]

This thread is about smoking?????

Oh wait, no it's not, it's about smoking bans. Ammirite.

So, frigid, why are these bans acceptable because of health when it's not close to being the probable cause of the health conditions you fear?

You're really trying hard to be a pedant aren't you?

Are you claiming that there is not serious health problem from second hand smoke?

Not NEARLY as much a problem as radon.

AND, you can avoid second had smoke simply by seeing it. You might feel safe, but there are few people who understand that they indeed may not be.

You may be sleeping in it, but you can't get any public outcry because the nannies of the world want to blame lung cancer in non smokers on second hand smoke so they can keep these bans alive.

We need to pass laws banning people from spraying Radon in Restaurants and Bars

How cute and silly both at the same time

We know why you want it banned

It's icky.

 

[Pop23]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

I don't think he meant that a man who purposely walks into a swinging arm deserves sympathy.

Do you?

You are allowed to purposely walk into a place of business and not expect to put your health at risk

You can expect that patrons who are swinging their arms be asked to do so outside

Wow, talk about deflection.

Do you think boxers should be able to box, but only as long as they don't hit each other?

How very exciting for you!

Boxers can hit anyone who's in the ring wearing boxing gloves. However, I would suggest that they wait until the bell rings before they start swinging.

And it preserves the others rights. Right on

Same as a sign on the door

Glad we found agreement.

 

[Pop23]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

You're just sayin' what? That you don't get anything? That the world passes you by just as dark matter passes most people by?

Christ, the point here is, if you'd bothered to keep up, is the difference between a home and a business under the law. A home, you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, like murder etc.
In a business you can be prevented from banning people based on things like race, from entering your business. Your business is not so private as your home/

You got it now?

Name one other legal product not allowed in ANY business

You got it now?

Alcohol and marijuana are not allowed in most businesses.

They are if the owner want them. Of course, he doesn't have to sell it, just allow it.

I know many many business's owners that have a drink in their offices.

You don't.

Get out more.

 

[dblack]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

I'd have a huge problem with it. You must not usually read my posts. Not that you're obligated to - but no, I'm no fan of racism.

Well I'm making a point. A business is private or not? If it's private, like a home, you can refuse who ever you like entry, you can allow smoking if you like.

If a business is essentially a public place, then health and safety issues come to the fore, an individual cannot claim their business to be their home, so they have to abide by different rules.

Yep. That's the issue. Some people think that operating a business somehow means you sacrifice your rights. I don't buy that.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What business owner is going to be stupid enough to blow smoke in their customers faces?

 

[dblack]

What business owner is going to be stupid enough to blow smoke in their customers faces?

A marijuana dealer? A cigar store? A whiskey and cigar bar? A "We're all fans of lung cancer and want to die young" club?

The question is whether people have the right to decide for themselves or not.

 

[Pop23]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

You're just sayin' what? That you don't get anything? That the world passes you by just as dark matter passes most people by?

Christ, the point here is, if you'd bothered to keep up, is the difference between a home and a business under the law. A home, you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, like murder etc.
In a business you can be prevented from banning people based on things like race, from entering your business. Your business is not so private as your home/

You got it now?

Name one other legal product not allowed in ANY business

You got it now?

Fireworks are legal in many states but you are not allowed to light them inside a business

Why would they want too?

Oops, you don't go to many rock concerts do you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yep. That's the issue. Some people think that operating a business somehow means you sacrifice your rights. I don't buy that.

There's a difference between sacrificing your rights, and being on a much more stringent set of laws because you are in the public domain.
A politician doesn't give up their rights just because they all of a sudden come under the US Constitution, do they? Yet they can do so much less than others.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What business owner is going to be stupid enough to blow smoke in their customers faces?

A marijuana dealer? A cigar store? A whiskey and cigar bar? A "We're all fans of lung cancer and want to die young" club?

The question is whether people have the right to decide for themselves or not.

Okay, you got me there. Now what about the other 99.9% of the business world?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What business owner is going to be stupid enough to blow smoke in their customers faces?

There are plenty of dumb business owners out there. I worked for a guy who sacked his chef, then used to criticise the customers, and he was aiming to make them hear, unless I could get the door shut in time. Sometimes he'd even go out into the restaurant and tell them how stupid they were.

 

[Pop23]

Yep. That's the issue. Some people think that operating a business somehow means you sacrifice your rights. I don't buy that.

There's a difference between sacrificing your rights, and being on a much more stringent set of laws because you are in the public domain.
A politician doesn't give up their rights just because they all of a sudden come under the US Constitution, do they? Yet they can do so much less than others.

Business owners do not require you to determine what products their customers can consume on their premise.

Again, name another legal product that suffers such a draconian ban in private businesses.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Business owners do not require you to determine what products their customers can consume on their premise.

Again, name another legal product that suffers such a draconian ban in private businesses.

Well in mines have to abide by safety laws, and lots of them, so their workers are not subject to being killed either instantly or over a long period of time.

Mine Safety and Health Administration MSHA

In fact they have a whole administration based on this as part of the Department of Labor.

There's a whole bit at the bottom right you can look at for laws, especially the 1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act.

No doubt you're too lazy to look at that. So here's the wiki page.

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Main provisions

• combination of coal, metal and non metal mines under single legislation
• retention of separate health and safety standards for coal mining
• transfer of enforcement from the Department of Interior to the Department of Labor
• renaming of the Mine Enforcement Safety Administration (MESA) as Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
• four annual inspections of underground coal mines
• two annual inspections of all surface mines
• elimination of advisory standards for metal and nonmetal mines
• discontinuation of state enforcement plans
• mandating of miner training
• requirement of mine rescue teams for all underground mines
• provision of increased involvement of miners and their representatives in health and safety activities"

Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Home

or you can look at this one

"4,405 workers died on the job in 2013"

But then I guess if you were in govt, this number would probably be times 10 or more, because screw health and safety, the business owner is always right and workers don't have to work for them, even if they can't get another job. That's what welfare is for.

 

[dblack]

Yep. That's the issue. Some people think that operating a business somehow means you sacrifice your rights. I don't buy that.

There's a difference between sacrificing your rights, and being on a much more stringent set of laws because you are in the public domain.

No, there's not.

 

[Pop23]

Business owners do not require you to determine what products their customers can consume on their premise.

Again, name another legal product that suffers such a draconian ban in private businesses.

Well in mines have to abide by safety laws, and lots of them, so their workers are not subject to being killed either instantly or over a long period of time.

Mine Safety and Health Administration MSHA

In fact they have a whole administration based on this as part of the Department of Labor.

There's a whole bit at the bottom right you can look at for laws, especially the 1977 Federal Mine Safety and Health Act.

No doubt you're too lazy to look at that. So here's the wiki page.

Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Main provisions

• combination of coal, metal and non metal mines under single legislation
• retention of separate health and safety standards for coal mining
• transfer of enforcement from the Department of Interior to the Department of Labor
• renaming of the Mine Enforcement Safety Administration (MESA) as Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
• four annual inspections of underground coal mines
• two annual inspections of all surface mines
• elimination of advisory standards for metal and nonmetal mines
• discontinuation of state enforcement plans
• mandating of miner training
• requirement of mine rescue teams for all underground mines
• provision of increased involvement of miners and their representatives in health and safety activities"

Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Home

or you can look at this one

"4,405 workers died on the job in 2013"

But then I guess if you were in govt, this number would probably be times 10 or more, because screw health and safety, the business owner is always right and workers don't have to work for them, even if they can't get another job. That's what welfare is for.

Oh my freaking gawd?

Have you gone off the deep end?

Gotta a lot of customers heading down them mines?

 

[Ame®icano]

Good point. Now, hows that different from "we do not hire smokers"?

Actually, under the context it would be "we do not hire people who smoke at work"......

I stand with what I said.

Do you think an employee should be able to smoke while carrying out their duties? Do you think one employee should be able to endanger the life of another employee while at work?

No Idea how you get that from what I said.

 

[Ame®icano]

Businesses should decide.

I'd love to compare stats from 1940-1970 when smoking was allowed everywhere to those of today. My hypothesis is cancer rates were considerably lower than they are today even with smoking restrictions.

So many things can contribute to the chance of developing cancer, blaming the overt and obvious one as with smoking is simply bad science. The brown food coloring in many sodas causes cancer. Whether someone develops cancer isn't about eliminating things, but minimizing risk factors. Smoking is 1 of many risk factors but it's inaccurate to claim "smoking causes cancer." It doesn't. For that statement to be true every smoker would have to get cancer, whereas according to CDC less than 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

I agree, businesses should decide. Let them rise or fall from their own choices, not the governments.

The best way to help reduce the numbers of children smoking is not to smoke around them.

Example is not only the main thing, it is the only thing.

CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

The best way would be actually to educate them about smoking effects.