Welcome To Our World, your comments are always appreciated
Again, I revert back the truism of Ayn Rand:
"Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the right of another, is not and cannot be a right."
You want a non-smoking bar to step into? Take out a second mortgage on your home and open one.
If there is a market for non-smoking bars then why not pursue that route?
The unfortunately reality of this situation is that it has served as a mere litmus test. And you know what?
It was taken hook, line, and sinker.
You would be hard pressed to convince me how this sort of intrusion on Private Business practices is much different than dear Hillary's desire to "take those [oil company] profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."
So now, having opened the proverbial door to further governmental intrusion, don't be the least surprised when government takes from you for the sake of this "public good".
Additionally, I would like to inquire about where your second hand smoke "facts" came from. Having grown up in a household with two heavy smokers (in the car, in the house, etc.) and having 3 siblings, none of which have developed asthma or any other respiratory problems, I am skeptical of the claims being made with respect to long term effects because of second hand smoke.
I agree with you.
I'll side with DD2 on this one.
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.a...LUK9O0E&
b=35422
Let me start out saying that I am a non-smoker.
While I mostly agree with DD2, the I think the line gets real blurry when outdoor public places like Central Park becomes a non-smoking area.
Secondhand Smoke Facts
Facts:..If a person spends more than two hours in a room where someone is smoking, the nonsmoker inhales the equivalent of four cigarettes.
Fact:.Secondhand smoke is the third leading preventable cause of disability and early death (after active smoking and alcohol) in the United States.
Fact:..For every eight smokers who die from smoking, one innocent bystander dies from secondhand smoke.
Fact:...Secondhand smoke contains over 4000 chemicals including more than 40 cancer causing agents and 200 known poisons.
Fact:.Secondhand smoke has been classified by the EPA as a Class A carcinogen - a substance known to cause cancer in humans.
Fact: Secondhand smoke contains twice as much tar and nicotine per unit volume as does smoke inhaled from a cigarette. It contains 3X as much cancer-causing benzpyrene, 5X as much carbon monoxide, and 50X as much ammonia.
Fact:.Secondhand smoke from pipes and cigars is equally as harmful, if not more so
Fact:.Over the past two decades, medical research has shown that non-smokers suffer many of the diseases of active smoking when they breathe secondhand smoke.
Fact:..Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and contributes to the development of heart disease. Never smoking women who live with a smoker have a 91% greater risk of heart disease. They also have twice the risk of dying from lung cancer.
Never-smoking spouses who are exposed to secondhand smoke have about 20% higher death rates for both lung cancer and heart disease.
Secondhand smoke increases heart rate and shortens time to exhaustion. Repeated exposure causes thickening of the walls of the carotid arteries and damages the lining of these arteries.
Fact:...When a pregnant woman is exposed to secondhand smoke, the nicotine she ingests is passed on to the unborn child.
Fact:...Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to experience increased frequency of:
asthma, colds, bronchitis, pneumonia, and other lung diseases
middle ear infections
sinus infections.
Fact:..Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome.(SIDS).
Any questions?
FACT: No one is cattle prodding you to enter a privately owned bar where patrons are smoking.
I'm with both DD2 and GeologyJoe
Joe I doubt if DD2 meant Central Park, I think he is strictly talking about Offices, bars and restaurants.
And I think he is right, Smoking is terrible, and in a restaurant it is awful, I can not enjoy myself when I'm around a person that smokes
And if I’m eating in a restaurant, I would refuse to sit near one.
I should also mention that the real hypocrisy comes with the fact that while members of congress will mandate that a PRIVATE business owner cannot allow his/her patrons to smoke in their establishment (or hell even the owner themself) those very same members of congress can AND DO smoke in their offices within the capitol.
Now that is chutpah.
A bar or restaurant is not a PRIVATE business
It is open to the public.
That doesn't make it public. Republican girl, you are WRONG. It may serve the public but you don't contribute to it's operation do you? Do you suffer lost wages when its business slumps? No you do not.
The no smoking laws bring more people into restaurants and bars. I live in California where smoking has been banned in bars and restaurants for years. ...
I have to say, this is frightening to see so many people willing to throw Freedom and Liberty right out the window for their own wants and desires.
I'm used to seeing this sort of behavior with Liberals but not so much with right leaning individuals.
If business is thriving with the implementation of smoking bans then one would do well to ask themselves why in the world no-one ever thought to open one up prior to the mandate?
Of course you'd then have to be a free-market sort of individual. And, they're few and far between in Cali.
Business groups that support smokefree air
Alabama Restaurant Association
Arizona Restaurant & Hospitality Association
California Restaurant Association
Colorado Restaurant Association
Connecticut Restaurant Association
Hawaii Restaurant Association
Maine Restaurant Association
Nebraska Restaurant Association
New York State Restaurant Association
Pennsylvania Restaurant Association
Tennessee Restaurant Association
Texas Restaurant Association
Washington State Restaurant Association
Wisconsin Restaurant Association
If you want a smoke-free establishment then open one. But to think that you would applaud this as a legitimate function of government rather than leave it up to individual choice and the free markets is the sole reason why the Republicans are struggling and a third party is forthcoming.
Well, DD2!! Looks like you started quite a debate. I admire your intestinal fortitude in the choice of your subject.
Wish I could add something enlightening,either pro or con, but I've mulled over this same subject for years and still haven't come to any earth-shattering conclusion.
"Wishy-Washy"...
I guess that DD2 is out at a non-smoking restaurant having a good time tonight. As he has not been on line tonight.
Hit and run, huh DD2? LOL
Call it what you will. Excuse it as you will. But this issue is nothing more than government intervention. The abolishment of Freedom and Liberty (for all) in favor of freedom and liberty for a select few.
I challenge the proponents to answer how exactly this is any different than Hillary's desire to take your private property (i.e. your wealth) and provide a "public good" which would be of course her healthcare plan?
Is government, in this instance, not infringing upon a contract between a private business owner (and his private property by way of his business) and his patrons for the sake of a public good?
I'll say it's amazing how many people will abandon principle. I know alot of people (probably some here even) who would have argued in favor of those sandwich shop guys in New York or Jersey who wanted to post a sign refusing service to those who couldn't order in English.
But when it comes to a business owner and his desire to cater to patrons who smoke...WHOAH hold the presses!
That is a clear double standard. So how can you sit here and go on and on about how their is a different set of standards applied to Democrats than their is to Republicans when subscribing to such a position?
As I said numerous times, I absolutely LOOOOVE going to a smoke free establishment. But, I have the objectivity to understand that my want for a smoke free environment shouldn't trump the want of a business owner to have patrons who wish to smoke. I'm willing to forego my own self interest for the sake of his freedom and his right to run a business that I am PRIVILEGED (not afforded a right)to enter.
ahh it's painful to see conservatives all for government telling them what they can and cannot do.
As soap put it, in a bar or rest. there is not a 'have-to' about it, you don't like smoke, don't eat/drink there; hurt their business enough and they'll change (the good old free market way).
But to not only agree with this, but to applaud it is scary.
As a non-smoker, I sure do like smoke-free establishments, but I had no problem with smoking and non-smoking sections. I would rather that than to see business owners told what they can and can't do in their own establishments.
Beth Said: but I had no problem with smoking and non-smoking sections. I would rather that than to see business owners told what they can and can't do in their own establishments
-------------------------------------------They tried smoking and non-smoking sections. in New York, it did not work. Some sections were full and others were empty, and customers did not want to sit in the sections that didn’t apply to them, also if you went out with friends and some were smokers and others were not, what whould you do then?
the restaurant owners hated that rule. The restaurant owners are VERY happy with the non smoking laws here, In fact they are thrilled with it.
It eliminated ALL there problems and business is thriving.
As for the Hillary compression, that.s simply ridicules , no one is taking anyone’s property from them.
This law allows ever one to come and go as they please. To open a business only for smokers or non smokers is a foolish one, that would mean that only ½ of the business mans customers would patronize him. No business has been lost this way, people got used to going outside to smoke and they do so willingly, and everybody is happy. I can go with smoking friends and st at their table and not be exposed to thier poison this way.
They even have this is law in many Countries like Ireland,France,Israel. and Italy. where smoking is very popular. A public opinion poll has shown that 83 percent of Italians are in favor of the new ban.
No-Smoking Laws Now Cover Half the US. Get used to it, it’s coming your way....lol...Like it or not.
Hi there!
I agree with you, that smoking should be banned in all bars, restaurants and in all public areas. I smoked for 5 years and I quit it over one year ago.
Now I see what people around me felt...
And thanks for the comment! That movie is so funny! I have added it to my blog... 
)
Regards, malawika
Hi malawika, welcome here to "Our World"
It's nice to have you with us. Thanks for your comment.
There is a bar in my hometown which does not allow smoking. It has done very well. When my sister still lived here, she would travel 20 minutes just to go there as neither she nor her husband smoke. HOWEVER, I do! I realize it's a terrible habit. But, smoking is still a legal activity. If it's legal, why should I not be allowed to do it? Drunk driving kills more people than second-hand smoking but you don't see them banning drinking. I realize that there are laws in place to "prevent" drunk driving but does it work?
If I opened a bar and I wanted to cater to a smoking clientèle, who are you to tell me I don't have that right? Now because you might not have the "best of chefs" cooking in your non-smoking restaurant your rights are being violated? Pa-leeze! I have no problem with there being non-smoking establishments. I do however have a problem with my right to smoke, around smokers, being taken away. If you don't smoke, don't frequent that establishment, don't work there either. Smoking is still legal. Public intoxication is illegal. But, you can drink at a baseball game, a football game, etc. It's a double standard. And then you leave there and get behind the wheel of a car.
And for the record, I'm not ignoring the fact that second hand smoke is harmful. What I would like to mention is that everyone has 'the cancer gene.' Something triggers it in certain people. Tell me how a teenage girl, living in a non-smoking house with non-smoking relatives and friends gets cancer? I don't believe for a second that it was simply from the few times she went to a smoking restaurant.
Julie
i'm mixed on issues that enforce how people SHOULD behave.
first, i will say i've been smoking for 38 years - approximately one-half pack per day.
i smoke outside so as not to disturb my family - it's called courtesy.
i only light up in one of the vehicles if somebody "breaks wind" - as they've been warned.
i find smoking in restaurants to be REPULSIVE - having seen my mother put her cigarette out in her plate at suppertime for so many years.
it is purely a matter of manners and civility when it comes to smoking - we're all destined to die - ten out of ten people do - at last count.
You're right on the money Lord Nazh. But, let's not make any mistake about it. You cannot be all things to all people. Nor can you be all things to yourself.
By the very definition of Conservatism, you cannot be a conservative while at the same time supporting a government mandate to ban smoking (and certainly not a mandate that seeks to ban it in a privately owned establishment).
Glad to see there still exists some objectivity in the world.
Julie you said that, And for the record, I'm not ignoring the fact that second hand smoke is harmful. What I would like to mention is that everyone has 'the cancer gene.' Something triggers it in certain people. Tell me how a teenage girl, living in a non-smoking house with non-smoking relatives and friends gets cancer? I don't believe for a second that it was simply from the few times she went to a smoking restaurant.
I think thats your opinion NOT fact. I think your opinion is slanted because you smoke.
The second hand smoke Statistics are facts, go to google and pull them up. There are 1000's of them. There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. Children, pregnant women, older people can get very, very, sick form it. Don’t let your own habit influence the facts. Look it up.
As for opening a bar and wanting to cater to a smoking clientele, , you still can do that. No one said you can’t, except you will fail, 3/4 of your customers would walk away ,
How about the seat belt law? Where is the difference?
If any good restaurant wants to do business and has a really good chef, he won’t want a smokeing only clientele. No way. He would fail in no time at all.
There is no laws in NY or any other place I know of that says you can not open a place for smokers only
In fact I know of a place that tried it and soon changed.
I wish that ALL bars and restaurants didn't allow smoking. The non-smoking section is like having a non-peeing part of the swiming pool. The smoke ruins the experience for me in a restaurant or a bar. I now say to myself "I'd like to grab a drink but I don't want to get all smoky and all chocked up from the person next to me.
Smoke Free is the way of the future..
For the record Sarah, I don't support a seat belt mandate either. And, up here in Minnesota, we've gone with a statewide smoking ban. I pretty certain that someone cannot open up a smoking only establishment (that is unless of course you're Native American and you're opening a casino).
But I digress...back to the seat belt law. I wear mine because quite frankly I'm not too keen on the idea of going face first through my windshield. But, that said..I'm trying to figure out how YOU (or anyone for the matter) opting to NOT wear there's is going to affect me? It's not.
Now, of course the argument is made that mandating a seat belt law will "drive down automobile insurance rates". If anyone seriously believes that, I got news for you that you may not want to hear...(santa isn't real).
I just finished reading "Runaway Jury"for the umpteenth time so this has been on my mind.
I am totally with DD2 on this one.I have never had any health problems etc...you could say that I am healthy as a horse and will probably die at a 120...That said, I have noticed that every time I am around smoker friends/relatives I have breathing problems to the point where I have to use an inhaler.
Georgia has gone to a statewide ban too.
Excellent blog DD2. very well done and thank you for having the courage to write it. I applaud you for that.
I am not a smoker and I never was. My wife was a smoker and I helped her quit. She is the one that decided that not smoking was better than continuing to smoke. She told me how difficult it was for her, and I am grateful every singe day that she was strong enough to quit. It is unfortunate that millions of people CHOOSE to start smoking. It is unfortunate that they become addicted. It doesn't change the FACT that they continue to smoke because their will is not strong enough for them to quit. I don't mean to offend any smokers out there, but the truth hurts. Smoking does kill. ask my dead Sister in law who died from lung cancer at the young age of 53. Oh I forgot, you can’t, can you!
I think the no smoking law is a very good one. I only wish that my State had it so that I could go into a eating establishment with my family and enjoy ourselves without getting that poison into our lungs.
I think most people are missing the point. It's not about what I want, what you want, or even what the restaurant owners prefer. It's about the government going into a business and telling them what they can or cannot do. If you want to smoke in your own home, that home is yours to decide if its smoke-free or allows smoking. Why should we allow the government to tell a business it must be one way or the other? They shouldn't!
I don't understand why these smokers are getting all bent out of shape just because your nasty habit is being limited. So many smokers are saying if you don't want to smell it, go somewhere else. How about ya'll go some where else! Like the one reader said, you can't smoke in malls, hospitals, courts, libraries, schools, etc. Why? Because it is NOT about regulating your life, it is about saving some else's. For goodness sake you are introducing poison into the air! It is bad enough we have to smell the exhaust and smoke from other vehicles when we commute. Can a person and their family enjoy a meal in a restaurant with out some blowing smoke around us and our kids? Why must I explain to my child why someone is voluntarily killing themselves with cigarettes? And why should they harm us while they are at it?
btw, Soapster, what do you mean santa isn't real???
I won't deny that a person could experience short term discomfort or respiratory problems like the ones you've mentioned Frasypoo. But, the big question is whether or not the occasional exposure to Second Hand Smoke leads to long term respiratory problems or not.
And, without question, the "science" on that is about a solid as that of Global Warming.
An example lending credence to my point:
Second-hand science
Editorial
Copyright 1999 Washington Times
March 30, 1999
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Last week the New England Journal of Medicine published findings from Tulane University researchers that purported to show passive smoking caused an increase of coronary heart disease in nonsmokers. Like a controversial Environmental Protection Agency study that linked it to as many as 3,000 premature deaths each year, the Tulane research relied on a meta-analysis that attempted to combine the results of earlier studies on passive smoking and coronary heart disease.
The results? On average, nonsmokers exposed to passive smoke had a relative risk of 1.25 - an increase of 25 percent - compared to nonsmokers who weren't exposed. Passive smoking is associated with a small increase in the risk of coronary heart disease, the researchers concluded. "Given the high prevalence of cigarette smoking," they said, "the public health consequences of passive smoking with regard to coronary heart disease may be important."
Or it may not. When researchers found a few years ago that a woman who had an abortion faced a 50 percent increase in breast cancer (relative risk 1.5), a spokesman for the American Cancer Society hustled out to downplay the news. Epidemiological studies in general, she told The Washington Post, are probably not able to identify with any confidence any relative risks lower than 1.3. A relative risk of 1.5 is "modest," she said.
But even the much smaller risk of 1.25 that the Tulane researchers found is questionable. In an editorial accompanying publication of the article, John Bailar of the University of Chicago said there is "broad evidence that the results of meta-analyses are often not very reliable."
Part of the problem is that studies of one group of nonsmokers may not combine easily with studies of another group. If the rate of one disease among men is 5 percent and its rate among women is 1 percent, asked Mr. Bailar, does that mean that 3 percent is the rate for a person of "average" sex?
Another problem is the quality of the data itself. If someone participating in a study of the effects of passive smoking is looking for some external cause of his health problem (such as smoking by a spouse or coworker), if someone doesn't really know the amount of smoke to which he was exposed, or if he isn't forthcoming about the fact that at one time he himself smoked, his answers may skew the study's findings. The Tulane researchers, said Mr. Bailar, gave little consideration to such problems.
Perhaps most troubling of all, the 25-percent increase in risk for coronary heart disease from passive smoke is surprisingly large given that there is only a 75 percent increase in risk for active smokers. Mr. Bailar said he finds it hard to understand how diluted, second-hand smoke could constitute as much as a third of the risk of smoke inhaled directly into the lungs.
"I regretfully conclude," wrote Mr. Bailar, "that we still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease." Repeated exposure to second-hand science of the kind Mr. Bailar found in the Tulane study can be hazardous to public policy. That too is news. End
I agree. It is not possible to definitively conclude that environmental tobacco smoke is the cause of any increase in these types of illnesses attributed to Second Hand Smoke. How can we say or conclude that it might not have something to do with standing on a bus corner inhaling the fumes of each route that passes by while you patiently await the bus for your route? We very well can't.
I don't know how the laws work there, but in Scotland the no smoking law (in effect since last year) is to protect all employees. No employee anywhere has to work in a smoke-filled environment. There was a lot of grumbling at first when this law took effect in Ireland, then Scotland. But in both countries a lot of smokers decided to quit. Later this year the ban in England and Wales will take effect.
I've been an ex-smoker for 14 years and I wouldn't grumble about any bans. It's such a pleasure to be able to eat in a pub w/o gagging on the smoke. I really hope Michigan passes this law because that's where I go when I visit the US. every year.
As Beth pointed out, most of you are missing the point, especially Jason.
Hospitals, Courts, Libraries, Schools = PUBLIC Buildings
An individual's Bar/Restaurant = PRIVATE (while it may serve the public, it is NOT [let me repeat NOT] publicly owned. You didn't contribute to its construction, to its operation, to its payroll.
Glad to know we have government existing to protect us from protecting ourselves. Tis a pity to think an individual, i.e., an employee of a bar/restaurant, lacks the fortitude and mental capacity to opt for a different work environment (that is one free from second hand smoke).
Ironically the government hopes people don't quit smoking, they love to tax cigarettes. What would they tax instead?
So then, I have to ask...
"What about banning trans-fat in restaurants??"
Is this going too far or do we also support this sort of public policy?
Excellent point Beth!
The real hilarity of that though is that the SCHIP expansion was to be funded by an increase in the the tax on tobacco!!!
So let me see if I can decipher the legislation's infinite wisdom:
We're going to ban smoking pretty much EVERYWHERE but we expect that people will still smoke enough that we can use an increase in tobacco taxes to fund a $35 billion expansion of SCHIP??
Absolutely no freekin' logic there which proves my other point (the War on Drugs has yet to be won.)
Smokers have the right to smoke as long as it doesn't interfere with non-smokers rights. Smoking in public places DOES interfere with non-smokers rights. Let them smoke in their homes. Let them smoke in their cars. Let them kill themselves. As long as they don't kill us and our loved ones. I also lost my Sister-in-law to lung cancer. . I have the right to go out in public and go to restaurants with out endangering my health - not to mention I just plain don't like the smell. of it.... As far as the business owners having rights, sorry, they gave up those rights long ago. They can't hire who they want, fire who they want, or use the business or property for anything they want. There are also health laws they have to follow in their kitchens every day. There are safety requirements. They have permits to obtain, licenses to renew yearly etc.
The government will always tell businesses what to do. I hope the government says "No Smoking". In your home town.. Maybe you and your kids will live longer.
Thanks for a great discussion everybody. Now it’s time to get some work done.
Effects on businesses
In 2003 New York City amended its anti-smoking law to include all restaurants and bars, including those in private clubs, making it one of the toughest in the United States. The city's Department of Health found in a 2004 study that air pollution levels had decreased sixfold in bars and restaurants after the ban went into effect, and that New Yorkers had reported less second-hand smoke in the workplace. The study also found the city's restaurants and bars prospered despite the smoking ban, and a increases in jobs. A 2006 study by the state of New York found similar results.
hiya DD2..I'm with u all the way!..I used to come home from dance class wreaking of smoke..my hair my clothes..it was awful!...arggg!
Okay...well guess what? Here in Minnesota, businesses are doing okay despite the smoking ban too. And, do you know why??
Because, NOW, some cities have starting providing tax payer subsidies to these businesses so that they can build outdoor smoking facilities.
Just one more way government seeks to get even more people on the dole and eating at the government trough thereby further inducing this moral hazard. And we all ought to have the sense to admit that once you're dining at the government trough, you're not likely to bite the hand that feeds you.
Soapie said: Okay...well guess what? Here in Minnesota, businesses are doing okay despite the smoking ban too. And, do you know why??
Because, NOW, some cities have starting providing tax payer subsidies to these businesses so that they can build outdoor smoking facilities.
======================================
No soapie I don't think so,
Thery are prospering despite the smoking ban because the people that smoke have gotten used to going outside to smoke, and the Non smokers feel better now that they can enjoy a meal without getting nauseous from the inhaling of smoke.
The business owner is happy because everyone else is happy and he has gotten rid of the fights and the arguments and the special accommodations for both sides.
So now everybody is happy. As I am,..
Ain’t life grand?
If Laura, Angel, Fraz, Republican Girl, malawika, Sarah, Clyde, Nanc, Dr.Anonymous , GeologyJoe, John M, Jason,are happy, then my work here is done.
Soapie, Julie, and Beth...I still love ya.
See ya around the net guys.
And DD says: "The business owner is happy because everyone else is happy and he has gotten rid of the fights and the arguments and the special accommodations for both sides.
So now everybody is happy.
Not so fast!! It ain't 20 below yet buster.
Who ya callin "Buster"?
Sorry.
Dude? Kiddo? Pal? Buddy?
This has been an interesting debate. DD2 and the rest of the anismoking people have made some interesting points. However, I agree with Soapie and Beth. Secondhand smoke may cause cancer (although I think there is some doubt about that), but I believe that bars and restraunts have the right to choose what their policy should be, since it is private property. I don't think that we need goverment to protect us- if we don't like smoke, we can go somewhere else.
"Any alleged right of one man, which necessitates the right of another, is not and cannot be a right."
I can throw that right back at you- how does someone's right to smoke trump my right to breathe?
I am a disabled vet with lung problems. Smoke really gets to me. Screw Americans with disabilities act, the Constitution is pretty clear that you have the right to do whatever so long as you aren't stomping on the rights of someone else. WILLFULLY Endangering the health of your fellow citizens steps over that line. As much as I dislike gov't stepping in, there IS a time and place for it when it is (really) for the good of the nation- and this is one of the few instances where the governments state or local, are actually doing their jobs.
Hey Chris, a person sitting next to you and smoking isn't preventing you from breathing. You have no right to breathe air that is free from any particles. True and Honest Rights do not require or seek anything from another individual. I am sorry that you have lung problems and second hand smoke irritates such an ailment but your desire for smoke free air is a want. It does not exist as a right because it requires something from not only the individual that might be smoking next to you but also the business owner's right to operate his private business by allowing patrons to partake in a legal activity.
If you want to excercise your right, you have the right to remove yourself from such an environment.
I stand by Rand's assertion.
Moreover, "good for the nation" you say?
So who decides what is "good for the nation"?
Are you implying that the right of the individual is to serve the "good of the nation" rather than existing for the purpose of serving his/her own wants and desires?
No man - or group or society or government - has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man.
This is the sole principle of individual rights.
Daniel Ruwe said:
I agree with Soapie and Beth. Secondhand smoke may cause cancer (although I think there is some doubt about that), but I believe that bars and restraunts have the right to choose what their policy should be, since it is private property. I don't think that we need goverment to protect us- if we don't like smoke, we can go somewhere else.
----------------------------------------
But I don't want to go somewhere else. I want to go to THAT restaurant because they have Great food and Great Servise with nice people and I enjoy going there, BUT i don’t want to be subjected to health hazzards either.
And if you really don’t believe in the second hand smoke issue read some of these.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=...+is+bad&
spell=1
But if that individual is poisoning no one else... That is the problem. Smoking is poisoning nonsmokers. I believe that an individuals rights stops at the point when it directly endangers the life of another
And the Gvt should ne obligated to protect the health of others.
I see one key problem with your argument DD:
"I want to go to that restaurant because they have great food and great service with nice people and I enjoy going there. But, I don't want to be subjected to health hazzards either.
I want to ride in a limo to work everyday but that doesn't make it sensible public policy.
the politics of tolerance are ruining this country. Like it or not, there IS right and wrong. I do not have to tolerate improper, immoral, or wrong behavior. Smoking while others are trying to eat, etc is inconsiderate at best. If it takes legislation to stop inconsiderate people from doing it, Then so be it.
The ride in a limo to work comparison is silly
It is not poisoning non-smokers anymore than vehicle exhaust fumes. But, we're not out there suggesting we start banning automobiles (well at least most of us aren't).
Restaurants are Public .Clubs can be Private
Okay maybe the limo comparison was a bit over the top. But, how about this?
Let's say I have allergies that get agitated by grass clippings. Do I have a right to dictate what day and what time my neighbors may mow their lawn because afterall..."I don't have to tolerate immoral, impropper, or inconsiderate behavior?"
Who decides what is Immoral? Impropper??
DD, there are many acts which could be construed as "immoral, impropper, and inconsiderate" and yet, legislation has not brought about their end.
I'm sorry but we don't need any more nanny state policies.
"Restaurants are Public. Clubs can be Private.
Well, at least now we're finding some common ground.
So then let me ask you, Even though my bar/restaurant is owned solely by me, would I then be able to (under your assessment) turn it into a private member's only sort of establishment to retain my customer base who smoked?
Soapster said: Okay maybe the limo comparison was a bit over the top. But, how about this?
Let's say I have allergies that get agitated by grass clippings. Do I have a right to dictate what day and what time my neighbors may mow their lawn
DD answeres:
That was even worse. lol
Soap said:
So then let me ask you, Even though my bar/restaurant is owned solely by me, would I then be able to (under your assessment) turn it into a private member's only sort of establishment to retain my customer base who smoked?
----------------------------------
Maybe you could, but we are Talking about public restaurants and bars
Actually DD the grass clipping comparison is even better. Because, you wouldn't be able to escape it. It would be floating in the air everytime you stepped out of your house.
You're not forced to step inside of a smoke filled establishment. You can avoid it.
Additionally, most restaurants and bars are privately owned. They serve the public voluntarily. If I wanted to change my bar/restaurant from serving the public to serving a select group of people in making it a private club, are you arguing I should be able to? Such an implication is socialistic in that the implication is dictating that my bar/restaurant exists to serve the desires of the public rather than my personal desire to earn a living.
Moreover, your statement that "the politics of tolerance are ruining this country" couldn't be farther from the truth.
It is the politics of INtolerance which is changing the shape of American politics.
Consider this: If everyone was tolerant to the laws and rules for which this country was founded over 200 years ago, we would not be seeking to legislate changes at every turn.
But why are we? Because people have become INtolerant of what has been established.
EDIT:
people in making it a private club, are you arguing I should NOT be able to?
What is the difference between health and cleanliness inspections in restaurants and Non smoking in restaurants. They both are there to protect the public’s health!
The Government requires that restaurants be inspected periododically for health reasons, such as for vermin, hot water, etc
Do you have a problem with the Government doing health inspections?
privately owned. And Private are two different things!
Any store is privatly owned, but open to the public.
Private means members
Restaurant workers exposed to tobacco smoke on the job were more likely to have a detectable level of NNK, a carcinogen implicated in the development of lung cancer, than those who worked in tobacco-free environments.
In addition to NNK, secondhand smoke contains more than 50 other carcinogens and a host of other toxic substances that cause lung cancer, various other cancers, heart disease and lung disease.
Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke have about a 20 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer and foodservice workers tend to have more exposure to indoor environmental tobacco smoke than workers do in any other occupation.
I feel that a no smoking policy in restaurants is a positive tactic.
Also a study was made of this and the results of that study showed that most of those restaurants chose to stay smoke-free because the ban didn’t negatively affect ...
Thank you Dr. Anonymous
And Thank you for [not] smoking
I stand by my assertion.
Yes it's true it serves the public but why? It does not exist for the betterment of society and the public. It exists for one reason and one reason only; for the private benefit of the owner. That is what makes it private.
However, you are arguing that it is public (I would imagine in much the same way that a library is public).
A library serves the public as well. But, who is the beneficiary of a public library? A public library takes in no revenue (save late fees or maybe a snack bar). There is no sole one beneficiary or group of beneficiaries. The benefit is to the community and the public for which it serves. This is what makes it public.
Dr. Anonymous, while I won't argue the facts of your post, your argument fails on the premise that establishments where second hand smoke exists are not establishments where the workers are forced into labor. They have individual freedom of choice to work or not to work in such an environment.
And, there are a fair number of servers who will tell you that they don't mind such an environment because they get good tips.
Arguments here have said everyone likes the bans on smoking, but if that were true then why don't business owners voluntarily do so? As pointed out, because they do not wish to alienate smokers. So they let the big bad government do it for them. This is not the conservative mind where we want the government to be intervening!
i don't like the smell of smoke on me and usually brush my teeth after a smoke and always wash my hands - it's disgusting the smell!
as long as we're legislating behaviors - i'd like to outlaw fat people at buffets - i ain't lyin'!
and while we're at it - ugly people just need to STAY HOME on certain dayz - for crying out loud - dontcha know you're ugly?
and people who chew gum with their mouths open while talking - jeeeesh - are there any worse people.
while we're at it - if one ends a sentence or question with a preposition - it is my wish they be beaten with an english book!
You say; And, there are a fair number of servers who will tell you that they don't mind such an environment because they get good tips
Well that may be true, however people do lots of STUPID things for money, jump off bridges, wrestle Alligators, put their heads into a lions mouth, some even sell their children, that surely don’t make it just. Won't you agree?
Exactly nanc. Where does it end?
You know, there was a state senator out east in (ya don't say) New York who was seeking legislation to ban mp3 players, cell phones, and other electronic devices from being used while crossing the street in New York City and in Buffalo. No kidding, it was Senator Carl Kruger!
http://www.wnbc.com/news/1094810...106/
detail.html
And so it goes....
Nanc, I think that fat people at buffets should pay double.
We are not discussing whether or not they are just. We are discussing whether or not individuals have the capacity, fortitude, and freedom to place themselves in such an environment or engage in such behavior.
These are facts my good friend, cigarettes produce about 12 minutes of smoke, yet the smoker may inhale only 30 seconds of smoke from their cigarette. The rest of the smoke lingers in the air for non-smokers and smokers to breathe. Second-hand smoke contains more than 4000 chemicals. Many of these chemicals are known to cause cancer.
Chemicals found in second-hand smoke include:
carbon monoxide (found in your car’s exhaust), ammonia (found in window cleaners) cadmium (found in batteries), arsenic (found in rat poison) how does that make you feel?
Each year, more than 1000 non-smoking Canadians where I am from died from second-hand smoke.
No amount of second-hand smoke is safe.
Second-hand smoke causes sore eyes and throat, nasal irritation, headaches, coughing and wheezing, nausea and dizziness. You are also more likely to get colds and the flu. Breathing in second-hand smoke can also trigger asthma attacks and increase your chances of getting bronchitis and pneumonia.
If you have been exposed to second-hand smoke for a long time, you are more likely to develop and die from heart problems, breathing problems and lung cancer.
You stated that people would wok in a smoke filled restaurants because of tips.
And I’m saying so what? People would do anything for money
Lots of people will risk their lives and or their health for money!
What does that have to do with MY wanting to eat in a specific place?
I think that this will be my last say in this matter as we have said all there is to say. (for me anyway)
But I will be happy to read whatever others have to say;
The Government's role in the health and safety of restaurants IS important. They regulate food quality through inspections that ensure food supplies are free of insect and rodent infestation.. Right and I’m sure you agree with that!
They make sure that the food is properly refrigerated so that it don’t go bad. I’m sure that you agree with that!
And that employees wash their hands before touching food. There is no question that you agree with that!
The bartenders have an obligation not to serve a drunk. And that’s a good thing
They see to it that that cutting boards are free of contamination, etc. And thats fine, right?
Do they ask customers if it’s their choice to accept the risks that food poisoning that may be part of their dining experience. NO, so why Not regulate the possibility of an innocent non smoker getting sick for second hand smoke?
for the record, we've ALWAYS sat in the non-smoking sections of restaurants - i don't want the smell of cigarettes, cigars or pipes anywhere near me while dining!
people are just not courteous enough - that is the bottom line. people are desirous of making common courtesy law.
I'll tell you why all those things are different from second hand smoke.
It is for the simple fact that second hand smoke is an externality. The others are not.
Beth said: "Arguments here have said everyone likes the bans on smoking, but if that were true then why don't business owners voluntarily do so? As pointed out, because they do not wish to alienate smokers. So they let the big bad government do it for them. This is not the conservative mind where we want the government to be intervening!"
This sums up my position. If I want to take the chance of getting cancer, and decide that the pleasure of eating there is more than the risk of cancer, then I think I have the right to do so. If I don't, then I won't eat there and go somewhere that doesn't have smoking. Its a risk reward sort of thing.
BTW, I think that this has been a very entertaining debate. Thanks DD2 for bringing up.
I share Daniel's commentary. Thanks for the engaging debate dude.
Another reason inspections are different from smoking is that all customers do not have access to the kitchens and such to see for themselves if they wish to eat in a certain place. They can, however, see if a place is smokey (I have decided not to stay at such restaurants in the past) or if they don't like to wait for the non-smoking section to open up.
Dan said:If I want to take the chance of getting cancer, and decide that the pleasure of eating there is more than the risk of cancer, then I think I have the right to do so. If I don't, then I won't eat there and go somewhere that doesn't have smoking. Its a risk reward sort of thing_____________________________________
Ah, but maybe you would would want to take that chance of getting cancer, maybe I and many others like me don't. And as for Beth’s argument, that they let the big bad government do it for them..
That’s her opinion. It don’t make it a fact. We tend to blame the “Big bad Government” for everything these days.
And thank you Dan and all the others for making this discussion so successful
Beth, the argument about..Another reason inspections are different from smoking is that all customers do not have access to the kitchens
Is a poor one. The fact remains that we trust and rely on the Gvt. to watch out for our health...
I know there are a lot of people in this country that smoke and I'll be willing to bet that some that are reading this post are fed up with people who don't smoke always harping on about their 'bad habit' and telling them what to do. The simple fact is though that smokers are affecting the health of non-smokers as well as their own. People die each year just because they have breathed other people’’s smoke and that is something we really should be taking seriously. In my opinion an outright ban on smoking in public places is the only way forward.
I’m delight about the smoking in restaurant ban. I can now go into a restaurant with my Wife and Daughter and not have her exposed to the dangerous chemicals given off by cigarettes
Lets face it, selfish smokers do not care that there is a majority that find smoking offensive, disgusting and unpleasant. Lets not forgot the increased risk of developing numerous illnesses all because a selfish smoker thinks they have the right to light up where they want, when they want!
I am not anti smoking, I believe that if someone wants to smoke in an environment that does not affect anyone else, they can kill themselves slowly to their hearts content with my blessing. My point (and the governments for that matter) is that why should I have to put up with it if I want to visit a public place?
The point of all this discussion ( a really great one may I add) is that smokers have selfishly had their own way for many years, puffing their smoke over all and in other peoples faces without thought for others.
Now they are being forced to be thoughtful of other peoples health and they don't like it.
Now that the ban is here it will not be overturned because it have been proven that it is a good one...No matter what a few inconsiderate individuals do to gratify their own addiction.
Non smokers can go into a pub or a restaurant and eat without getting angry at their near by neighbor or feeling sick. Smokers can go outside for a smoke break and do their dirty habit whenever they wish to, and nobody will care.
Great discussion DD2 and all the others.
This is a fact that I’m sure most of you know and agree.
Smoking and Secondhand Smoke has a very harmful effect on the fetus and newborns, when pregnant women smoke, or ar in a place where Second hand smoke is around.
They are in serious harm. So then a pregnant women can not enter a restaurant if there is smoking allowed.
Is that fair?
Okay, so it's good for one's health to receive free healthcare, isn't it? Let's bring the government in on this, too, why don't we? Yes, they should intervene to make our country healthier!
Uh, uh, Beth, I do the satire around here 
And Yes, the Government should do what it can to keep the country healthy, to a certain extent.
Why do we have a Food and Drug Administration?
Why did we stop the Chinese from poisoning our Cats and Dogs?
I can't smoke in a bar but i can wash my feet at work go figure...lol
you have struck a chord here, dd2!
good on you - finding the right chord is always the prelude to a night of music.
great discussion material - i must remember this...that is if i don't forget...
Forgive me for reverting back to the Ayn Rand truisms. But, with regards to this subject, they are completely and entirely apropos.
"In the normal conditions of existence, man has to choose his goals, project them in time, pursue them and achieve them by his own effort. He cannot do it if his goals are at the mercy of and must be sacrificed to any misfortune happening to others."
"There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of government's unlimited, arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself to gradual enslavement."
"If a man speculates on what "society" should do for the poor (or in this case the NON-SMOKERS), he accepts thereby the collectivist premise that men's lives belong to society and that he, as a member of society, has the right to dispose of them, to set their goals or to plan the "distribution" of their efforts."
"The man who is willing to serve as the means to the ends of others, will necessarily regard others as the means to his ends."
"...the appalling recklessness with which men propose, discuss or accept "humanitarian" projects which are to be imposed by political means, that is, by force, on an unlimited number of human beings." "The hallmark of such mentalities is the advocacy of some grand scale public goal, without regard to context, costs or means. "Medicare" is an example of such a project. "Isn't it desirable that the aged should have medical care in times of illness?" it's advocates clamor. Considered out of context, the answer would be: yes, it is desirable. Who would have a reason to say no? And, it is at this point that a collectivized brain are cut off; the rest is fog. Only the desire remains in his sight - it's the good isn't it? - it's not for myself, it's for others, it's for the public, for a helpless ailing public....The fog hides such facts as the enslavement and, therefore, the destruction of medical science, the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practice, and the sacrifice of the professional integrity, the freedom, the careers, the ambitions, the achievements, the happiness, the lives of the very men who are to provide that "desirable" goal - the doctors."
Feel free to link to my blog. I will do the same. I could complain about this subject forever .
complain away ChrissyJo
Here in Australia, the smoking-control legislation varies from one state to another, but it's still a big debate.
Er, shall we say: no smoke, all mirrors!!!
If debate is the ultimate goal of a controversial issue, you had it on this post, DD2!
Congrats on a great post!
The voters of Las Vegas recently approved NO cigarette smoking in places that serve food or grocery stores.
I am thankful to not breathe second hand cigarette smoke while trying to eat.
(My 2yr has lung issues and can't be around any kind of smoke.)
I am SO thankful that I can go grocery shopping now w/o having to breathe second hand cigarette smoke ... we have slot machines in grocery stores that used to be lined up w/ chain smokers.
Cigarette smoke gives me a huge headache.
Aner to that Terri
My last commentary on smoking bans. I'm sure most of you that favor them will have a hard time swallowing the truth. And the truth is, that you have exhibited socialist tendencies with your position on the issue. Bet you thought you were the furthest thing from a socialist didn't ya? Tis true though:
The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in "society as a whole," i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., the government.
I guess it is understandable when considering that concept of individual rights is still so infantile.
Be that as it may, the concept of a "right" pertains only to action (or more specifically to freedom of action, i.e., life, liberty, the pursuit). It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference by other men.
If, in staking your claim to smoke free air in another's establishment, you have had to acquire such a "right" through physical compulsion, coercion, or you have interfered upon another, your alleged right should cease to exist.
I'd also like to say that all the smoking ban proponents are sounding like the pro-choice crowd who think the mother's rights trump the rights of her baby. You want the government to come in and say the non-smokers right trump the smokers rights.
Talk about hitting a raw nerve!!!
DD2, you may as well date this post well into 2008 so that it will remain at the top! You'll have enough fodder for writing a book!
In_spired, It looks like you are right. I'll leave it on top until Monday.
DD2: I received an e-mail this morning of church signs. One of the signs said,
"Where will you be sitting in eternity? Smoking or Non-Smoking?"
I thought of you and your post. If I had had your e-mail address, I would have sent it to you. I couldn't help but laugh about it!
crabby, just click on the e-mail button nex to my name right here in the comment box
I used to smoke but I quit five years ago. If the restuarant is not smoke free I don't go in. I don't go to bars because I don't drink now either. I choose where I want to go and that's all there is to it for me.
Whoa since almost 10 years ago, smoking has been banned from all air-conditioned places in Singapore (my country), people soon got used to that. Then just this year, no more smoking in bars and coffeeshops (non-air conditioned)... there was some grumbling at first but the dust settled and all's fine. I'm glad that it's been barred where you live. It's only for the good health of everyone.
We're so far into it now but ya know...we probably should have began this discussion first be establishing what defines a right.
Of course, I happen to know. It seems though as if many either don't know or simply choose to ignore it for the sake or their own desire.
It's pretty tough to defend smoking in public places such as restaurants and public buildings like banks etc... as a right. I don't like government interfering with private businesses but tax payer funded government buildings should be smoke free. They still have smoking in some places around here but Delaware is smoke free by law. I'm not comfortable with that but I am about having no smoke to deal with.
Jennifer Gallagher." I used to smoke but I quit five years ago. If the restuarant is not smoke free I don't go in. I don't go to bars because I don't drink now either. I choose where I want to go and that's all there is to it for me."
But if the places had a Ban on smoking you would be able to go anywhere you liked to. You would not have to just settle.
For the umpteenth time, a restaurant owner owns his business and should decide what he allows in his place of business. A public building paid for by tax dollars is different from a privately OWNED building (not privately owned as in exclusive to invited members).
Once you realize this FACT you will see that you as a citizen have no right to tell the business owner how to treat his customers except by voting with your dollars for places you like or by not going to places you do not like. That is how we as free citizens in a free market economy make our preferences known, not by legislating them.
And for the umpteenth time Beth, a restaurant owner owns his business yes! But he hast to conform to the LAWS and regulations of that State. He has to obtain licenses, permits etc, he can not just do what he pleases because must meet certain requirements. Smoking is a huge health hazard and the Board of health has their requirements laid out by the State.
Beth said: you as a citizen have no right to tell the business owner how to treat his customers
---------------------------------------
No I don't Beth, but the Board of health and the State can.
"No I don't Beth, but the Board of health and the State can."
And by promoting and inducing this sort of moral hazzard with respect to mere externalities, it is hardly different than liberal Democrats who elect judicial activists that in turn legislate from the bench.
Apples to orangess, Dd2, health inspections are not infringing upon anyone's rights!
Soapie.
Maybe it depends on how you look at it. It’s like looking at a salad, you see the lettuce in the salad and I see the tomatoes.
Beth, that's wrong, it's the exact same thing.
D-man, please go to Soapie's blog for a discussion on what a "right" is!
I think a better comparison D-man is that in restaurant restrooms, they do not require customers to wash their hands. Imagine if they actually policed the restrooms to be sure their customers were doing things that are in the interest of their own health as well as the health of their fellow restaurant goers. Should we pass laws to require that? When does the madness end?
The point is that smoking endangers non-smokers. Outlawing the public abuse of another person is not socialism. We have laws against assaulting people. Smoking does bodily harm to other people. It is not soley a matter of protecting just people with a disability, but of protecting everyone.
Why does one side get the right to inflict harm (the "right to smoke"), and it's called socialism to want the right to breathe without injury? What makes your right to inflict harm more valuable than everyone's right to breathe without infringement? People have a right to breathe clean air, and if you insist they do not, then what right do you have to breathe filth and force others to breathe filth? Modest Proposal: If you say you have a right to poison me then I have a "right" to blow your frackin' brains out because it would make me feel good- better in fact than your cigarette makes you feel, because I would be defending myself.
Seriously, if you're going to abuse philosophy for your individual moral relativism, then why not go all out? You are a menace to my freedom, therefore I can do whatever I want to defend it. Should I then have the right to build a machine that pumps poison gas into YOUR face, just because you happen to leave your home? After all, your home is your ONLY private place. According to you, nothing in "public" can be regulated by anyone without stooping to making a law for the common good- which is the "nanny state." So, I can build a mythical machine to blow poison in your face because I am "free" to harm you when you step foot in public, and it would be ok?
Your logic falls apart because it's not logic! People have a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When you poison them in public, knowingly inflicting harm on others, you infringe THEIR rights. THAT is what America, and rule of law is about. No nanny state panic needed, just protection of most fundamental rights at the simplest level.
Who grants us such rights? Do they come from government?
You Chris, have failed in your argument to correctly ascertain what a right is. A right is defined by a freedom of action. The right to life (not to a specific quality of life), the right to liberty (to be free from being physically compulsed, coerced or interfered with by another), and the right to pursue one's happiness (so long as it does not infringe on another's right).
With respect to the smoking issue, while I will concede your argument about second hand smoke being a health hazard to you and others. However, you are not being physically held or compulsed, you are not being coerced, and no one is interfering with your right to not subject yourself to such an environment against your will to enter into an establishment where individuals are smoking.
Conversely however, in being a proponent of a smoking ban which is extended to an individual's private business, you have:
Physically compulsed the owner of such an establishment to ban a legal activity from his business, you have coerced him into doing it, and you have interfered with him.
In doing such, it has enslaved another individual and trampled upon their right to their life, their liberty, and of course their pursuit of happiness (which likely was owning a business and making money to provide for their family).
For the record I don't smoke. I prefer a smoke-free environment to the alternative. I do not however, prefer it to such a degree that I think it ought to physically compulse another individual to provide it to me.
As for your other ridiculous comparisons...
"...everyone's right to breathe without infringement (or to clean air)?
There again, you are seeking to establish an end result as a right. It would have been best to stop with breathe.
Soapster SAID : You Chris, have failed in your argument
THAT'S YOUR OPINION!
Okay then Sarah. Let's put that comment back into its respective context and tell us: What defines rights then?
It's easy to through out a comment or opinion without support for it.
Soapster said:...Okay then Sarah. Let's put that comment back into its respective context and tell us: What defines rights then?
It's easy to through out a comment or opinion without support for it.
Sorry Soapster, but you are doing the sameting to Chris's "rights"
Where are his or her "rights' to his or her opinion?
You seem to think it's all your way or no way.
I've noticed that every time someone disagrees with you, you say that they are wrong. Where are their ‘rights” to their opinion?
I never implied someone can't have their own opinion. But opinions my dear on not Facts.
And the fact is that the inalienable rights bestowed on us by our creator did not come from government, nor do they guaranty an outcome.
What they do guaranty is the act or the pursuit to attain those things.
Those are facts. And, as John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
You may have your opinion (as many do) that banning smoking in a restaurant for the preservation of your entitlement to clean air is your "right".
It is yours to keep and hold.
However, you may not have your opinion that such a "right" is not a guaranty of an end result (a desired outcome if you will). And, you may not have an opinion as to the actuarial meaning of what defines inalienable individual rights.
Simple example: If you run a red light and get pulled over and ticketed, you do not have the ability to redefine to the officer what a red light is.
You may have your opinion as to whether or not you ran the light or whether the light was red when you went through it. But you do not have a right to an opinion defining what Red is.
Lastly (at least I think), the only point on which I may have said someone was wrong, would have been when they've attempted to declare a right to smoke free air inside a bar or restaurant.
As much as I enjoy it, I am able to look at it objectively and see that it is not a right. And, I've gone to great lengths to explain why by providing what defines a right.
I don't believe anyone else has done that. They haven't made an attempt to define a right and how one's right compares to another's right.
What I see here is a TON of obfuscation and misstatements which are supportive of one's position to ban smoking.
From DD's false assertion that workers in such environments are "forced" to work in them. To Chris' false assertion that clean air is a right and "..then what right do you have to breathe filth and force others to breathe filth?"
Others are forced to breathe filth (smoke filled air)???
I mean seriously...come on.
Soapster has said: Simple example: If you run a red light and get pulled over and ticketed, you do not have the ability to redefine to the officer what a red light is.
Soapster, that's exactly what you are doing to Chris.
Oh well. this is going to go on forever. I guess that We all agree to dissagree.
I think it's time to go on to DD2's next subject about Hollywood . It looks like a good one.
Anyway, it was good talking to you Soapster.
Later
It has been real. Thanks Sarah and everyone!
I'll be skipping the Hollywood thread.
It is my OPINION that this discussion is indeed over as long as one side is framing it as the rights of non-smokers vs, smokers; while the actual argument of the government imposing policies to private business owners is ignored.
When smoking is coupled with the other risk factors, they form a deadly cocktail that is truly devastating for the heart.
What about passive smoking?
Cigarette smoking not only affects smokers, but also those who are frequently near smokers. Passive smoking (also known as second hand smoking) has also been associated with cardiovascular disease and death. The victims are mainly children of parents who smoke. Nearly 40,000 people die from heart disease caused by inhaling other people's smoke each year in America
Commenting by HaloScan
