Smoking bans for private businesses

[JSt0rm]

This thread is going nowhere. I cant believe people are entrenched on the wrong side of this issue.

 

[Patranus]

This thread is going nowhere. I cant believe people are entrenched on the wrong side of this issue.

I know, personal freedom and freedom of choice is such a bad thing, right?

 

[xj0hnx]

I know, personal freedom and freedom of choice is such a bad thing, right?

To people that want the government to protect them cradle to grave ...yes, they are.

 

[Scotteq]

<giggle>

<chortle>




nohup gigantic_can_of_shit

Tobacco has no legitimate Medical use that can't be better treated with other pharmaceuticals, so why not make it a Schedule 1 Drug?


<chortle>

<*snerk*>

Caffeine has no legitimated medical use that can't be better treated with other pharmaceuticals, so why not make it a Schedule 1 drug?

*ahem*


"nohup" is an old Unix command that means the named process which follows will continue to run even when the terminal is shut down or the user logs off. The process in this case being named "gigantic_can_of_shit". On the chance the joke didn't make sense, or people didn't know what the nohup command was, I figured the <giggle>, <chortle>, and <*snerk*> descriptors would have made the joke clear.


I see your 'sense_of_humor' process has failed and thrown a nonsensical error in logic. But that's OK: Your being wound up about this issue means I have further opportunity to ridicule you.

 

[spittledip]

Yes, you did. It's not smokers in Germany's fault that you choose your job over your "health" (it's in parenthesis because you'd be hard press to prove that week long business trip did anything what so ever negative to your health). It also isn't their fault that your business set you up in places that allowed smoking, I lived there for years and can tell you that there are plenty of places that do not allow it inside.

Yeah, the place I was working did not allow smoking in all areas except the designated smoking room. However, the smoke from the "lounge" poured over to the smoking restricted areas. Also, I was at a client's site. My company has no control over their smoking policies. Also, we had no knowledge of their smoking policies or of how they implemented the policies. Even if we did know, it is quite absurd to think that we would not do business with companies that do not implement smoking policies to consider the health of outsiders.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yeah, the place I was working did not allow smoking in all areas except the designated smoking room. However, the smoke from the "lounge" poured over to the smoking restricted areas. Also, I was at a client's site. My company has no control over their smoking policies. Also, we had no knowledge of their smoking policies or of how they implemented the policies. Even if they did, it is quite absurd to think that we would not do business with companies that do not implement smoking policies to consider the health of outsiders.

You should have you company provide you with a full medical work up to make sure you are deteriorating from being forced to endure such harsh conditions.

 

[Zebo]

Smoke is dangerous shit but I say no. There are millions of other types of businesses besides bars to work in. For patrons there are millions of non smoking places to go besides smokers bar.

Private property rights trump workers and patrons interests in this instance IMO.

You work in a hospital, sure ban it.

 

[CLite]

The strawmans in this thread are unbelievable. No smoking in bars is logical and has been a complete success in every state it's been introduced, it has no effect on patronage while reducing public health care costs and improving life. Keep the tears and strawmans rolling while all 50 states get this no-brainer legislation passed.

Market forces don't keep shit in check, it's like if ASME was abolished and people could just start designing with whatever shit they want to. On one of the committees we are dealing with a material that has been blowing the fuck up and killing people. The material is cheaper but has known problems so we had a warning in the code. Cheap companies ignored the warning and killed people and were able to undercut companies that actually cared about safety, yet people still bought their products because they don't know better. We are currently turning the warning into a ban for the conditions that it's dangerous under, it ain't nanny state it's just common sense.

People get into such a fit about regulations that they can't even separate the obvious good regulations from truly nanny-state regulations (like warning labels that knifes can hurt you or dumb shit like that).

 

[xj0hnx]

People get into such a fit about regulations that they can't even separate the obvious good regulations from truly nanny-state regulations (like warning labels that knifes can hurt your or dumb shit like that).

People get into such a fit about what they think other people should be doing, or not doing they forget about personal responsibility, choice, and private property.

 

[CLite]

People get into such a fit about what they think other people should be doing, or not doing they forget about personal responsibility, choice, and private property.

Passing logical legislation does not equate to throwing a fit. If I ban people from using lead pipes in their *private drinking water supplies for their private business* I am not throwing a fit, I am making a logical choice that benefits society.

There are certainly nanny-state laws on the books, I will not argue with that. However, that does not mean every regulation out there is some nanny-state regulation.

 

[alkemyst]

Passing logical legislation does not equate to throwing a fit. If I ban people from using lead pipes in their *private drinking water supplies for their private business* I am not throwing a fit, I am making a logical choice that benefits society.

There are certainly nanny-state laws on the books, I will not argue with that. However, that does not mean every regulation out there is some nanny-state regulation.

stopping the use of lead in pipes has nothing to do with taking away a personal freedom.

 

[Ackmed]

This is:

A: the government being pointlessly meddling with people, following Karl Marx

B: protecting the rights of citizens against racist discrimination, following the public's belief that people's right to work outweighs the right to bigoted discrimination.

Any color crayon can be used for you to respond 'A', but white crayon on top of black paper is preferred.

Doesnt change that I think a mom and pop store should be able to hire, or not hire anyone they want. White, black, old, young, etc. Its their company, let them hire as they like.

Same with smoking. Its their own business, if they want to allow it, they should be able to. They would lose sales imo, such as mine. As I have never smoked, and hate it. But I think they should be able to do as they wish.

Dont agree? Oh well.

 

[hal2kilo]

As much as I hate being in a smoke filled room, at least when I don't have a high quality cigar (which I usually smoke outside), I feel that California had the best way of dealing with the issue. I may be wrong but when I was living down there and the law was passed, bar business chains, and new bars, had to comply. If you were the primary owner of an existing bar, you did not have to comply. This allowed the neighborhood bars to keep things the way the clientele were used to. Being that bars are generally in business of satisfying peoples death wishes, i.e. people know drinking is not good for them (at least in excess) and smoking is bad for them, but for the most part, most of the clientele participate in both. They should let people enjoy themselves, they way they want to. There were plenty of non-smoking establishments to go to if you did not want to be inudated with smoke. For the most part I went to the non-smoking establishments.

 

[waggy]

my feel is the goverment should not be able to force a business to ban something that is legal.

if a costumer or worker does not want to be around then leave. go find another bar to go to.

 

[zsdersw]

One of the biggest points where the wheels come off of the pro-ban argument is the fact that prior to these bans people who had a problem with smoking still went to and worked at these establishments.. enough to keep the business thriving. Clearly, those consumers/employees weren't bothered enough by it to avoid the place. Rather than take responsibility for achieving their own satisfaction they chose to put up with a situation that was less than ideal for them. If it is that much of a problem and that much of a health hazard they shouldn't have patronized or worked in such places.

Vote with your wallet and your labor instead of relying upon government to pass a law that advocates what you believe. The former will work a lot better than the latter in these matters.

 

[HAL9000]

Yep, I support smoking bans and had OSHA been doing it's job workplace smoking would have been banned decades ago.

This x1000, Smoking is banned in businesses over here as well as public buildings like pubs etc. It's awesome. Win.

My argument is, that people always say "Well I have the right to smoke, so you have to deal with it" By that logic, I have the right to charge down the street holding a small knife or sharp pin, if you get hurt that's your fault. We shouldn't protect morons welding small knives, we shouldn't protect morons smoking cigarettes

 

[manimal]

The way I look at it non smokers have the right not to be around smoking. Sure they can go to establishments that do not have smoking and work those places but using your own logic the same can be said for banning smoking in all establishments to protect the rights of the non smoker...

Having worked at places that people used to smoke being a non smoker made me hate being around smoking..

besides when one is around smoking their clothes soon reek of smoke. Isnt that infringing on my rights to not smell like shit?

 

[Nebor]

I don't like smoke, it's demonstrably unhealthy and I'm glad to see it banned. A perfect example of smart authoritarianism trumping vastly overrated "personal liberties."

 

[zsdersw]

Passing logical legislation does not equate to throwing a fit. If I ban people from using lead pipes in their *private drinking water supplies for their private business* I am not throwing a fit, I am making a logical choice that benefits society.

There are certainly nanny-state laws on the books, I will not argue with that. However, that does not mean every regulation out there is some nanny-state regulation.

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's not an example of nanny-state regulation.

 

[zsdersw]

The way I look at it non smokers have the right not to be around smoking. Sure they can go to establishments that do not have smoking and work those places but using your own logic the same can be said for banning smoking in all establishments to protect the rights of the non smoker...

That makes little sense. Let's say you come to my house, which I own, knowing full well I allow people to smoke in it. You find someone already in my house smoking. Why does your "right not to be around smoke", assuming such a right exists in a private setting (it doesn't) trump not only my right to decide what goes on in my house but the other person's freedom to smoke? Smoking is not illegal.

You have a right not to be around smoke in public venues; places owned/operated by any level of government, but not privately owned businesses and homes.

Isnt that infringing on my rights to not smell like shit?

As a non-smoker, I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke either. I voiced my dissatisfaction with it by avoiding places in which I'd have to smell it.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't like smoke, it's demonstrably unhealthy and I'm glad to see it banned. A perfect example of smart authoritarianism trumping vastly overrated "personal liberties."

Assuming you're being serious, there's no such thing as "smart authoritarianism".

 

[matt0611]

This x1000, Smoking is banned in businesses over here as well as public buildings like pubs etc. It's awesome. Win.

My argument is, that people always say "Well I have the right to smoke, so you have to deal with it" By that logic, I have the right to charge down the street holding a small knife or sharp pin, if you get hurt that's your fault. We shouldn't protect morons welding small knives, we shouldn't protect morons smoking cigarettes

Lol thats such a fail analogy. Charging down the street with a knife? Yeah, thats exactly the same as lighting up a cigarette in a private establishment.

If you come into my house and people are smoking and you don't like it, fuck you and leave, don't tell me to put my cigarette out.

 

[xj0hnx]

That makes little sense. Let's say you come to my house, which I own, knowing full well I allow people to smoke in it. You find someone already in my house smoking. Why does your "right not to be around smoke", assuming such a right exists in a private setting (it doesn't) trump not only my right to decide what goes on in my house but the other person's freedom to smoke? Smoking is not illegal.

You have a right not to be around smoke in public venues; places owned/operated by any level of government, but not privately owned businesses and homes.

It doesn't matter to them, their agenda > peoples rights.

Assuming you're being serious, there's no such thing as "smart authoritarianism".

You are arguing with one of the most self righteous "cults" in the country ...non smokers.

 

[matt0611]

It doesn't matter to them, their agenda > peoples rights.


You are arguing with one of the most self righteous "cults" in the country ...non smokers.

Funny thing is, I don't smoke, I can't stand the stuff, but I recognize peoples freedom to smoke if they wish.

 

[Scotteq]

I don't like smoke, it's demonstrably unhealthy and I'm glad to see it banned. A perfect example of smart authoritarianism trumping vastly overrated "personal liberties."

Next thing you know, they'll be banning Fast Food! Regulating Trans~Fats, and launching anti Salt and anti Sugar campaigns!! <giggle> :awe: () :hmm: