And never will change.
As an ex-smoker I chose not to frequent places that allow smoking yet I don't favor any laws or bans that restrict peoples/businesses right to smoke/allow smoking.
400+ messages and no positions have changed in the slightest.
I think what you need to do, is get some very large, well known terrorist orginisation to announce that they have laced 1% of Cigarettes with a lethal dose of arsenic, then poison about 50 random smokers, people will start thinking that smoking kills and give up!
Using the legality of smoking as a justification on why smoking should be legal is a bit circular. Under our Constitution, government has authority to limit smoking in private businesses and in some jurisdictions has chosen to do so. The reasons are valid, the laws are valid, and you're just bitching because you don't like the outcome. The bottom line is that with personal freedom comes personal responsibility and smokers have demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to behave responsibly with respect to smoking so the rest of society as acted to protect itself from smokers.I don't know of anyone who isn't aware of the health hazards of smoking.
The one inescapable truth in all of this, though, is that whether you die from lung cancer, an obesity-derived heart attack, a car crash, a bungee jumping accident, or any of the other activities in life that are a risk to one's life and health... you're just as dead. So either we must accept that life, in general, is hazardous and that we're all free to choose our own risks for whatever perceived reward, or we must eliminate risk entirely by banning almost everything in life that makes it worth living.
Of course, that doesn't mean we have the freedom to intrude upon the rights of anyone else as we're pursuing our own risk/reward scenarios, but that's not what is going on or what's being advocated. Private businesses where you can smoke are not private businesses in which you must smoke as any sort of criteria. Those who smoke in these establishments are engaging in legal activities at a place in which the owner allows it. If the legal activities of others bother us, we can choose to do something else with no more drama than choosing to watch a different program on television or choosing not to go to a particular event or attraction. Concordantly, if a business that allows its patrons to smoke is not acceptable to us when seeking employment, we can choose to find a business that is smoke-free with no more drama than choosing to not work at an adult entertainment store if we don't like that sort of environment.
In the end, the only thing that should eliminate choices from our list of legal actions we can take are the consequences... and not the consequence of government regulation and enforcement, but the real consequences of death, poor health, financial ruin, personal or interpersonal hardship, and the like. If some choose to ignore one or more of those consequences, that is entirely their responsibility and entirely none of our concern.
Using the legality of smoking as a justification on why smoking should be legal is a bit circular.
Under our Constitution, government has authority to limit smoking in private businesses and in some jurisdictions has chosen to do so. The reasons are valid, the laws are valid, and you're just bitching because you don't like the outcome.
The bottom line is that with personal freedom comes personal responsibility and smokers have demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to behave responsibly with respect to smoking so the rest of society as acted to protect itself from smokers.
Did any Bar owners in Michigan go to jail for violating the smoking laws on New Years?
As long as a private business has their own fire dept, police, roads, source of electricity, own phone network, satellites,etc, I think they can do whatever they want.
However, if their business is part of society in that you can get there on a public road, or they use telephones, electricity, or any other thing that only exists because of that society, then they should live within that societies' rules.
It always comes down to enforcement... and like everywhere else on New Years, I suspect Michigan's cops were occupied with finding/stopping drunk drivers (an infinitely bigger profit for the local governement) instead of ensuring compliance with smoking bans and going after gangs.
Except in the real world where real people vote in real elections with real consequences where smoking bans usually win real big.View Poll Results: Do you support absolute smoking bans forced by government upon private businesses?
Yes 68 39.77%
No 103 60.23%
The nays win it.
I'm liberal, but yes, I want to ban smoking all together.
It's MY bleeping air your pollute. Biatch.
Smoking is just ignorance. It displays a lack of intelligence and logical reasoning.
Smoking is just ignorance. It displays a lack of intelligence and logical reasoning.
Except in the real world where real people vote in real elections with real consequences where smoking bans usually win real big.
Smoking is just ignorance. It displays a lack of intelligence and logical reasoning.
I don't know of anyone who isn't aware of the health hazards of smoking.
The one inescapable truth in all of this, though, is that whether you die from lung cancer, an obesity-derived heart attack, a car crash, a bungee jumping accident, or any of the other activities in life that are a risk to one's life and health... you're just as dead. So either we must accept that life, in general, is hazardous and that we're all free to choose our own risks for whatever perceived reward, or we must eliminate risk entirely by banning almost everything in life that makes it worth living.
Of course, that doesn't mean we have the freedom to intrude upon the rights of anyone else as we're pursuing our own risk/reward scenarios, but that's not what is going on or what's being advocated. Private businesses where you can smoke are not private businesses in which you must smoke as any sort of criteria. Those who smoke in these establishments are engaging in legal activities at a place in which the owner allows it. If the legal activities of others bother us, we can choose to do something else with no more drama than choosing to watch a different program on television or choosing not to go to a particular event or attraction. Concordantly, if a business that allows its patrons to smoke is not acceptable to us when seeking employment, we can choose to find a business that is smoke-free with no more drama than choosing to not work at an adult entertainment store if we don't like that sort of environment.
In the end, the only thing that should eliminate choices from our list of legal actions we can take are the consequences... and not the consequence of government regulation and enforcement, but the real consequences of death, poor health, financial ruin, personal or interpersonal hardship, and the like. If some choose to ignore one or more of those consequences, that is entirely their responsibility and entirely none of our concern.
Smokers should accommodate non smokers, not the other way around. I shouldn't have to spend my nights at chuck e. cheese because I want to avoid smoke.
There's no "should" involved. The owner of a business decides who they want in their establishment and what legal activities will be allowed within it.
Most, if not all, bars would allow smoking then because they would capture business from both smokers and non smokers. This would result to close to 100% of bars in the area with smoking, which gives smokers a choice and none at all to non smokers.
As a non smoker my only choice would be to not go to a bar at all.
The smoking ban in MI still allows smokers, it just has to be done outside. Also from what I can tell, since the smoking ban, there hasn't been a loss in business in the area at all. Smokers just choose to step outside.