Smoking bans for private businesses

[zsdersw]

Do you think the government, at any level.. whether federal, state, or local.. should be able to enact/enforce absolute smoking bans on private businesses?

The rights involved here are ones of property ownership and the right of association, not to mention the more general right of personal liberty.

I have a big problem with smoking bans for private businesses. The government does not have the right to enact/enforce absolute smoking bans on these businesses, in my opinion. I can understand the compromise of setting up zones or areas in these businesses where smoking is allowed, but absolute bans take things too far.

Patrons who have a problem with smoking can choose to punish businesses that don't offer smoke-free environments by spending their money elsewhere. Employees who have a problem with smoking can find places of employment that are smoke-free.

What do you think?

(NB: I don't really care if this has been debated before; you can choose on your own whether or not to post in this thread)

 

[IronWing]

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

 

[ebaycj]

no.

 

[zsdersw]

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

Why do you support them?

 

[IronWing]

Why do you support them?

Employers do not have a right to subject their employees to unsafe working conditions. Secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Having been a smoker for 15+ years and now being a non-smoker for almost a year I do not support government mandating these types of laws on private industry. Can't stand the smell of smoke anymore but that doesn't give me the right to tell a shop owner not to smoke in his establishment. Hell if I don't like the environment he provides I'll find someone with clean air to buy my merchandise. You know, free market type stuff.

 

[Patranus]

Employers do not have a right to subject their employees to unsafe working conditions. Secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen.

So if I want to open a smoking bar and it is understood that smoking will take place there when employees are hired, why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

Oh, maybe strip clubs should be illegal because it subjects women to sexual harassment.

The employee consents when they apply to the job.
The customer consents when they walk in the door.

Whats the problem again?

Oh thats right, your "progressive" mentality believes you are entitled to make decisions for other people.

 

[ShawnD1]

So if I want to open a smoking bar and it is understood that smoking will take place there when employees are hired, why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

Salt should be illegal too because it's known to cause high blood pressure. Everyone knows this


I love the poll results so far. 12 to 1

 

[IronWing]

So if I want to open a smoking bar and it is understood that smoking will take place there when employees are hired, why shouldn't I be allowed to do it?

Because it is a violation of the law, plain and simple. When Congress and Nixon passed the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, it was the clear intention of the Act to provide for safe workplaces.

Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970
SEC. 2. Congressional Findings and Purpose
a) The Congress finds that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of work situations impose a substantial burden upon, and are a hindrance to, interstate commerce in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and disability compensation payments.

(b) The Congress declares it to be its purpose and policy, through the exercise of its powers to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations and to provide for the general welfare, to assure so far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources --

SEC. 5. Duties
(a) Each employer --

(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
​

(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
​

(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this Act which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.

 

[xj0hnx]

I love the poll results so far. 12 to 1

Probably Iron "I <3 The Nanny State" Wings sock account too.

Because it is a violation of the law, plain and simple. When Congress and Nixon passed the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, it was the clear intention of the Act to provide for safe workplaces.

I guess you completely support the War on Drugs™ because Nixon started that too. I thought you hated conservatives? But you support a Nixon law? lol, I guess it just when it suits your own personal lust for controlling what other people are allowed to do.

 

[bamacre]

No. But I do support smoking bans on public property.

 

[IronWing]

I guess you completely support the War on Drugs™ because Nixon started that too. I thought you hated conservatives? But you support a Nixon law? lol, I guess it just when it suits your own personal lust for controlling what other people are allowed to do.

I support several laws signed by Nixon: Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Republicans didn't turn into total buttholes until the Reagan Revolution.

The War on Drugs, as I've stated clearly here, is an abject failure. I don't care what people do to themselves; I care what they do to others. Workplace smoking harms others.

 

[xj0hnx]

The War on Drugs, as I've stated clearly here, is an abject failure. I don't care what people do to themselves; I care what they do to others. Workplace smoking harms others.

Bullshit, there's no slaves in America, they have a choice to not work there, or eat there. You just want to be able to tell people to do what YOU think they should.

 

[fskimospy]

The government has the ability to regulate lots of harmful things that private businesses might do to their employees or customers. There is no nationwide ban on smoking inside private facilities, only federal ones. All the other bans come from state and local level people deciding that they don't want it to be that way in their town. They certainly have the authority to do so, and it results in a policy that the vast majority of people like, smokers included.

If a business owner doesn't like it, he's free to go move his business somewhere else. I thought you guys were all about states and local control?

 

[IronWing]

Bullshit, there's no slaves in America, they have a choice to not work there, or eat there. You just want to be able to tell people to do what YOU think they should.

Grow up little boy. The Act passed and has been held Constitutional by the courts. Congress and the President recognized that the employer/employee relationship is not symmetrical. Employers wield power over employees and with this power should come responsibility. Employers were failing and Congress acted to correct it.

 

[Craig234]

The issue here is less freedom than public safety - it takes a long time (decades at least) for attitudes to change, but smoking gets recognized eventually less and less as a freedom - a marketing message cooked up largely by the tobacco companies to fight regulation, and we clearly have a lot of people here who are suckers for that - and more a 'tradition we now know just kills people'.

There's no way cigarettes would be approved if they were invented today, for good reason, and we gradually want to move to treating them as they should be, banned.

Now, I say that, but do I mean an absolute ban? Well, depends - if there's a black market issue, if people really want to use it badly enough to fund a big black market that causes problems - that can be reconsidered, like home use. But it's doubtful the appeal is that strong - almost all cigarette addicts get addicted in their teens, showing the appeal is not too high after that.

We need a transitional period for current smokers and measures to reduce new smokers. Guess which party gets a lot of tobacco donations to protect them?

 

[IronWing]

I disagree with Craig on this. I do not think cigarettes should be banned. I think people have a right to smoke whatever they want to, just not where their action endangers others.

 

[bamacre]

I disagree with Craig on this. I do not think cigarettes should be banned. I think people have a right to smoke whatever they want to, just not where their action endangers others.

Do you think people have the right to smoke cigarettes in their own home, even if they have children?

 

[IronWing]

Do you think people have the right to smoke cigarettes in their own home, even if they have children?

The question here is "does the state have a legitimate interest in intervening and Constitutional authority to do so". As much as second hand smoke is harming kids, I don't see a strong state interest here and I certainly don't see Constitutional authority to intervene. The Commerce Clause doesn't apply.

 

[bamacre]

The question here is "does the state have a legitimate interest in intervening and Constitutional authority to do so". As much as second hand smoke is harming kids, I don't see a strong state interest here and I certainly don't see Constitutional authority to intervene. The Commerce Clause doesn't apply.

How does the interstate commerce clause, as you understand it, apply to a local bar or restaurant?

 

[IronWing]

How does the interstate commerce clause, as you understand it, apply to a local bar or restaurant?

The OSH Act uses the commerce clause as the basis for federal intervention in regulating workplace safety. So far, the courts have agreed that the commerce clause applies to all commerce.

 

[bamacre]

The OSH Act uses the commerce clause as the basis for federal intervention in regulating workplace safety. So far, the courts have agreed that the commerce clause applies to all commerce.

I didn't ask the courts, I asked you.

If it applies to all commerce, then why did they bother using the word, "interstate?"

 

[101mpg]

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

What about people working in toll booths on the freeway? You think that's healthy?

 

[alkemyst]

Employers do not have a right to subject their employees to unsafe working conditions. Secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen.

y0 dude, we here in America aren't forced to work for anyone.

 

[IronWing]

What about people working in toll booths on the freeway? You think that's healthy?

No I don't. The OSH Act was extended to cover local/state employees in the early nineties. OSHA should get busy.