Civil Disobedience

[California Girl]

Why should only bar and restaurant employees be limited in the number of places they can work in if they are not willing to put up with cigarette smoke?

Many work environments have inherent risks to them...As long as no one is forced, I see no problem with the freedom to choose.

So you are not in favor of reducing workplace hazards? You think people should just accept whatever conditions the owner offers and just go look for work somewhere else if they aren't wiling to take the risks?

Do you feel the same about consumer protections?

I think we should treat grown ups as grown ups. Grown ups are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves whether they will work in a smoking environment. I absolutely support non smoking offices etc as they are specifically work environment. Bars and restuarants are 'leisure' based... people can choose whether or not to work there and whether or not to patronize that bar. I see absolutely no reason why people need to be "protected" by a Nanny state who decides whether people can or cannot smoke. Personally, I would rather patronize a non smoking place but I still feel that my rights do not outweigh those of a smoker.

I think it's pretty damned pathetic that anyone feels they have the right to dictate to someone else how they run their business.

 

[Anguille]

I'd rather not repeat myself...can't you see what I said is not at all what you're saying I supposedly think?

Then why do you think they are not deserving of the same protection office workers have from exposure to cigarette smoke?

Because a smoking office worker is not in the business of catering to smoking customers.

At one time pretty much all businesses served people who were smoking on their premises. Also I think you are making the mistake of thinking that only smokers go to bars and restaurants. Most bar and restaurant customers do not smoke and even among those who do, many do not smoke where other people are eating. Bars and restaurants cater to eaters and drinkers. Some of whom happen to be smokers.

And no one is pushing to smoke at the grocery store or the hospital.

But you'd be fine with it if they did, I assume.

 

[Valerie]

Then why do you think they are not deserving of the same protection office workers have from exposure to cigarette smoke?

Because a smoking office worker is not in the business of catering to smoking customers.

At one time pretty much all businesses served people who were smoking on their premises. Also I think you are making the mistake of thinking that only smokers go to bars and restaurants. Most bar and restaurant customers do not smoke and even among those who do, many do not smoke where other people are eating. Bars and restaurants cater to eaters and drinkers. Some of whom happen to be smokers.

And no one is pushing to smoke at the grocery store or the hospital.

But you'd be fine with it if they did, I assume.

Why would you assume THAT?

 

[Anguille]

I absolutely support non smoking offices etc as they are specifically work environment. Bars and restuarants are 'leisure' based...

Clearly you never worked in a bar or a restaurant if you think that.

I think you are a hypocrite. You want the protections for yourself but not for anyone who works in a bar or restaurant.

 

[rightwinger]

The genie is now out of the bottle and is not going back in. More and more states are now banning smoking in areas where the public has open access. We are not going back to the old way of doing things as much as the smokers choose to whine and pout.
This means that if you are a smoker you must light up in environments where non-smokers will not be affected by your smoke. This should be a common courtesy but since smokers have never been known for their consideration of others, it is now the law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not a smoker but I can certainly understand the concept of a business owner wanting to own an establishment where an individual citizen wants to patronize such an establishment where smoking is allowed.

If anyone is able to come up with a way to operate a business where smokers can smoke without exposing other employees or patrons to their cigarette smoke, then I would see nothing wrong with it.
All the best to them if they can do that.
I doubt though it would be financially feasible to do something like that.

The with VAl's argument is IT lacks perspective. It is based on teh assumptions that a "business owner' lives and operates in a vacuum and that somehow tehy market place with dictate and that is a good thing.

Well, an owner might have a superior restaurant and be a big dick. He might want to subject people to all sorts of things.

Look at smoking....where people know smoking leads to disease and illness, yet they are self destructive.

I do not propose the govrenment protecting everyone from stupidity and human nature...but it does have a role in regulating what others can get us to do in order that they make a buck.

*grin

 

[Valerie]

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction. The State can set limits on permits and insure worker protections while also protecting personal freedom.

IMO the bar owner should be FREE to do some market research and choose to apply for a permit to cater to smoking customers within his jurisdiction...If the market will bear it and non-smoking workers and patrons have other options, why not???

 

[Terral]

Hi MountainMan:

Yesterday, a new law went into effect in NC.
No smoking in restaurants . . .

Obama is following the Nazis (story) in bringing Fascism to America, which includes banning your smoking. You wanted 'change' ...

GL,

Terral

 

[rightwinger]

Hi MountainMan:

Yesterday, a new law went into effect in NC.
No smoking in restaurants . . .

Obama is following the Nazis (story) in bringing Fascism to America, which includes banning your smoking. You wanted 'change' ...

GL,

Terral

God damn FASCISTS !


Wheres my cigs!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction. The State can set limits on permits and insure worker protections while also protecting personal freedom.

IMO the bar owner should be FREE to do some market research and choose to apply for a permit to cater to smoking customers within his jurisdiction...If the market will bear it and non-smoking workers and patrons have other options, why not???

Society gets to demand wht IT will tolerate.

Yopur arguments make sense only if we all agree (which I do not), to speak of 'the government) as an abstraction.

The government is of by and for the people. Populists would have yopu believe otherwise.

go figure
d.

 

[Anguille]

Because a smoking office worker is not in the business of catering to smoking customers.

At one time pretty much all businesses served people who were smoking on their premises. Also I think you are making the mistake of thinking that only smokers go to bars and restaurants. Most bar and restaurant customers do not smoke and even among those who do, many do not smoke where other people are eating. Bars and restaurants cater to eaters and drinkers. Some of whom happen to be smokers.

And no one is pushing to smoke at the grocery store or the hospital.

But you'd be fine with it if they did, I assume.

Why would you assume THAT?

Because you claim that bars and restaurants allowed or "catered to" smoking in the past so they, or a certain number of them should be allowed to now. Grocery stores and hospitals also allowed smoking in the past and "catered to" smokers just as much as bars and restaurants did in that they had cigarette machines and provided ashtrays. Lots of types of businesses allowed smoking in the past. But none of these businesses actually allowed smoking or catered to smokers a few centuries ago because smoking tobacco is a relatively new phenomenon. So, anyway, if you are going to grant bar owners the opportunity to allow smoking, you have to allow all business owners of all types of businesses the same opportunity.

But that point is moot anyway. Even if it were true that the reason bars and restaurants existed was to provide a public smoking area for smokers, it would not negate the fact that cigarette smoke is a major health hazard.

Perhaps you don't agree it is? Lots of these pro smoking zealots do claim there is no health risk to breathing second hand smoke, I believe Ravi Ding Dong is one of them, they claim it is only a matter of second hand smoke causing an annoyance. I'm trying to understand how you can claim that saying only bar and restaurant workers should have to put up with second hand smoke or more limited employment opportunities is not setting them apart and regarding them as second class citizens.

 

[Father Time]

I despair of liberals who think that it is ok to force others to live according to their rules.

So you have no problem with conservatives doing the same thing?

 

[Father Time]

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction.

The two lucky bars that get the permits will have an unfair advantage between them.

 

[Father Time]

The genie is now out of the bottle and is not going back in. More and more states are now banning smoking in areas where the public has open access. We are not going back to the old way of doing things as much as the smokers choose to whine and pout. This means that if you are a smoker you must light up in environments where non-smokers will not be affected by your smoke. This should be a common courtesy but since smokers have never been known for their consideration of others, it is now the law.

Do you have anything to contribute other than
"Smokers are all evil and we should punish them for it"(which makes you an intolerant dick)
Psychic Predictions (which makes you a fraud)
It's a law so deal with it (which contributes jack)

 

[Father Time]

I have yet to see anyone display the harm in permitting a smoking bar or two within each jurisdiction. The State can set limits on permits and insure worker protections while also protecting personal freedom.

IMO the bar owner should be FREE to do some market research and choose to apply for a permit to cater to smoking customers within his jurisdiction...If the market will bear it and non-smoking workers and patrons have other options, why not???

Society gets to demand wht IT will tolerate.

We are not a democracy.

We are a republic which means we recognize that people have certain rights that the government (and therefore the majority) can not take away from them.

Why should allowing smoking on your premises not be one of those rights?

 

[rightwinger]

The genie is now out of the bottle and is not going back in. More and more states are now banning smoking in areas where the public has open access. We are not going back to the old way of doing things as much as the smokers choose to whine and pout. This means that if you are a smoker you must light up in environments where non-smokers will not be affected by your smoke. This should be a common courtesy but since smokers have never been known for their consideration of others, it is now the law.

Do you have anything to contribute other than
"Smokers are all evil and we should punish them for it"(which makes you an intolerant dick)
Psychic Predictions (which makes you a fraud)
It's a law so deal with it (which contributes jack)

Just introducing you to the new realities Father

New Sheriff in town

 

[Ravi]

Progressives kind of suck.

 

[alan1]

What prevents you (or anyone) from asking the smoker to put the butt out or take it outside or move to a different area? No guarantees but . . . .

I do that all the time. Still have to do it even in areas that are well posted as non smoking areas!! As I said in an above post, if smokers were considerate they'd put their cigarettes out without even having to be asked. But too many are not considerate, too many are bullies that refuse to accommodate requests. That's why laws finally had to be enacted to stop them. You can blame the smokers for this unnecessary intrusion by the government. Thay are the ones who brought it on themselves and are wasting taxpayer money.

maybe people should practice civility towards one another rather than just bash smokers vs. non-smokers.

Do you consider it practicing civility to light up where someone else has to breathe in your smoke? If you want to lecture on civility you need to start with the smokers. They are the ones not being civil.

Best to restrict the rights of the property owners, and make the government the bully.

 

[Anguille]

Progressives kind of suck.

Not on cigs though.

 

[Anguille]

What prevents you (or anyone) from asking the smoker to put the butt out or take it outside or move to a different area? No guarantees but . . . .

I do that all the time. Still have to do it even in areas that are well posted as non smoking areas!! As I said in an above post, if smokers were considerate they'd put their cigarettes out without even having to be asked. But too many are not considerate, too many are bullies that refuse to accommodate requests. That's why laws finally had to be enacted to stop them. You can blame the smokers for this unnecessary intrusion by the government. Thay are the ones who brought it on themselves and are wasting taxpayer money.

maybe people should practice civility towards one another rather than just bash smokers vs. non-smokers.

Do you consider it practicing civility to light up where someone else has to breathe in your smoke? If you want to lecture on civility you need to start with the smokers. They are the ones not being civil.

Best to restrict the rights of the property owners, and make the government the bully.

I notice you avoid the question I asked. "Do you consider it practicing civility to light up where someone else has to breathe in your smoke?"

Go sulk if that makes you feel better.