CDZ Smoker's Rights

[Flopper]

Government subsidize healthcare is a fact and has been long before Obamacare. Medicaid which is paid for by both state and federal funds is hit hard by smoking related diseases. The reason is that smoking is most prevalent among the poor. 30% of the smokers are below poverty level. This of course means that we all pay the price of giving people the choice to smoke themselves into an early grave.

I have no problem with making cigarettes illegal.

But since our country wants to be enslaved to big business, at least allow the smokers rights to work and shop while smoking....

Everyone always wants their cake and eat it too...

The problem with making smoking illegal is that it's unenforceable. We have and have had too many laws we can't enforce which makes a mockery of the whole system.

When you make a product illegal, you immediately create demand while reducing supply. If you can't enforce the law, the product will be supplied illegally creating more crime. A far better approach is what we are doing now. Only a fraction of those that once smoked are now smoking. Smoking among teens is down to 7%, the lowest ever.

 

[rightwinger]

The American Smoker is on the verge of extinction

They have dropped in number from over 50% of the population to less than 20%. They are now social outcasts, often not able to smoke even in their own homes

This drop in smoking has had the biggest health impact of our generation

Why would we dream of going back to the old days of public smoking?

Your point is a simple deflection. Smoking is legal.

Why would those that object ever dream of entering a PRIVATE business that allows it.

We don't allow it, yet we allow booze. A proven killer which effects go way beyond the premis it is consumed

Hypocrisy at its finest.

It is a public business not a private business

As such, it is subject to all rules and regulations

There is no valid reason to allow people to smoke other than they enjoy spreading their filth

 

[Pop23]

The American Smoker is on the verge of extinction

They have dropped in number from over 50% of the population to less than 20%. They are now social outcasts, often not able to smoke even in their own homes

This drop in smoking has had the biggest health impact of our generation

Why would we dream of going back to the old days of public smoking?

Your point is a simple deflection. Smoking is legal.

Why would those that object ever dream of entering a PRIVATE business that allows it.

We don't allow it, yet we allow booze. A proven killer which effects go way beyond the premis it is consumed

Hypocrisy at its finest.

It is a public business not a private business

As such, it is subject to all rules and regulations

There is no valid reason to allow people to smoke other than they enjoy spreading their filth

Nor drink, and yet we do.

Your a hypocrite.

Let them drink ant home and only home

 

[rightwinger]

The American Smoker is on the verge of extinction

They have dropped in number from over 50% of the population to less than 20%. They are now social outcasts, often not able to smoke even in their own homes

This drop in smoking has had the biggest health impact of our generation

Why would we dream of going back to the old days of public smoking?

Your point is a simple deflection. Smoking is legal.

Why would those that object ever dream of entering a PRIVATE business that allows it.

We don't allow it, yet we allow booze. A proven killer which effects go way beyond the premis it is consumed

Hypocrisy at its finest.

It is a public business not a private business

As such, it is subject to all rules and regulations

There is no valid reason to allow people to smoke other than they enjoy spreading their filth

Nor drink, and yet we do.

Your a hypocrite.

Let them drink ant home and only home

We have plenty of rules and regulations related to drinking

Where have you been?

 

[Pogo]

Not to my lungs you don't.

No, but I have a right to have a place to smoke, you just have the choice to not go there.

Doesn't work that way. Smoking is a choice; breathing is not. Therefore the latter takes precedence. Find a place to puff that doesn't involve anybody else, you can knock yourself out, but that's your problem (,smoker).

But I don't smoke Pogo just pleading a case for smokers...

"You" meaning "a smoker"... i.e. they have a right to do what they like with their lungs. They do NOT have a right to mine. K? If that presents an obstacle to them ---- tough shit. Let 'em find a self-destruction device that doesn't involve others.

I might add I speak as an ex-smoker, so I've been to both sides of the island so I'm qualified to speak from the world of reality, as opposed to simply babbling blind ideology.

you can choose what business you breathe in can't you?

So what if a few are allowed to permit smoking there are plenty more you can go to.

Once AGAIN ... I'm talking about smokers. Not businesses.

If you didn't imply business, then why are you posting on a thread that is about business owners being allowed the right to allow smoking.

Good god

I don't see the word "business" up there in the title, do you?

 

[Bonzi]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

Original post was based on businesses (see above)

 

[Pogo]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

Original post was based on businesses (see above)

Thanks but I'm going by the more general title. As I've mused before on this topic, I'm not sure institutionally that's the only way to approach it. In other words if some jackwagon ruins my meal by lighting a cigar .... it's not the restaurant I hold responsible.

 

[Bonzi]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

Original post was based on businesses (see above)

Thanks but I'm going by the more general title. As I've mused before on this topic, I'm not sure institutionally is the only way to approach it.

Fair enough... and you are right. I do agree that people should not be subject to cigarette smoke however, I thin when it is banned in outdoor venues and areas, it's a bit excessive... it's on thing to protect individuals from health hazards, other from "smelly" things, there are lots of smelly things!

 

[Pogo]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

Original post was based on businesses (see above)

Thanks but I'm going by the more general title. As I've mused before on this topic, I'm not sure institutionally is the only way to approach it.

Fair enough... and you are right. I do agree that people should not be subject to cigarette smoke however, I thin when it is banned in outdoor venues and areas, it's a bit excessive... it's on thing to protect individuals from health hazards, other from "smelly" things, there are lots of smelly things!

When it's banned outdoors, that's because smoke travels in the atmosphere and there's no way to control it. Were someone to invent a way TO control it, that would be a point, and arguably that's what e-cigs are supposed to be. But in the conventional form, it amounts to creating a public nuisance.

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

 

[rightwinger]

Several of our local beaches have banned smoking

Not because of the second hand smoke but because smokers use the beach as their personal ashtray

Smokers can't help being pigs

 

[Bonzi]

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

.. yeah but when you are outdoors, I don't think the cancer-issue is even an issue... the smoke travels away in the outdoors.... I think people are more offended by the smell...

 

[Pop23]

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

.. yeah but when you are outdoors, I don't think the cancer-issue is even an issue... the smoke travels away in the outdoors.... I think people are more offended by the smell...

Absolutely.

 

[Pogo]

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

.. yeah but when you are outdoors, I don't think the cancer-issue is even an issue... the smoke travels away in the outdoors.... I think people are more offended by the smell...

The smell may be the canary in the coal mine. You don't need to smell it to receive the effects, but it is a warning that that effect may be happening -- strike that, IS happening.

My mother said she actually liked the smell of cigarettes, even though she didn't herself smoke.
She died three and a half years ago.

From lung cancer.

I just want to know one thing:
Can anyone tell me who killed my mom?

 

[Flopper]

Should laws be changed so that stores and owner's of businesses get to decide if their establishment will allow smoking on the premises and inside the buildings?

Original post was based on businesses (see above)

Thanks but I'm going by the more general title. As I've mused before on this topic, I'm not sure institutionally is the only way to approach it.

Fair enough... and you are right. I do agree that people should not be subject to cigarette smoke however, I thin when it is banned in outdoor venues and areas, it's a bit excessive... it's on thing to protect individuals from health hazards, other from "smelly" things, there are lots of smelly things!

When it's banned outdoors, that's because smoke travels in the atmosphere and there's no way to control it. Were someone to invent a way TO control it, that would be a point, and arguably that's what e-cigs are supposed to be. But in the conventional form, it amounts to creating a public nuisance.

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

I think the real reason for banning outdoor smoking is not that it's a health consideration but rather it's an activity that the public finds offensive. We have many such laws such as public nudity, use of profane language, banning certain activities such selling alcoholic beverages near churches schools, etc...

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers engage in an offensive activity that is harmful to others

I don't see why it is an issue if they have been told to stop

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Forcing employees to choose between their health and having a job is not free market

We went through this when we instituted OSHA

You seem to keep missing the most important detail - its their business not governments. No one is forcing anyone to work there, they work there by their own free will and No one is forcing customers to go in and use the goods and services there, they do it of their own free will.

Why are you so against choice?

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

Oh poster pleeeease....

​

Everybody has a right to breathe air and not smoke.

PERIOD.

Why are you against choice? Why are you so against people choosing for themselves?

Please, tell us how people are forced into patronizing these establishments? Is there a law mandating they buy this company's good or service? Is there a guy holding a gun to their head forcing people to go inside the establishment?

Please tell us how people are being forced against their will to breathe in the smoke?

 

[Pop23]

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

.. yeah but when you are outdoors, I don't think the cancer-issue is even an issue... the smoke travels away in the outdoors.... I think people are more offended by the smell...

The smell may be the canary in the coal mine. You don't need to smell it to receive the effects, but it is a warning that that effect may be happening -- strike that, IS happening.

My mother said she actually liked the smell of cigarettes, even though she didn't herself smoke.
She died three and a half years ago.

From lung cancer.

I just want to know one thing:
Can anyone tell me who killed my mom?

It's not so much the "smelly" as the "cancery, emphysema-y chain-oneself-to-a-chemo-machine and die" thingy.

.. yeah but when you are outdoors, I don't think the cancer-issue is even an issue... the smoke travels away in the outdoors.... I think people are more offended by the smell...

The smell may be the canary in the coal mine. You don't need to smell it to receive the effects, but it is a warning that that effect may be happening -- strike that, IS happening.

My mother said she actually liked the smell of cigarettes, even though she didn't herself smoke.
She died three and a half years ago.

From lung cancer.

I just want to know one thing:
Can anyone tell me who killed my mom?

What was the radon level in her home?

You know the number 2 cause of lung cancer is radon. Number 1 is NOT second had smoke.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

Non smokers could choose to go elsewhere, no one is forcing them into that specific establishment.
I personally wouldnt eat in a restaurant that allowed smoking but it should be the establishments choice.

Quite a few restaurants my way are "vape friendly" now beings smoking is illegal indoors.

Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?

Why not the smoker?

The smoker has no choice now nor do the owners of an establishment.

I know when I was a smoker nothing disgusted me more in a restaurant than someone near me smoking. Since I quit, I can not stand the smell of smoking. I still think it should be up to the owners of the establishment if they want to cater to smokers.

I believe a people should be able to make their own choices not have government make choices for me.

The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose. When a person’s choice negatively affects society, how far is too far before controls are appropriate? Legislation requiring seat belts in cars and prohibition against drunk driving certainly reduced individual choice but are clear examples of legislation that provided needed protection of the public.

When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees. Management could notify employees and customers so they would have a choice. However, employees may not really have a choice because of their inability to travel to other jobs, working hours, or wages in an alternate job. Likewise, customers may not really have a choice, particularly children. Since most smokers are in the lower income brackets, 30% below the poverty level, the cost of healthcare for smoking related diseases are borne mostly by the public, not the smoker.

There is amply reason why smoking should be prohibited everywhere. However, we have seen that passing laws that can't be enforced is counterproductive. Banning smoking in the workplace is an enforceable compromise that gives the smokers the opportunity to hurt themselves and their family while still reducing the amount smoking.

Your first line lost it for me - "The ultimate goal for law makers is balancing government’s duty to protect its people with an individual’s right to choose."
No, it's NOT governments job to "protect you" from choices. Thats allowing politicians to dictate behavior and morality through protecting you from yourself.

And you point about "When a person smokes in a restaurant or other business, they hurt not just themselves but other customers and employees." No one is forcing the employees to work there and no one is forcing the customers to go there. It should be left to the owners of the establishment.

Freedom = Choice to decide things for yourself. You must accept the good freedoms with the bad ones because once you start picking and choosing which freedoms are allowed and which ones arent, you are no longer a free society.

It is government's job to protect people from harm due to the choices that others make. It is one of the primary functions of government. For example, it was certainly government's job to enacted laws against drunk driving and smoking in public places. These individual choices are known to cause serious harm to others.

Again, same question I have been asking everyone else...How are you being forced to breathe in smoke?

Im a non smoker and establishments where I live allow smoking. I choose not to patronize those establishments...I am expressing my freedom of choice while allowing others to also express their choice. Win win

You want to deprive someone of their freedom to choose but force your choice down their throat.

 

[Darkwind]

Should the employees of any establishment be forced to inhale second hand smoke?

Are they forced to work there?

Perhaps that place offers the best opportunity for some employees. Why should smokers trump economic advancement?

There is no right to economic advancement.