Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.
Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!
Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.
Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.
I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.
Why would a thread about how millions die and get sick because of smoking make you want to smoke? No respect for the gift of life that God gave you?... this thread makes me want to smoke....
Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?If the best restaurant in town allows smoking, you just have a choice to make. Put up with the smoke or have the best meal in town.
Most restaurants would not allow smoking - because there are more people that DON'T smoke than people that do... that would never be an issue in current times.
Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!
Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.
Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.
I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.
Smokers have no rights, except on their own property.
If that property is in a co-operative situation, such as a condo, those rights are secondary to the welfare of the whole community.
Smoking increases your risk of dying from cancer or heart disease regardless of your cellular propensity.
Are you suggesting those gifted with longevity should waste it on inhaling the tobacco smoke of others in public places?
And who paid for that study? Phillip Morris? Bullshit, to put it mildly.
And this is from that report: "Years of study and a mountain of evidence point to tobacco smoking as the single most important risk factor for lung cancer. Nonsmokers (people who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes over the course of their lives) have less than a 1% chance of ever developing lung cancer. Smokers, on the other hand, have about a 14% chance of developing lung cancer at some point during their lifetime—that means their risk is more than ten times higher than that of nonsmokers! But is smoking the only factor that increases a person's risk of lung cancer? The short answer is no, as genetics has been shown to play a role as well." So, smoking is the single most important rick factor for developing lung cancer. And, this is actually the gist of the article: "Smoking is still the number-one cause of lung cancer in humans. Even if a smoker were to test negative for the 15q24 susceptibility locus, smoking could still seriously damage his or her health. Remember, even smokers without the locus have a tenfold greater risk of develop lung cancer than nonsmokers do. In other words, all smokers are at risk of lung cancer, but some smokers are a greater risk than others."And who paid for that study? Phillip Morris? Bullshit, to put it mildly.
This is one, though not the study I read.
Genes Smoking and Lung Cancer Learn Science at Scitable
And this is from that report: "Years of study and a mountain of evidence point to tobacco smoking as the single most important risk factor for lung cancer. Nonsmokers (people who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes over the course of their lives) have less than a 1% chance of ever developing lung cancer. Smokers, on the other hand, have about a 14% chance of developing lung cancer at some point during their lifetime—that means their risk is more than ten times higher than that of nonsmokers! But is smoking the only factor that increases a person's risk of lung cancer? The short answer is no, as genetics has been shown to play a role as well." So, smoking is the single most important rick factor for developing lung cancer. And, this is actually the gist of the article: "Smoking is still the number-one cause of lung cancer in humans. Even if a smoker were to test negative for the 15q24 susceptibility locus, smoking could still seriously damage his or her health. Remember, even smokers without the locus have a tenfold greater risk of develop lung cancer than nonsmokers do. In other words, all smokers are at risk of lung cancer, but some smokers are a greater risk than others."And who paid for that study? Phillip Morris? Bullshit, to put it mildly.
This is one, though not the study I read.
Genes Smoking and Lung Cancer Learn Science at Scitable
Do you find it more appealing to screw employees? That's the prevailing attitude among Conservatives. You seem to forget that employees make the profits.Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?
Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!
Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.
Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.
I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.
I'm speaking of now, after the fact. If an employer states prior to an employee being hired that they allow smoking, the odds of that being the ONLY place they can get a job is astronomically small!
Why do we cater to the work at the expense of the employer? Especially a small business owner?
The jobs a person can hold depends on their education, experience, physical condition, access to transportation wages needed to support their family, working hours if they have a second job or children to care for, or a host of other limitation. No one should be faced with a choice of either working in an unsafe environment or not working at all.Choice has always been the rallying cry for businesses when faced with new laws protecting the health and safety of employees and the public; if they don't like it, they can go elsewhere to work. The problem is many people simply can't go elsewhere.It's always a judgement call whether individual rights of one group is more important than the rights of another group, in this case smokers and non-smokers.Why is it absolutely necessary to foul the air in a restaurant when there is a car in the parking lot ready to smoke in?
Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!
Here how the states have decided the issue. 34 states have banned smoking in all workplaces. Of the remaining 16 states, most have banned smoking in all workplaces except bars and in some cases restaurants. But that's not the whole story. In every state that has not totally banned smoking in the work place, many cities and counties have. When you add in the number of businesses that have elected to ban smoking voluntarily, there are just not that many workplaces that one can smoke. Strange as it may seem, many smokers agree that smoking should be banned in the workplace because it will give them incentive to stop smoking.
List of smoking bans in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
I don't disagree with banning it... AT THE BUSINESSES CHOICE.
Like I said, most places will, at their option, be non-smoking.
I'm just saying allow people to have a smoking establishment if they so choose.
I'm speaking of now, after the fact. If an employer states prior to an employee being hired that they allow smoking, the odds of that being the ONLY place they can get a job is astronomically small!
Why do we cater to the work at the expense of the employer? Especially a small business owner?
My grandfather chain smoked non filtered Camels his whole life. Choked up a lung at 59My Grandma smoked from late teens to 82. Stayed active till 96. She lived to 99.
You either do or you don't.
Smoking s a choice. You can decide not only to smoke, but when and where you light upThis no not a debate about smoking and longevity .. it's about whether business should have a right to make the smoking policy THEIR call vs. that of the state or federal gov't.
People smoke, it's legal, we all make choices. You can't say if someone should or shouldn't smoke. Just like drinking. You don't hear people droning on about the ill effects of alcohol on your liver, because drinking is not offensive (to most) - you do, however, hear about drunk driving, quite a bit more serious to others than smoking.
Millions easyThe discussion I was having with other was about whether there are health risks from smoking. As for whether the government should be permitted to ban it from public area, of course they should. It can harm others. No one should be forced to be exposed to things that can harm them. And government efforts to curb smoking have worked and millions of lives saved.This no not a debate about smoking and longevity .. it's about whether business should have a right to make the smoking policy THEIR call vs. that of the state or federal gov't.
People smoke, it's legal, we all make choices. You can't say if someone should or shouldn't smoke. Just like drinking. You don't hear people droning on about the ill effects of alcohol on your liver, because drinking is not offensive (to most) - you do, however, hear about drunk driving, quite a bit more serious to others than smoking.
this discussion ALMOST makes me want to do research, because frankly, I think that comment "saving millions of lives" I can almost guarantee is a HUGE exaggeration!
Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.
The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.
Why should the person not engaging in offensive behavior have to make the choice?Anyone can run their lungs, or their business, any way they like.
The issue comes in when you force it on other people -- which is what smoking does. If air-breathing were some kind of optional human behaviour we might have an opening here. But it isn't. As someone else here put it (I believe it was Rightwinger), a "no smoking" zone in a building as as effective as a "no peeing" zone in a swimming pool. We cannot legislate the laws of physics.
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.
