CDZ Smoker's Rights

[Vandalshandle]

A friend of mine told me that, years ago, someone asked him at a meeting, "Do you mind if I smoke?". he replied, "Not as long as you don't mind my fire extinguisher".

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

I never understood those who support an employers right to subject employees to health and safety hazards if the employee is unfortunate enough not to have any other option

 

[Flopper]

your "needed wages" have NOTHING to do with what jobs you CAN hold. you could "hold' a job that doesn't pay enough, but why would you want to do so?

That's true, you could hold such a job but it wouldn't make much sense particular in the context of this discussion.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

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.

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 owner of the restaurant doesn't get to choose the age he will serve alcohol, how late he is allowed to stay open, how many people are allowed in or his employee compensation

Neither can he choose to expose his workers or customers to smoking

 

[Flopper]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

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.

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.

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.

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 owner of the restaurant doesn't get to choose the age he will serve alcohol, how late he is allowed to stay open, how many people are allowed in or his employee compensation

Neither can he choose to expose his workers or customers to smoking

It is the owners business and as such should decide for themselves what they will allow and will not allow in their business. No one is forcing those employees to work there and no one is forcing any customers to go there. Its their CHOICE to do so.

It seems to be OK to remove someones freedom of choice when you don't agree with it...what happens when government decides to take away a freedom that you do agree with?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

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.

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 owner of the restaurant doesn't get to choose the age he will serve alcohol, how late he is allowed to stay open, how many people are allowed in or his employee compensation

Neither can he choose to expose his workers or customers to smoking

It is the owners business and as such should decide for themselves what they will allow and will not allow in their business. No one is forcing those employees to work there and no one is forcing any customers to go there. Its their CHOICE to do so.

It seems to be OK to remove someones freedom of choice when you don't agree with it...what happens when government decides to take away a freedom that you do agree with?

It is the owners business and he has to comply with the laws of his community

See how it works?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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!

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.

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.

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.

I never understood those who support an employers right to subject employees to health and safety hazards if the employee is unfortunate enough not to have any other option

Yes because sooo many people have no option but to work at one job their entire life

That's as pathetic as your town with only 2 restaurants example

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bonzi]

Everybody has a right to breathe air and not smoke.

True, so don't go to the smoking restaurants and stores... there won't be many, non-smokers have the upper hand in our society no matter what....

Smokers have rights too.

 

[Ringel05]

Everybody has a right to breathe air and not smoke.

True, so don't go to the smoking restaurants and stores... there won't be many, non-smokers have the upper hand in our society no matter what....

Smokers have rights too.

Equal rights for smokers!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Everybody has a right to breathe air and not smoke.

True, so don't go to the smoking restaurants and stores... there won't be many, non-smokers have the upper hand in our society no matter what....

Smokers have rights too.

Not to my lungs you don't.

 

[rightwinger]

Not necessary. But they should have the option to open a restaurant that permits smoking if they want to.
It's about RIGHTS!

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.

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.

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.

I never understood those who support an employers right to subject employees to health and safety hazards if the employee is unfortunate enough not to have any other option

Yes because sooo many people have no option but to work at one job their entire life

That's as pathetic as your town with only 2 restaurants example

Many people do not have the option

Doesn't mean you should be able to exploit them

 

[rightwinger]

Everybody has a right to breathe air and not smoke.

True, so don't go to the smoking restaurants and stores... there won't be many, non-smokers have the upper hand in our society no matter what....

Smokers have rights too.

Equal rights for smokers!!!!

Smells a lot better than nicotine

 

[Bonzi]

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.

Smokers should have a place they can go to also, there will always be at least one alternative place for non-smokers to go to.

 

[Bonzi]

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

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.

I never understood those who support an employers right to subject employees to health and safety hazards if the employee is unfortunate enough not to have any other option

Yes because sooo many people have no option but to work at one job their entire life

That's as pathetic as your town with only 2 restaurants example

Many people do not have the option

Doesn't mean you should be able to exploit them

How many?