CDZ Smoker's Rights

[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.

 

[Bonzi]

"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?

correct, and you have the option to NOT frequent a smoking store or work at a smoking business!
this is not the 70's or even early 80's,

Most places will STILL not allow smoking, even if some business are allowed to!

 

[Pop23]

Is it worth it?

what about making cigarette smoking illegal. I know it won't happen, but, would you be for that? Or is it something you think people should only do where it is "legal" ...

Nope. I don't believe in legislating morality. It doesn't work anyway.
But at the same time you can't force people to ingest it. Which is what happens in any room where a smoker lights up.

Only when the people agree to ingest it. Opening a door which has a sign on it that warns that smoking is allowed is expressed agreement

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

And, in this case, their clients.

 

[Pogo]

"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?

correct, and you have the option to NOT frequent a smoking store or work at a smoking business!
this is not the 70's or even early 80's,

Most places will STILL not allow smoking, even if some business are allowed to!

I'm not speaking of businesses or workplaces or buildings. I'm speaking of individuals.

 

[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.

Not to my lungs you don't.

That's okay. Should I address you as Cameraden or Tovarisch?

 

[Bonzi]

"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?

correct, and you have the option to NOT frequent a smoking store or work at a smoking business!
this is not the 70's or even early 80's,

Most places will STILL not allow smoking, even if some business are allowed to!

I'm not speaking of businesses or workplaces or buildings. I'm speaking of individuals.

I agree. No one should be "forced" to be around smoke.

 

[Pop23]

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.

Talk about a drama queen^^^^^

Don't walk in the door and your rights are preserved.

 

[rightwinger]

Should an employer have the right to tell someone they will pay them an extra one or two dollars an hour if they are willing to submit to a health hazard?

Who cares? you won't see the impact for 20 years

 

[Bonzi]

And, in this case, their clients.

To the financial DETRIMENT of the business owner! If you start a business that is open to the public that allows smoking, they will not get as many customers... BUT, that is the business owner's option!

No one, in this day and age, is going to be forced or subject to smoke. Also, the likelihood that a smoking establishment will be the "only employment opportunity" someone has would be a LARGE long shot....

 

[rightwinger]

And, in this case, their clients.

To the financial DETRIMENT of the business owner! If you start a business that is open to the public that allows smoking, they will not get as many customers... BUT, that is the business owner's option!

No one, in this day and age, is going to be forced or subject to smoke. Also, the likelihood that a smoking establishment will be the "only employment opportunity" someone has would be a LARGE long shot....

A business owner does not have the option to submit employees and customers to Heath hazards




.

 

[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.

That's okay. Should I address you as Cameraden or Tovarisch?

I kinda like "bag of mostly water", barked in an appropriately robotic tone.

 

[Pop23]

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.

A self destructive device that doesn't involve others? Like alchohol?

It's ok that an employee gets a tip for serving someone who ingests it then kills a family of four, right? Or goes home and beats the wife, right?

Is it better because the above effects the health and wellbeing of others within hours of its ingestion instead of, as Rightwinger points out, 20 years later?

 

[Pop23]

And, in this case, their clients.

To the financial DETRIMENT of the business owner! If you start a business that is open to the public that allows smoking, they will not get as many customers... BUT, that is the business owner's option!

No one, in this day and age, is going to be forced or subject to smoke. Also, the likelihood that a smoking establishment will be the "only employment opportunity" someone has would be a LARGE long shot....

A business owner does not have the option to submit employees and customers to Heath hazards

Yes they do, what makes you think they don't?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

A self destructive device that doesn't involve others? Like alchohol?

It's ok that an employee gets a tip for serving someone who ingests it then kills a family of four, right? Or goes home and beats the wife, right?

Is it better because the above effects the health and wellbeing of others within hours of its ingestion instead of, as Rightwinger points out, 20 years later?

Smoking is legal
So is alcohol.

When you drink, you are not getting those around you drunk

 

[rightwinger]

And, in this case, their clients.

To the financial DETRIMENT of the business owner! If you start a business that is open to the public that allows smoking, they will not get as many customers... BUT, that is the business owner's option!

No one, in this day and age, is going to be forced or subject to smoke. Also, the likelihood that a smoking establishment will be the "only employment opportunity" someone has would be a LARGE long shot....

A business owner does not have the option to submit employees and customers to Heath hazards

Yes they do, what makes you think they don't?

OSHA

 

[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.

A self destructive device that doesn't involve others? Like alchohol?

Sure. You don't get drunk by walking into a bar. That's a fine comparison.

It's ok that an employee gets a tip for serving someone who ingests it then kills a family of four, right? Or goes home and beats the wife, right?

It's OK to introduce complete red herrings, right?

Are they smoked?

 

[Pop23]

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.

A self destructive device that doesn't involve others? Like alchohol?

It's ok that an employee gets a tip for serving someone who ingests it then kills a family of four, right? Or goes home and beats the wife, right?

Is it better because the above effects the health and wellbeing of others within hours of its ingestion instead of, as Rightwinger points out, 20 years later?

Smoking is legal
So is alcohol.

When you drink, you are not getting those around you drunk

When you smoke you are not getting anyone high?

When you drink, the server profits by serving a potentially deadly product. You do realize that, right?

 

[Pop23]

And, in this case, their clients.

To the financial DETRIMENT of the business owner! If you start a business that is open to the public that allows smoking, they will not get as many customers... BUT, that is the business owner's option!

No one, in this day and age, is going to be forced or subject to smoke. Also, the likelihood that a smoking establishment will be the "only employment opportunity" someone has would be a LARGE long shot....

A business owner does not have the option to submit employees and customers to Heath hazards

Yes they do, what makes you think they don't?

OSHA

Tell that to the taxi driver killed by a drunk driver, or the truck driver or delivery biker.

Tell that to the boxer, the quarterback or the catcher

It's called assumed risk. Can we get serious now?

 

[Pop23]

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.

A self destructive device that doesn't involve others? Like alchohol?

Sure. You don't get drunk by walking into a bar. That's a fine comparison.

It's ok that an employee gets a tip for serving someone who ingests it then kills a family of four, right? Or goes home and beats the wife, right?

It's OK to introduce complete red herrings, right?

Are they smoked?

You brought up the deadly device argument, now you want to run from your own argument?

Just admit it fails and move on or defend.

Your choice