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.

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

I didn't say jack shit about "tips" or "beats the wife". You brought that in.
Might as well own it, since nobody's buying.

It's a red herring AND a slippery slope. I went with the herring as it's tastier.

 

[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

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?

I'm sorry

But that makes absolutely no sense. Can any other posters explain to me what he is talking about?

 

[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

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

 

[Pogo]

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?

I'm sorry

But that makes absolutely no sense. Can any other posters explain to me what he is talking about?

I think he's smoking beer.

 

[Pop23]

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

I didn't say jack shit about "tips" or "beats the wife". You brought that in.
Might as well own it, since nobody's buying.

It's a red herring AND a slippery slope. I went with the herring as it's tastier.

No you didn't, cause those don't apply to smoking. BINGO

You brought up that businesses should be able to allow deadly devices, which is absurd considering they still do.

Now admit the fail or defend.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

Oh, that will be of such solice to the dead. The dead that were served the legal substance in a business

 

[Pop23]

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

And the quarterback, the catcher? Are they victims of drunk driving as well?

Try actually defending your positions for once

 

[quorthon]

I would ban the production of cigarettes. Even the tobacco that is being sold in the packs is much better than the shit they fill cigarettes with.

 

[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?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

And the quarterback, the catcher? Are they victims of drunk driving as well?

Try actually defending your positions for once

I'm sorry

But your analogies are getting more bizarre as you go along

 

[Pogo]

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).


"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

I didn't say jack shit about "tips" or "beats the wife". You brought that in.
Might as well own it, since nobody's buying.

It's a red herring AND a slippery slope. I went with the herring as it's tastier.

No you didn't, cause those don't apply to smoking. BINGO

You brought up that businesses should be able to allow deadly devices, which is absurd considering they still do.

Now admit the fail or defend.

Again, I didn't say jack shit about "businesses". I specifically excluded them as an issue and stated it as an individual one.

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

And the quarterback, the catcher? Are they victims of drunk driving as well?

Try actually defending your positions for once

Where do you get your uh, "tobacco"? And why aren't you sharing?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

And the quarterback, the catcher? Are they victims of drunk driving as well?

Try actually defending your positions for once

I'm sorry

But your analogies are getting more bizarre as you go along

His posts on the whole are pretty fun. Until the topic is smoking -- then it just goes to pot.

So to speak...

 

[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.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

And the quarterback, the catcher? Are they victims of drunk driving as well?

Try actually defending your positions for once

I'm sorry

But your analogies are getting more bizarre as you go along

It's only bizarre to you. You create the argument, then deflect in hopes you can gain the upper hand.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[Pop23]

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

I didn't say jack shit about "tips" or "beats the wife". You brought that in.
Might as well own it, since nobody's buying.

It's a red herring AND a slippery slope. I went with the herring as it's tastier.

No you didn't, cause those don't apply to smoking. BINGO

You brought up that businesses should be able to allow deadly devices, which is absurd considering they still do.

Now admit the fail or defend.

Again, I didn't say jack shit about "businesses". I specifically excluded them as an issue and stated it as an individual one.

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?

Drinking is legal
Drunk driving is not

And the quarterback, the catcher? Are they victims of drunk driving as well?

Try actually defending your positions for once

Where do you get your uh, "tobacco"? And why aren't you sharing?

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

 

[emilynghiem]

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?

A. I think the states and cities can figure it out if they have the kind of relationship with local businesses to handle this per case. Some cities it is a conflict of interest, where businesses lobby for special privileges (in Houston, the larger men's clubs got a special deal with the City that the smaller clubs didn't get, so that's a case where it gets abused). Smaller towns where citizens operate independently anyway might have a few businesses that can work out a deal and not get abusive about it. So it depends on the environment and the businesses/citizens if they are at a level to work it out fairly on their own.

B. Federal and health issues
1. Now, if health care is going to be funded on a federal level using everyone's taxes, everyone should have more of a say in what we agree or don't agree to fund. If this can't be worked out, it should be separated and localized. I for one don't want to be forced to pay for federalized health care, and then have pot smoking and all kinds of things allowed as a choice, and not give me a choice not to fund people who do things I don't agree with that destroy health and drive up costs. So enough people like me complain, then we have to separate the policies and funding and then businesses could decide if they want to support smokers or not and let people divide funding for health care that way. The federalization of health care may end up causing a push in the other direction for separation of state and people's choices if we cannot agree on health care funding on a collective scale. We can argue to localize it since we don't agree on smoking policies, paying for pot and cigarette health issues, etc. Smokers could save the day on this one by demanding separate funding programs to offer free choice to support it or not.

2. Asthma and other people who end up hospitalized if exposed to smoke

I read ONE letter by desperate parents who can't take their child to public places if any smoking is allowed. They can't tell in advance if they are near it.
It has to be a totally smoke free zone or if their kid has an attack they have to rush to the ER. So they pleaded for the same right and freedom to be able to go any restaurant and not fear for their child.

Again I would take it case by case.
With some bars, I could see smoking allowed on the back porch or whatever the business can accommodate.
Some restaurants also.

But for family places all it takes is one case where it can cause a medical emergency and that can create a liability.

I think cities can work this out with their local businesses and residents.
If they really want a localized policy, and willing to take responsibility for the legal and health costs issues, I'd say go for it.

However I would not support things like
1. certain business interests trading favors with the city or state to get deals that others aren't equally allowed to opt into
2. any policy that encourage smoking, either cigarettes pot etc and then dumps the cost of consequences on taxpayers who never agreed to pay that.
If you support smoking over people's health, that 's find but such businesses or people should pay for a program that covers those choices, similar to how prolife people shouldn't be forced to pay for anything to do with abortion.

I don't see this as negative, but a positive step to separate health care funding so people address the true costs and responsibilities.

 

[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.

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.

 

[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?

A. I think the states and cities can figure it out if they have the kind of relationship with local businesses to handle this per case. Some cities it is a conflict of interest, where businesses lobby for special privileges (in Houston, the larger men's clubs got a special deal with the City that the smaller clubs didn't get, so that's a case where it gets abused). Smaller towns where citizens operate independently anyway might have a few businesses that can work out a deal and not get abusive about it. So it depends on the environment and the businesses/citizens if they are at a level to work it out fairly on their own.

B. Federal and health issues
1. Now, if health care is going to be funded on a federal level using everyone's taxes, everyone should have more of a say in what we agree or don't agree to fund. If this can't be worked out, it should be separated and localized. I for one don't want to be forced to pay for federalized health care, and then have pot smoking and all kinds of things allowed as a choice, and not give me a choice not to fund people who do things I don't agree with that destroy health and drive up costs. So enough people like me complain, then we have to separate the policies and funding and then businesses could decide if they want to support smokers or not and let people divide funding for health care that way. The federalization of health care may end up causing a push in the other direction for separation of state and people's choices if we cannot agree on health care funding on a collective scale. We can argue to localize it since we don't agree on smoking policies, paying for pot and cigarette health issues, etc. Smokers could save the day on this one by demanding separate funding programs to offer free choice to support it or not.

2. Asthma and other people who end up hospitalized if exposed to smoke

I read ONE letter by desperate parents who can't take their child to public places if any smoking is allowed. They can't tell in advance if they are near it.
It has to be a totally smoke free zone or if their kid has an attack they have to rush to the ER. So they pleaded for the same right and freedom to be able to go any restaurant and not fear for their child.

Again I would take it case by case.
With some bars, I could see smoking allowed on the back porch or whatever the business can accommodate.
Some restaurants also.

But for family places all it takes is one case where it can cause a medical emergency and that can create a liability.

I think cities can work this out with their local businesses and residents.
If they really want a localized policy, and willing to take responsibility for the legal and health costs issues, I'd say go for it.

However I would not support things like
1. certain business interests trading favors with the city or state to get deals that others aren't equally allowed to opt into
2. any policy that encourage smoking, either cigarettes pot etc and then dumps the cost of consequences on taxpayers who never agreed to pay that.
If you support smoking over people's health, that 's find but such businesses or people should pay for a program that covers those choices, similar to how prolife people shouldn't be forced to pay for anything to do with abortion.

I don't see this as negative, but a positive step to separate health care funding so people address the true costs and responsibilities.

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.

 

[Bonzi]

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...