Smoking Bans

[Redfish]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Businesses should decide.

I'd love to compare stats from 1940-1970 when smoking was allowed everywhere to those of today. My hypothesis is cancer rates were considerably lower than they are today even with smoking restrictions.

So many things can contribute to the chance of developing cancer, blaming the overt and obvious one as with smoking is simply bad science. The brown food coloring in many sodas causes cancer. Whether someone develops cancer isn't about eliminating things, but minimizing risk factors. Smoking is 1 of many risk factors but it's inaccurate to claim "smoking causes cancer." It doesn't. For that statement to be true every smoker would have to get cancer, whereas according to CDC less than 40% of lung cancer patients smoked.

I agree, businesses should decide. Let them rise or fall from their own choices, not the governments.

The best way to help reduce the numbers of children smoking is not to smoke around them.

Example is not only the main thing, it is the only thing.

CDC - Fact Sheet - Health Effects of Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

Would agree about not smoking around kids. Would imagine the secondhand smoke contains enough nicotine to addict non-smokers subjected to it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I'll bet smokers would disagree with marijuana smoking in public or workplaces.

How about alcohol addicts? You want them drinking at work or non-bar places?

 

[rightwinger]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I'll bet smokers would disagree with marijuana smoking in public or workplaces.

How about alcohol addicts? You want them drinking at work or non-bar places?

Well cannabis smoke is intoxicating just like smoking it directly. So ya, not in public.

I don't even get why bars have parking lots. Isn't that just inviting drunk driving?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Now tell the smokers the same thing.

 

[Redfish]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

 

[Redfish]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Now tell the smokers the same thing.

OK--------------same thing goes for smokers.

 

[rightwinger]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

 

[Redfish]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

 

[dblack]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

Lots of excuses, maybe. But the crux is what you're saying is "we know better", that people shouldn't be allowed to choose for themselves because they're too stupid.

 

[AquaAthena]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

By shortening their lives, they will save the taxpayers from supporting them into old age. Always an up side.

 

[AquaAthena]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

 

[dblack]

I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others.

Do you? Really? So should people have the right to work in an office where smoking is allowed? Eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed?

Sure, but smokers are now a minority. If the majority vote to ban smoking in the workplace and restaurants, there is no longer a question.

Smokers are free to smoke where others are not breathing.

And no one has the right to force me to smoke at my work or public places.

That's what I thought. You don't agree, at all, that people should be allowed to decide or themselves how much risk is acceptable. You want to decide for them. What you mean by - "I absolutely agree that people should have that choice and that they do not have the right to decide that for others." - is exactly the opposite: that people should decide for others and that individuals shouldn't have that choice. Are all your convictions this inside-out?

 

[Redfish]

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What I never get about this point of view is why it's so unacceptable to let people decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to expose themselves to. Why do we need to dictate standards and force them on everyone?

I'm sure those illiterate Native American Uranium miners with no protection knew the risks huh? And I'm sure they had lots of choices of jobs, they could have gone to the Uranium mine or Wall Street, but they decided Wall Street was a little too far from home so took the best option.

There are many points. The first is that we have seen so many times in history, that when business owners are allowed to save money by putting people's lives in danger, they will do it.

Secondly people aren't always aware of the risks. So, would the business owner have to say there are risks and an individual then chooses? Do you think people often have a choice when it comes to work? Some either work or stay on welfare.

Thirdly, in a civilised society there is an expectation that people don't harm others, manslaughter is still there, killing someone when you don't mean to.

There are plenty of reasons why people need protecting by the state, and don't just make their own decisions. History will tell you why.

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

By shortening their lives, they will save the taxpayers from supporting them into old age. Always an up side.

Yabut, they cost us a lot before they kick off.

 

[Pogo]

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

So do what any logical argument does -- explain how it's the victim's responsibility to do that, while the perp gets off scot free.

-- Which party is the actor here and which the reactor?
Think about it.
Take your time...


Here's a clue-hint: the act of smoking where others are present is not an individual act. It's a collective.

Aye, there's the rub.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Now that's funny!

I'll change part of your post just a bit

"Disregarding the known health risks imposed by exposure to Radon"

This isn't about health now, is it?

Now if I knew what you were talking about I might be able to respond!

 

[Redfish]

LIfe is not fair, weirdo. the government cannot ensure that we are all happy and have equal results in life. Make the best of what you have and stop trying to tell everyone else how to live.

Maybe not, but they can ensure that public spaces are safe

Yes, but there is no agreement on what constitutes "safe". You want your definition to be mandated on everyone else-------------thats the point here.

I hate smoking, do not smoke, do not want to be around smokers. But I do not want to take away their right to shorten their lives if they choose to do so.

Yes there is agreement

Second hand smoke is not safe. The government is within its rights to ban behavior which is presents a danger to others

there is no disagreement on that. you said the govt should make public places "safe" not "safe from second hand smoke". The word "safe" means a lot more than smoke free.

Yes...of course it does

In addition to providing a smoke free environment, a restaurant must:
Conform to building codes
Conform to health department regulations
Meet OSHA requirements
Meet fire codes

All to provide a "safe" environment

Damned Nanny State!

Yeah, so what? Those regulations make billions for the evil corporations that make sprinkler systems, sanitizers, safety harnesses, fire extinguishers, etc. Those regulations increase the prices of everything we buy, and yet, people still die from restaurant fires, oil rig fires, car wrecks, food poisoning, and infections of all kinds.

Is it the role of the federal government to protect us from everything that could possible hurt us?