RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!!

RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

DenimDiva -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 2:52:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud quote: ORIGINAL: Abbie_girl Smoking is as bad as homosexuality? Smokers can't be pro-life? [8\|]! That's not what he said. He said that if you believe that the government shouldn't ever intrude on the private lives of citizens, you shouldn't think the government can "intrude" on those areas either. Actually, I may have misread the pro-life part. However, with the homosexual part he said that is was just as bad or worse.

rainbowtvp -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 2:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rcjames If you want to let folks kill each other with smoke in your business; open a club or smokers only donut shop with proper venelation. Thanks RC In my city, this is not really an option. Smoking is not allowed in restaurants or other place where food is served at all. Well, with a very few exceptions-- a "drinking establishment" that has less than 10% sales from food (most bars in this area make a good bit off the food they serve); no one under 18 is permitted in building; they apply for a waiver. Also "specialized smoking establishments" (like cigar clubs or hookah bars) IF at least 85% sales comes from those products. Tara P

phosadaud -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Abbie_girl quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud quote: ORIGINAL: Abbie_girl Smoking is as bad as homosexuality? Smokers can't be pro-life? [8\|]! That's not what he said. He said that if you believe that the government shouldn't ever intrude on the private lives of citizens, you shouldn't think the government can "intrude" on those areas either. Actually, I may have misread the pro-life part. However, with the homosexual part he said that is was just as bad or worse. From a standpoint of harm (and why the government should or should not step in). And what he said was true. Someone engaging in homosexual behavior is not going to give an innocent restaurant goer lung problems. A smoker is. That's not ridiculous.

rnershigh -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:02:39 PM)
If I had my way, cigarettes would not exist.[;)] Like others have pointed out, second-hand smoke is a health hazard and can cause health problems with people who have to inhale it. Not to mention most smokers I see just flick their cigarette butts outside and litter everywhere, it's disgusting. I have no problem with people wanting to smoke in their own homes or vehicles, but once they light up in public, I think they are infringing on non-smoker's right to breathe in air that is not toxic. Since I don't smoke, and this is my choice, I don't think it's right that I have to be forced to smell second-hand smoke because some other person is choosing to smoke. Although I am not allergic to cigarette smoke, when I have been around a smoker for too long, my throat and nose burn and get irritated and really dry from the smoke. I'm a healthy person, no health problems and that is what second-hand smoke does to me so I can't imagine how it must be for someone who is allergic to cigarette smoke or has a health condition that is worsened from inhaling it.

MyCatSmokey2006 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:12:26 PM)
Okay, so maybe there are instances and studies that show that secondhand smoke can be harmful or fatal if breathed. I'm around secondhand smoke all the time and so I probably should be concerned about it, but I'm not. I do try to limit my exposure to it as much as possible, but I can't always avoid it, so I don't worry about it. What I was trying to say is that government is intruding too much into the private lives of it's citizens and smoking is just one area that they're doing it in. Banning all indoor smoking and even outdoor smoking in parking lots should be up to each individual business, since it's private property. Some government policies forbid foster parents from smoking, and some states prohibit parents from smoking in their cars with children inside. This I understand is necessary, to protect the children, but smoking by consenting adults is their business, not the government's. I don't agree with some apartment complexes making rules that people can't smoke in their apartments either. Smoking is allowed in my home because it's a private residence. That is my right and my business. If anyone doesn't like cigarette smoke, they can choose not to visit me or they can smoke outside. The government has no right to tell me what I can do in my own home as far as smoking is concerned.

DenimDiva -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:22:40 PM)
Smoking isn't allowed in my home either and there are four smokers who live here. There are also four non-smokers (three of them minors) who live here.

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:26:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bzirk There's definitely a balance. If it's someone's private property, then certainly they should have the right to smoke as long as the smoke is not affecting someone else on their property. Most businesses are private property. What's great is that people for the most part no longer want to frequent businesses where there is not a smoke free area. Business owners have learned that and make considerations for those who want smoke free. But as for truly public buildings or other places not conisidered private, the presumption should be that smoking is not allowed if it infringes on someone else's right to be smoke free. I agree with all of this. Business owners aren't stupid. If we lose business we figure out right quick what the problem is and fix it post-haste! I've already got the feds digging so deeply into my pockets I can't afford to upset my customers. But I don't need the gov't taking my money AND telling me what to do more than they already are. quote: If you run a public business, you must keep the benefit of the public in mind. If you want to let folks kill each other with smoke in your business; open a club or smokers only donut shop with proper venelation. There are places where it's illegal to smoke inside your own car. There are places where it's illegal to smoke outside. The gov't has run amok, RC, and we're begging them to do it. If the benefit of the public is the concern then we'd better be ready for fast food restaurants to be outlawed and a whole myriad of other consequences we didn't foresee to giving the gov't control little by little.

phosadaud -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:41:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon If the benefit of the public is the concern then we'd better be ready for fast food restaurants to be outlawed and a whole myriad of other consequences we didn't foresee to giving the gov't control little by little. The difference is that eating a Big Mac isn't going to give your neighbor lung cancer... [;)] As far as apartment buildings banning smoking, I can totally see it. I lived in apartments for many years and no matter how hard you clean and scrub and deoderize, if a smoker lived in the apartment before you, that smell remains and clings to everything. I'd pay extra money to avoid that so I think an apartment owner banning it is onto something even if from merely a business standpoint... Besides the fact that I hated never being able to open my apartment windows no matter how stuffy my apartment got because the smoke from my neighbor's always drifted in to my apartment... Sorry, but I have nothing good to say about smoking... I hate it....

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:45:48 PM)
quote: The difference is that eating a Big Mac isn't going to give your neighbor lung cancer... How long will it be before we're told what we can do to ourselves? What if you eat too many Big Macs and die young and deprive the kids of a parent and make the gov't pay out Social Security benefits (or would that be SSI?)? What if the public, who thinks overweight people are also second class citizens, raises enough of a stink that the gov't feels they have enough mob mentality behind them to do something about it? An apartment OWNER doing what he wants with his own building is a beautiful thing whether that means banning smoking or banning pets. I don't have a problem with business owners making their property smoke free. Go to it! We have to be careful inviting gov't control. We want them to do something when it's our pet cause. But they just don't stop there.

solo_soprano22 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:48:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud quote: ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon If the benefit of the public is the concern then we'd better be ready for fast food restaurants to be outlawed and a whole myriad of other consequences we didn't foresee to giving the gov't control little by little. The difference is that eating a Big Mac isn't going to give your neighbor lung cancer... [;)] As far as apartment buildings banning smoking, I can totally see it. I lived in apartments for many years and no matter how hard you clean and scrub and deoderize, if a smoker lived in the apartment before you, that smell remains and clings to everything. I'd pay extra money to avoid that so I think an apartment owner banning it is onto something even if from merely a business standpoint... Besides the fact that I hated never being able to open my apartment windows no matter how stuffy my apartment got because the smoke from my neighbor's always drifted in to my apartment... Sorry, but I have nothing good to say about smoking... I hate it.... Yeah, I was about to say, people can choose to eat at McDonald's at their own "risk", if you want to put it that way, but their eating at McDonald's doesn't really affect me.

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:55:26 PM)
What RC said was that if I run a public business then I must keep the benefit of the public in mind. Using that logic, it ought to be illegal to own a McDonalds.[8\|]

DenimDiva -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 3:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon We have to be careful inviting gov't control. We want them to do something when it's our pet cause. But they just don't stop there. quote: What RC said was that if I run a public business then I must keep the benefit of the public in mind. Using that logic, it ought to be illegal to own a McDonalds. I agree!

pandora -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:20:31 PM)
Well if you are for private business owners having the right to run their business as they please then at least be consistent and let's also get rid of restaurant health inspectors and organizations that set standards for employee and patron safety. I mean if it's not safe to eat at a restaurant it will eventually go out of business because people don't want to get violently sick or die from dinner out right? [:'(] I personally rather like the fact that businessess are held to some standard of health and safety, including smoke-free air.

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:25:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud Sorry, but I have nothing good to say about smoking... I hate it.... Phosy, I'm not asking you to say anything good about it. I'm not asking you not to hate it. I'm asking you to think before we invite the gov't to "help" us anymore. I don't know what y'all think but my business is smoke free. Because I determined that it should be. Maybe it's the crazy American in me but I like being able to make the decisions in the business that I put my money, assets, blood, sweat and tears into. Let business owners do what's right on their own and let the market take care of the ones who don't. They'll either go out of business if folks like you all don't patronize them or <gasp> make a killing out of providing a place where smokers aren't made to feel like second class citizens.

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:27:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pandora Well if you are for private business owners having the right to run their business as they please then at least be consistent and let's also get rid of restaurant health inspectors and organizations that set standards for employee and patron safety. I mean if it's not safe to eat at a restaurant it will eventually shut down because people don't want to get violently sick or die from dinner out right? [:'(] If you think health inspectors are doing much of anything then I don't know what to say to you. You live in a different world than I do. Restaurants do their utmost to keep things clean and sanitary because 1 (ONE) confirmed case of food poisoning puts them out of business forever. Not because they're closed down but because no one will ever eat there again. The market takes care of many more things than we realize.

phosadaud -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:36:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon quote: The difference is that eating a Big Mac isn't going to give your neighbor lung cancer... How long will it be before we're told what we can do to ourselves? What if you eat too many Big Macs and die young and deprive the kids of a parent and make the gov't pay out Social Security benefits (or would that be SSI?)? What if the public, who thinks overweight people are also second class citizens, raises enough of a stink that the gov't feels they have enough mob mentality behind them to do something about it? An apartment OWNER doing what he wants with his own building is a beautiful thing whether that means banning smoking or banning pets. I don't have a problem with business owners making their property smoke free. Go to it! We have to be careful inviting gov't control. We want them to do something when it's our pet cause. But they just don't stop there. I agree we have to be careful to invite government control, that does not mean there is never a reason to invite government control. It's a line we have to decide to draw and where we draw it is where the debate lies.... But we do have to draw it. You draw it. I draw it. My neighbor draws it. If we don't draw a line, we live in a state of anarchy. If we draw the line too oppressively, we live in a state of absolute tyranny. Fortunately, there is a middle ground. I believe that there is a huge different between a Big Mac and a cigarette. Huge. Again, my eating a Big Mac isn't going to harm the health of those around me. Smoking a cigarette will. You may not think that's a reason for the government to step in. I do. And I've never bought the "slippery slope" "what-if" arguments. What if by making murder illegal, the person being murdered is the next Hitler? We can play what-if all day long. Or we can sit down and look at the facts and decide where someone else's rights harm another person's rights and decide what we are going to do about it. It can be a fine line and different people will draw that line in different places. I for one, tend to want the government out in most things. I believe there must be a compelling reason for them to get involved. I believe the detrimental affects of smoking and the fact that smoking harms everyone - not just the smoker - is a compelling reason. By the way, out of total curiosity: Do those of you who believe that one should be able to smoke in restaurants and such believe that one should be able to smoke pot or crack in those same locations (if these drugs were not illegal)? Do you think that a business should allow this and anyone who doesn't want to be around it should just stay away and get over it? Why or why not? And why do you believe there is a difference?

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:37:05 PM)
quote: I personally rather like the fact that businessess are held to some standard of health and safety, including smoke-free air. Most of those regulations are about things a customer, and sometimes employees, can't see. Building codes, what goes on in the back room, etc. I figure you're probably smart enough to see for yourself that if someone is smoking in the booth next to you, you might be affected by it.

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:43:29 PM)
quote: Do those of you who believe that one should be able to smoke in restaurants and such believe that one should be able to smoke pot or crack in those same locations (if these drugs were not illegal)? Do you think that a business should allow this and anyone who doesn't want to be around it should just stay away and get over it? Why or why not? And why do you believe there is a difference? I believe that smoking or ingesting illegal substances negatively affects the behavior of the person doing it. I don't want those kind of customers and incidents in my establishment. And, fortunately, as a business owner, I have the right to forbid anyone I wish from coming into my business. It isn't about thinking people should be allowed to smoke in restaurants. It's about business owners being allowed to determine what the policy is in their OWN restaurant. BTW, I wasn't comparing smoking to eating a Big Mac. I was responding to RC's comment specifically and, didn't I see a thread here recently about banning fast food restaurants? I didn't pay much attention so I might have the details messed up. You may not buy the slippery slope arguments and, to tell you the truth, I sure hope you're right and I'm not![;)]

Chrystal-J-007 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:54:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MyCatSmokey2006 I mean, if statewide smoking bans are allowed, then what is Big Brother going to go after next? Outlawing caffeine? How about sugar? Those have been found to be addictive substances, so are they going to ban those someday too? Who knows? What do you think about this? I can see both sides of this argument. I'm not thrilled to be around second hand smoke, but I don't like the idea of government telling you how to live your personal life either. I'm not even fond of seat belt/helmet laws for adults. (I wear a seatbelt, I just don't like being regulated to do so.) And I do wonder "what's next". There is already proposed legislation saying you can't serve an overweight person in a restaurant in Mississippi. What's next? You have to get on a scale in order to get served? http://www.chow.com/grinder/4760 I feel like the insurance lobbyists are behind all of this because they're the one's paying for smoking, accidents and weight issues. And it just irks me that the government/insurance companies want to tell us how to live our lives. And I don't see why they go after smokers so much, but not drinkers. Why don't the require (by law) that drinkers have to call a taxi to and from a bar? I would rather be on the road with someone driving toward me with a cigarette in their hands than a drinker. It's hard to know how to feel cuz I don't like second hand smoke either, but I dislike government intrusion worse.

phosadaud -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon quote: Do those of you who believe that one should be able to smoke in restaurants and such believe that one should be able to smoke pot or crack in those same locations (if these drugs were not illegal)? Do you think that a business should allow this and anyone who doesn't want to be around it should just stay away and get over it? Why or why not? And why do you believe there is a difference? I believe that smoking or ingesting illegal substances negatively affects the behavior of the person doing it. I don't want those kind of customers and incidents in my establishment. And, fortunately, as a business owner, I have the right to forbid anyone I wish from coming into my business. It isn't about thinking people should be allowed to smoke in restaurants. It's about business owners being allowed to determine what the policy is in their OWN restaurant. But should the government tell you as a business that people shouldn't be allowed to smoke crack cocaine in your restaurant? I'm not trying to be difficult, just get folks to see that we all draw lines somewhere as to where the government should step in. It's not a question of the government should never step in or the government should always step in. It's a question of where we draw the line. I personally, draw the line at cigarette smoking because I have seen first hand the horrific impact of smoking on smokers and non-smokers alike. Because smoking impacts non-smokers health and such, I have no problem with the government restricting the "right" of smokers to do as they please and just dismiss those whose health is harmed and tell them they can't go places just so John Doe can get his nicatine fix anywhere he wants to. Yes, businesses are private property, but you cannot live in this world without going to businesses (whereas you can live in this world without visiting my house). What if (there's that word again [;)]) every grocery store in town decided to allow smoking on it's property? What if you have asthma and cannot be around cigarette smoke. What do you do? Not eat? Add to that, cigarette smoke does not follow property lines. I do not allow folks to smoke in my house or in my yard, but that doesn't mean there are times I can still smell it wafting down the street... On my run this morning, I only stayed on public streets and public sidewalks. There were numerous times on my run that I had to gasp in someone else's cigarette smoke. For these and other reasons, I believe this argument is more than just a property rights argument.

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 4:58:23 PM)
quote: http://www.chow.com/grinder/4760 That's interesting. Is this verifiable? I'm curious. Those of you who live where there's not a gov't ban on smoking in any public place, what is the ratio of smoke-free restaurants to smoking restaurants? Must you eat where there are smokers?

CoeurdeLeon -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 5:00:00 PM)
quote: Add to that, cigarette smoke does not follow property lines. I do not allow folks to smoke in my house or in my yard, but that doesn't mean there are times I can still smell it wafting down the street... On my run this morning, I only stayed on public streets and public sidewalks. There were numerous times on my run that I had to gasp in someone else's cigarette smoke. So you really won't be satisfied until smoking itself is banned?

Chrystal-J-007 -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 5:11:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon quote: http://www.chow.com/grinder/4760 That's interesting. Is this verifiable? Actually, I saw it on the evening news first--but, here's the bill in a nutshell: House Bill No. 282, which was introduced this month, says: Any food establishment to which this section applies shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare written materials that describe and explain the criteria for determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those materials to all food establishments to which this section applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person. The proposal would allow health inspectors to yank the permit from any restaurant that "repeatedly" feeds extremely overweight customers

stamper_ben -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 7:29:10 PM)
quote: Yes, businesses are private property, but you cannot live in this world without going to businesses (whereas you can live in this world without visiting my house). What if (there's that word again ) every grocery store in town decided to allow smoking on it's property? What if you have asthma and cannot be around cigarette smoke. What do you do? Not eat? You could bet your last dollar that there would be businesses springing up to take up the slack. That's how the free market takes care of these problems, not the government.

emawyer -> RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! (2/23/2008 10:50:18 PM)
All these studies about second had smoke. I keep hearing about them, but have not found any. Instead of saying "Google" it, please give the site. Now I hear and saw on TV we are going to ban over weight people from Restaurants. Give me a break. The trouble is this. When you ask the government to intervene for your behalf on a personal dislike of yours, they don't stop there. They keep on going. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get more laws than you want.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI