|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 10:53:20 PM
|
|
|
zmanfan38
Posts: 9581
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: ...for it's root, root, root for the CUBBIES!!!
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
Then obviously it either A) made better business sense or B) the non-smokers didn't make their voice known to the owners of establishments. Business people are out to make a profit, you hit their profit and things change.
A) It actually did make better business sense to ban smoking in restaurants after all. From what I've found online, including on tobacco.org's web site, the ban has not hurt restaurants.
B) I can tell you that I made my voice heard in my local restaurants. I know for a fact many, many people besides me did also. They did not care because they were more afraid of the smokers not patronizing them than the non-smokers because of status quo. Non-smokers always had to cough, wheeze, gag and spew if they wanted to eat out, but before the ban, restaurants didn't want to make a change on their own because of the fear that change (for the better, healthier, etc) would cost them a buck. The restaurants were cowards. They couldn't be trusted to provide a non-potentially lethal environment, so the state government (at the request of the non-smokers) stepped in and forced the change. I sent letters and emails to my state government, as well as signed petitions (obviously enough others did the same since the legislation passed). This issue isn't about too much government...it's more about the people have spoken.
_____________________________
«Christi»
Heal my heart and make it clean
Open up my eyes to the things unseen
Show me how to love like You have loved me
Hosanna by Hillsong <Link
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 11:27:14 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9204
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
And why do you believe a business owner has the right to allow an environment that causes physical harm?
You have the choice to not go there to have harm inflicted upon you. As long as they aren't doing anything illegal then it isn't their place to protect you.
OK, I'll say this really, really slowly so maybe you hear me. What...makes...it...illegal...is...where...the...government...steps...in...to...protect...the...citizens...from...other...citizens... Someone does not have the right to cause me harm simply because it's obvious their acts are harmful (and what do you do if you are eating at a restaurant and someone comes in and starts smoking - you may not have seen that "coming"). Sex is not illegal, but a restaurant can't have orgies on their tables in view of the general public private property or not. Alcohol is not illegal, but restaurants are not allowed to serve someone who is so drunk they can't stand up. Having cockroaches is not illegal, but if they infest the restaurant, the state will close it down. To say that something can't become illegal because it's not currently illegal is absurd.
quote:
quote:
How is it different? An establishment that doesn't use proper food handling techniques probably isn't doing that to cause some people to get sick, but their actions will result in that. Most people driving drunk are not intending to drive drunk to kill someone on the highway, but that is often the result. We know second hand smoke causes physical harm to other people. Whether the smoker intends to cause someone to have a fatal asthma attack is no different. The fact is, their actions cause harm to other individuals. Again, what is the difference?
In all of those instances the acts are ILLEGAL and willful acts except smoking which is not illegal. That is the difference. One has no choice to avoid a drunk driver, one can not know easily how their food was prepared, one CAN know if a place is a smoking establishment and make the choice to stay or go based on that knowledge.
Those acts are no more willful than someone allowing smoking in a place where the public gathers knowing that is causes harm than someone who doesn't follow proper food handling techniques to save a penny. And I addressed the illegal aspect above. Why do you think some acts are illegal and some acts aren't? Again, you cannot argue that something is ok simply because a law hasn't been passed yet (which by the way, in many communities is HAS been passed so you argument doesn't work that way either).
quote:
quote:
If they are so silly, why don't you address them? Either you are a little on the slow side, which I don't think you are, or you won't address them because you know we have valid points. Those things I listed are only illegal because there are laws against them. WHY are their laws against them? For the same reason many places are making laws against smoking in places the public gathers.
I have addressed them, had i not then we wouldn't be having this conversation. There are laws against drunk driving and feeding others dirty/rotten food because the victims can be harmed without having a choice to avoid the harm. Drunk driving by the way takes place on PUBLIC roads. I can smoke in my home if I choose and you can choose not to visit me, it is the same with smoking in a privately owned business. Second hand smoke is avoidable in privately owned establishments, that is up to you. Now on public property that is a different story, you should not have to avoid smoke on public property.
#1 Drunken driving does not always take place on public roads and I made that point. Even if someone drove on private property and the owner decided that was ok, the person driving would still be doing something illegal. According to your logic, why should it be illegal? (and if you answer that it's illegal, you are dodging my question).
#2 If a place is open to the public, it is not the same as someone's house. At your house, you can prepare foods in a nasty disgusting manner and no one will come "shut" down your house. According to your logic, why should a privately owned restaurant be shut down then?
#3 Why is public property different? There are plenty of private businesses that one HAS to go to to survive in this world: doctor's offices, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. And there are plenty of public places, no one has to go to (parks, etc).
Here is the choice we are left with:
1. Many people cannot go to places that are open and providing a service to the public because of someone else's decision to do something that causes harm to them.
OR
2. A few people have to wait an hour to puff a cigarette.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/26/2008 11:57:06 PM
|
|
|
everythingat
Posts: 208
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
|
I live in a city without a smoking ban. What you just said, phosadaud...
Yes, you have to go to the hospital. In my city, it's illegal to smoke on hospital property, you have to walk across the street to smoke. It's not illegal to smoke in restaurants...because, unlike the hospital, it is your CHOICE to go there. It may not be your choice to breathe in smoke when you're already inside of the restaurant, but you always have the option of leaving. There are restaurants in my city that choose to be smoke-free. I don't go to those restaurants. Because it's my choice. When I get inside of a smoke-free restaurant, I don't throw a fit. I say, "Oh really? Alright." Then I leave. Cause it's not a big deal to go somewhere I know I can smoke. Just like it shouldn't be a big deal for you to go somewhere you know is going to be smoke-free. I'm not trying to assume or place this generalization on you, but it seems like a lot of these arguments are mostly complaints that you can't eat at whatever restaurant you want because you'd have to breathe in smoke, rather than really be worried about how harmful it is. Again, not referring to you specifically with that, phosadaud. You can argue how harmful smoking is, but in the end...when it comes to restaurants...it will always be your choice to be around it or not. I'm sorry if you can't eat at Applebee's or whatever other random celebrity memorabilia junk on the wall restaurant, but that is your CHOICE.
< Message edited by everythingat -- 2/27/2008 12:04:02 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 5:00:19 AM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1141
Status: offline
|
first as a BUNCH of us have said, not one smoke free restaurant in our county until there was a ban in place.
why why why should non smokers have to stay away from these and other places as a consequence for smokers smoking in public places?
the choice is to smoke or not to smoke. it shouldn't be that someone chooses not to smoke, still suffers consequences from other's choices. the choice to smoke does not give anyone the privelage of harming someone else or making it a health hazzard to go to a public place.
we don't have the right to go around in public naked, why should smokers have the right to cause public health hazzards?
many of our free choices have restrictions on where we exercise that freedom.
"ecxuse me public, i have decided to smoke. it is my choice to smoke. i'm going to smoke in many of the places that you frequent everyday. it's going to introduce toxins into the air you breathe. it's going to cause some of you to go to the ER because of breathing problems that you get today from being around my smoke. but this is my choice. my freedom. i have the right to pollute your air and body while i exercise my freedom. if you don't like it, you can stay home."
i just don't know why a smoker should have the freedom to harm people with that choice.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 5:23:40 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1303
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
OK, I'll say this really, really slowly so maybe you hear me. What...makes...it...illegal...is...where...the...government...steps...in...to...protect...the...citizens...from...other...citizens... Someone does not have the right to cause me harm simply because it's obvious their acts are harmful (and what do you do if you are eating at a restaurant and someone comes in and starts smoking - you may not have seen that "coming").
If you visited places that cater to your tastes, non-smoking, then you wouldn't have that problem.
quote:
Sex is not illegal, but a restaurant can't have orgies on their tables in view of the general public private property or not.
Public nudity is Illegal and once again isn't even a valid arguement. You are fond of saying that just because something isn't currently illegal doesn't mean it can't be. Well Doesn't mean it should be either. Just because public nudity is illegal doesn't mean that smoking in a private place should be.
quote:
Alcohol is not illegal, but restaurants are not allowed to serve someone who is so drunk they can't stand up.
Ever hear of alcohol poisoning?
quote:
Having cockroaches is not illegal, but if they infest the restaurant, the state will close it down. To say that something can't become illegal because it's not currently illegal is absurd.
I didn't say that it can't become illegal, I said that if smoking became illegal then you could tell a private business owner that he can't have a smoking section.
quote:
Those acts are no more willful than someone allowing smoking in a place where the public gathers knowing that is causes harm than someone who doesn't follow proper food handling techniques to save a penny.
They are in fact more willfull. To knowingly mishandle food is a willfull act of harm that can not be easily prevented by the victim. Point, driving is dangerous so pedestrians stay out of roads. Second hand smoke is dangerous so a right minded person who doesn't want to be harmed by doesn't have to be if they make the decision not to.
quote:
#1 Drunken driving does not always take place on public roads and I made that point. Even if someone drove on private property and the owner decided that was ok, the person driving would still be doing something illegal. According to your logic, why should it be illegal? (and if you answer that it's illegal, you are dodging my question).
last i checked one can't be ticketed for drunk driving unless they have been observed on public property.
quote:
#2 If a place is open to the public, it is not the same as someone's house. At your house, you can prepare foods in a nasty disgusting manner and no one will come "shut" down your house. According to your logic, why should a privately owned restaurant be shut down then?
You are continuing to use your irrelevant analogys to defend your irrelevant analogys, it is tiresome. If someone comes to your home and you willfully serve them food that is rancid and they are struck ill then you can still get in trouble. You are making a concious effort to do something harmful, not indirectly but DIRECTLY to that person.
quote:
#3 Why is public property different? There are plenty of private businesses that one HAS to go to to survive in this world: doctor's offices, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. And there are plenty of public places, no one has to go to (parks, etc).
Public property is different, well because it is public, DUH. Yes there are places that you must go and as i have stated before if you just open your mouth and voice your desires then you will get what you want, put your money where your mouth is and business owners will follow you, they are funny like that.
quote:
1. Many people cannot go to places that are open and providing a service to the public because of someone else's decision to do something that causes harm to them.
No one has the right to go to any private business, in fact a private business man has the right to refuse service to anyone.
quote:
2. A few people have to wait an hour to puff a cigarette.
I clearly stated previously that this isn't about the smokers, it is about the property rights of the private business man.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 6:52:49 AM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon
Posts: 8169
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
much of publically used property is privately owned. a home is for private use. a privately owned business is for public use.
Nope. A privately owned business is FOR the owner to make a profit. The purpose of a business is to sell a product or provide a service. The public has every right in the world not to patronize any business that doesn't suit them for any reason.
There is absolutely no "have to" about entering any business that doesn't cater to your wants and needs. But the gov't doesn't have the right to FORCE businesses to cater to your wants and needs.
_____________________________
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through the restraints.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 9:01:37 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 5824
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
Is it okay with you if tobacco chewers begin spitting their juice at your feet in public as they once did before government began interferring with their "rights"?
by in public do you mean the sidewalks or government buildings, you know truly public places? If so then no it is not okay. If you mean in a business where the owner allows that then guess what, I don't have to go there. I can make the choice to go places where the owner caters to my preferences. I am a non-smoker who will go out their way to visit non-smoking establishments but I still don't think the government should be able to tell a business owner whether legal activities can take place on their property. I would actually prefer that smokers have to do so inside establishments that allow smoking so i don't have to walk through the cloud on the sidewalk, a truly public place.
You must live a simple life that never requires you to travel overnight.
Again, there's absolutely no sensible reason for facilitating nicotine addicts. And cigarette smoke enhances nothing, it serves as a drug delivery device with significant leakage.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 9:12:11 AM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 5824
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
much of publically used property is privately owned. a home is for private use. a privately owned business is for public use.
Nope. A privately owned business is FOR the owner to make a profit. The purpose of a business is to sell a product or provide a service. The public has every right in the world not to patronize any business that doesn't suit them for any reason.
There is absolutely no "have to" about entering any business that doesn't cater to your wants and needs. But the gov't doesn't have the right to FORCE businesses to cater to your wants and needs.
Do you support government enforced cleanliness and safety and handicapped access that historically were not provided until mandated?
As a general rule, businesses will not do something their peers aren't doing. They do not like to rock the boat.
As I said earlier, when required to declare their establishment as smoking or non, they overwhelmingly declared NON in my city. Smokers learned to get their fix away from other customers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 10:07:57 AM
|
|
|
stellaluna
Posts: 3546
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: zmanfan38
This issue isn't about too much government...it's more about the people have spoken.
This is actually a good point. In most cases, smoking bans are enacted because non-smokers have asked the government to step in--not because the government said "Oh, here's one more thing we can do to keep people down!" The reason my city is voting on a smoking ban in May is because a group asked for it and collected thousands of signatures to get it on the ballot. It's not because the mayor decided everyone else was doing it and we should, too.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 10:25:24 AM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon
Posts: 8169
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: offline
|
quote:
As I said earlier, when required to declare their establishment as smoking or non, they overwhelmingly declared NON in my city. Smokers learned to get their fix away from other customers.
As I said earlier, the businesses in my area have been smoke-free for years VOLUNTARILY IN RESPONSE TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. I'm sorry you live where there are stupid people but, as far as I know, as inconvenient as it is, stupidity still isn't illegal.
_____________________________
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through the restraints.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 10:40:55 AM
|
|
|
CoeurdeLeon
Posts: 8169
Joined: 9/4/2005
From: Inside my head
Status: offline
|
I had a relative that used to say "Bein' stupid isn't a sin. But it's awful unhandy" 
_____________________________
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through the restraints.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 10:47:42 AM
|
|
|
everythingat
Posts: 208
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline
|
I don't think I quite made my views clear. I think it should be left in the hands of the local government and business owners. I would absolutely be opposed to a national smoking ban, but certain areas require different things. Some areas, the customers are primarily non-smokers, and vice versa.
As I've said before, in my area they gave the restaurants a choice...and they chose different things. It's not even an issue here anymore, when a ban was in place...there was an issue. So it was overturned. But. I definitely do not think this should be enforced on a national level, as that's one step closer to the "Nanny State" that so many people hate...it wouldn't be long after that until many other rights are taken away "for your own good."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 12:59:17 PM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1141
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
much of publically used property is privately owned. a home is for private use. a privately owned business is for public use.
Nope. A privately owned business is FOR the owner to make a profit. The purpose of a business is to sell a product or provide a service. The public has every right in the world not to patronize any business that doesn't suit them for any reason.
There is absolutely no "have to" about entering any business that doesn't cater to your wants and needs. But the gov't doesn't have the right to FORCE businesses to cater to your wants and needs.
a business would be nothing without the public. it NEEDS the public, and in general, the public needs the business. we are an interdependent culture and economy.
so the non smoker has a right to stay out of most buildings if they choose. do they also have a right to go into any of those buildings and be safe? smokers are creating an unsafe environment. why is that okay?
the gov't job is safety. wants, no. safety yes.
and i'm all for state gov't whenEVER possible vs. fed.
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 2:40:12 PM
|
|
|
bzirk
Posts: 2935
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Where the deer and antelope play
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Maybe it's just me, but I can remember the days when the non-smokers were the odd man out, and smokers would have been offended to move or go outside. The tide has certainly turned, and as libertarian as I lean, I recognize that a host of laws has helped to bring that about.
Yeah, I have to admit it one of those government regulations that is really hard to get worked up over because I like the results. Our state recently banned smoking in all restaurants and bars and quite frankly, I just enjoy going out with my family more now.
Though it does remind me of this little saying:
When they came for the smokers I kept silent because I don't smoke.
When they came for the meat eaters I kept silent because I'm a vegetarian.
When they came for the gun owners I kept silent because I'm a pacifist.
When they came for the drivers I kept silent because I'm a bicyclist.
They never did come for me. I'm still here because there's nobody left in the secret police except sissies with rickets.
I've thought of that saying several times during this thread. 
_____________________________
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1)
Great quote: I just ain't God and don't know it all. -- SonInMe1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 4:02:59 PM
|
|
|
phosadaud
Posts: 9204
Joined: 9/19/2005
From: Washington State
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EverLearning
quote:
ORIGINAL: phosadaud
OK, I'll say this really, really slowly so maybe you hear me. What...makes...it...illegal...is...where...the...government...steps...in...to...protect...the...citizens...from...other...citizens... Someone does not have the right to cause me harm simply because it's obvious their acts are harmful (and what do you do if you are eating at a restaurant and someone comes in and starts smoking - you may not have seen that "coming").
If you visited places that cater to your tastes, non-smoking, then you wouldn't have that problem.
It's not about my tastes, it about not believing someone else has the right to cause me physical harm to suit THEIR tastes.
quote:
quote:
Sex is not illegal, but a restaurant can't have orgies on their tables in view of the general public private property or not.
Public nudity is Illegal and once again isn't even a valid arguement. You are fond of saying that just because something isn't currently illegal doesn't mean it can't be. Well Doesn't mean it should be either. Just because public nudity is illegal doesn't mean that smoking in a private place should be.
Oychie-wa-wa... Did you go to school? This is not a difficult concept. The point is not whether something is or isn't currently legal (because that will vary from place to place. Where I live, it is currently illegal to smoke in a restaurant). The point is that just because something is on private property, doesn't mean the government can't enforce certain codes of behavior to protect the welfare of the public.
Or do you choose to not get this because you know that I'm right so you are avoiding discussing the point I'm making. 
quote:
quote:
Alcohol is not illegal, but restaurants are not allowed to serve someone who is so drunk they can't stand up.
Ever hear of alcohol poisoning?
What does that have to do with anything? That's not illegal either but the government is stepping in protect the public - and that's not even the case of the person harming the health of OTHERS like smoking is. If the government can force businesses to protect the health of individuals doing something to harm themselves, why can't the government force businesses to protect the health of the general public from individuals who's action cause harm?
quote:
quote:
Having cockroaches is not illegal, but if they infest the restaurant, the state will close it down. To say that something can't become illegal because it's not currently illegal is absurd.
I didn't say that it can't become illegal, I said that if smoking became illegal then you could tell a private business owner that he can't have a smoking section.
 So I suppose since cockroaches are not illegal, the government cannot tell a private business owner that he has to deal with the pestilence?
quote:
quote:
Those acts are no more willful than someone allowing smoking in a place where the public gathers knowing that is causes harm than someone who doesn't follow proper food handling techniques to save a penny.
They are in fact more willfull. To knowingly mishandle food is a willfull act of harm that can not be easily prevented by the victim. Point, driving is dangerous so pedestrians stay out of roads. Second hand smoke is dangerous so a right minded person who doesn't want to be harmed by doesn't have to be if they make the decision not to.
If I see a crazed mad-man running down the street wielding a knife and I have a chance to escape, but for whatever reason don't and the mad-man stabs me to death, are you saying that their act is not as willful?
quote:
quote:
#1 Drunken driving does not always take place on public roads and I made that point. Even if someone drove on private property and the owner decided that was ok, the person driving would still be doing something illegal. According to your logic, why should it be illegal? (and if you answer that it's illegal, you are dodging my question).
last i checked one can't be ticketed for drunk driving unless they have been observed on public property.
You cannot operate a motor vehicle if you are legally intoxicated. Public or private property does not matter. Period.
Buehler vs. Meese (1986)
quote:
quote:
#2 If a place is open to the public, it is not the same as someone's house. At your house, you can prepare foods in a nasty disgusting manner and no one will come "shut" down your house. According to your logic, why should a privately owned restaurant be shut down then?
You are continuing to use your irrelevant analogys to defend your irrelevant analogys, it is tiresome. If someone comes to your home and you willfully serve them food that is rancid and they are struck ill then you can still get in trouble. You are making a concious effort to do something harmful, not indirectly but DIRECTLY to that person.
I'm not using irrelevant analogies. You may want to learn more about health codes. It doesn't matter whether the kitchen staff at a restaurant are intending to get people sick by not following all the health statutes. What matters is they are not following the healthcodes. No malice aforethought is needed. The health department doesn't care whether you intended or didn't intend to harm someone. What they care about is whether you are following the health code. My analogy stands.
quote:
quote:
#3 Why is public property different? There are plenty of private businesses that one HAS to go to to survive in this world: doctor's offices, grocery stores, pharmacies, etc. And there are plenty of public places, no one has to go to (parks, etc).
Public property is different, well because it is public, DUH. Yes there are places that you must go and as i have stated before if you just open your mouth and voice your desires then you will get what you want, put your money where your mouth is and business owners will follow you, they are funny like that.
That's not an answer.
quote:
quote:
1. Many people cannot go to places that are open and providing a service to the public because of someone else's decision to do something that causes harm to them.
No one has the right to go to any private business, in fact a private business man has the right to refuse service to anyone.
Correct. That doesn't mean that private business has the right to conduct business in any manner they please despite the public interests. All rights have caveats. My right to free speech does not give me the right to yell fire in a crowded room.
_____________________________
~Kristin~
Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as Gods. Cats have never forgotten this.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/27/2008 11:57:17 PM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1303
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
You must live a simple life that never requires you to travel overnight.
Oh how very wrong you are. Just this very moment i am sitting in a hotel in Ohio, the second hotel I went to. I reserved a non-smoking room when i got there they gave me a room that clearly had been used by smokers. Guess what i did? I left and i went to a hotel that caters to my needs. Not even a hard feeling about the other hotel, it is their loss not mine. Depending on how things go i will be in yet another hotel in another city tomorrow or friday and if they don't cater to my needs i walk out. When i get back home i will be writing letters and calling the corporation to let them know why i didnt' carry through with my stay, it is their choice what they do with that information and what they do with it will directly affect whether i go there again or not. I take care of me, I do not rely on the government to protect me against smoke. I can protect myself against smoke. The other analogies thrown out about poor food handling etc leave no choice to the individual to protect themselves. Smoking allowed restaurants leave you with the choice to protect yourself.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/28/2008 2:45:12 AM
|
|
|
OLEEguacamole
Posts: 1141
Status: offline
|
guess what? the govt has rules, laws about those auto paint fumes.
there's a silly notion here about private property. if you are inviting, even trying to lure in the public to your property as customers, you now have responsibiblity to the public that is on your private property. you INVITED the public.
among others, the govt will hold you accountable for some of the things you do on behalf of the public.
a govt agency will do it's best to show up with guns and badges to protect you and your patrons if you are in danger even though you are on privately owned property. the govt will protect the public from you should you decide to compromise safe or fair treatment of your customers etc. a privately owned business is not the same as a privately owned home.
having a drivers license is a PRIVELAGE. it comes with laws and responsibilities. this is also true of a business license.
now tell me why do smokers have perceivingly more rights than non smokers? a smoker can smoke in a restaurant though proven harmful and tioxic, and the non smoker has the right to stay home? why doesn't the smoker have the right to stay home if he wants to smoke?
why would it be fair to have all restaurants allow smoke, but not fair to have all smoke free establishments?
_____________________________
there's life in a pit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/28/2008 6:23:34 AM
|
|
|
EverLearning
Posts: 1303
Joined: 5/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mrsdash
guess what? the govt has rules, laws about those auto paint fumes.
That wasn't my question. I specifically asked if some whiner should be able to stop them from spraying so he can go sit in their paint booth, after all it is a business is it not?
quote:
there's a silly notion here about private property. if you are inviting, even trying to lure in the public to your property as customers, you now have responsibiblity to the public that is on your private property. you INVITED the public.
Silly notion of private propery?
You invited the public but you do not have to cater to every segment of the public.
quote:
now tell me why do smokers have perceivingly more rights than non smokers?
I never said they did, i said they have equal rights. A business owner should be able to allow that segment of the population if they want.
quote:
a smoker can smoke in a restaurant though proven harmful and tioxic, and the non smoker has the right to stay home? why doesn't the smoker have the right to stay home if he wants to smoke?
The non-smoker has every right to visit non-smoking establishments and speak with their dollars to create more of them.
quote:
why would it be fair to have all restaurants allow smoke, but not fair to have all smoke free establishments?
See this is the problem you guys see it as an either/or, all or nothing when there is room for both groups. It would not be fair to have all restaurants smoking but it also isn't fair to force them all to be non-smoking.
_____________________________
Normal people believe that if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Engineers believe that "if it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough
features yet
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Smokers Have Rights Too!!! - 2/28/2008 6:48:49 AM
|
|
|
amyk
Posts: 537
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
