JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,578
- 982
- 126
Mr.IncrediblyBored
Lifer
- Jun 18, 2000
- 11,208
- 772
- 126
You don't have to breathe anything. You are free to find a smoke-free establishment to patronize. It is not your right to get a cheeseburger at Friday's - it is your privilege. If the owner of the establishment chooses to allow smoking within his building, that is his perogative.
Yes, it is completely and utterly an erosion of private property rights.
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
the reality is that eventually you will only be able to smoke on your own property or vehicle or in a bar.
it's pretty much like that here already.
it's pretty much like that here already.
You'll probably eventually be banned from smoking on your own property if you have any children or neighbors. Even if it is outdoors, away from everyone.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,578
- 982
- 126
Bullsh!t. How about the employees who work there? Don't they have a right to work in a smoke free environment?
I'm glad that more states are passing laws like this.
If they want to work in a smoke free environment, they need to work somewhere else then. Smoking was allowed before they took the job, so they knew damn well what they were getting into.
What a bunch of crap. This is blatent discrimination.
You want signs on the building, workers that smoke only?
How bout this is a Smoke only building?
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,578
- 982
- 126
The trouble with that is most people who work those type of jobs don't have a lot of alternatives in life so they end up taking the work when they can.
its amazing that the spearhead to all of these anti-smoking laws around the world is jeffrey wigand, the man who the movie the insider is about.
Besides that being a completely ridiculous statement that has nothing to do with what I said, we're missing the point.
It still is an erosion of private property rights. But as long as it's not me getting gored, everything is OK right?
SagaLore
Elite Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 24,036
- 21
- 81
You're elevating the right of full control over private property over the public health. Same excuse used to keep Slavery going for so long.
It was not a rediculous statement. To a non-smoker, someone taking a crap a few tables over is no different than lighting up a cigarette - and they're both unhealthy to do around other people.
Mr.IncrediblyBored
Lifer
- Jun 18, 2000
- 11,208
- 772
- 126
Smokers or non-smokers are not a race or religion. The owner of the establishment has the right to choose whether they allow one or the other into their business.
The employees of said establishment know full well what they were getting themselves into. If they don't like the second-hand smoke they can find employment elsewhere.
Mr.IncrediblyBored
Lifer
- Jun 18, 2000
- 11,208
- 772
- 126
Why not also make buildings that are No-smoking only! Oh, wait, they already do that!:roll: So what is the point of this legislation?
People feel they are more entitled to their Friday's slop than non-smokers?
Oh please.
Public health? Things like asbestos, shoddy electrical work, etc are all things that may be unseen by the public that pose a huge, huge risk to their health. Those are things that should be controlled and regulated. There's nothing an individual could do about that.
Unlike smoke and smoking, which people can choose to avoid by simply going to another restaurant or bar. Something employers can avoid by not working there. It's nothing new. Employees and frequenters of the establishment knew long beforehand that it was a smoking establishment, knew that they were about to be employed by a smoking establishment, and knew that they were about to sit down to a drink or meal in a smoking establishment.
I'm not even going to get into how ludicrous your statement about smoking and slavery being linked based on control of property rights.
And considering I'm pretty much a non-smoker (I'll have a cigarette or two every few months when I'm out drinking), I guarantee you that someone taking a crap would be much more offensive than someone lighting up a cigarette. Also, show me studies on how many people have died as a direct result of second hand smoke? Show me how many people die or get sick from germs related to unsanitary washroom practices.
You can see they are extremely different. Enough indulging your wild connections and comparisons.
The point of this legislation is public health, plain and simple.
Smokers do not have the right to corrupt the air of non-smokers.
Then how about if we put a sign up on the bar that said Smokers Only? That way it's only smokers corrupting other smokers air.
And yes, there is no point to this legislation as Knightbreed said.
daniel1113
Diamond Member
- Jun 6, 2003
- 6,448
- 0
- 0
That is not the argument used for this type of legislation, since it utter bullsh!t.
EDIT: I am referring to my previous post, FYI.
ultimatebob
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2001
- 25,134
- 2,450
- 126
Most of those Casinos in AC have huge air filtration systems that keep the smoke out of the air for the most part. It kinda makes sense when you think about it that way.
Awwwwww poor babies, now smokers will only be killing themselves instead of taking out others with them.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter