Germans fight back against anti-smoking campaigns

[matt0611]

Kudos for changing your position for the better on this. Interesting how that works.

He changed his position because he doesn't like smoke. He cares about his own comfort and preferences more than the right of other people to be free to make choices. Here', have some negative kudos.

I don't like it either and I rather every place not allow it but they should still be free to choose to do so.

Matters of second-hand smoke or the right of minority or majority or health or your social engineering or whatever other bullshit card you want to play are irrelevant.

Fact is, its private property and they should be free to make their own rules as to whether they allow people to smoke or not. Don't like it? Leave or never go there.
End of discussion.

 

[JockoJohnson]

People drinking in the same room as you cause you to inhale toxic fumes? You go to a bar, you expect to be with people who drink. I don't go to "smoke bars" so I don't expect to be surrounded by smokers.

I made the statement only because they are both vices and they are both LEGAL. They should make smoking illegal if it does such harm to one's self and everybody else. But no, the money is too much for the politicians to turn down.

Honestly, though, I hate the smoke too. I don't want to be around it. I don't want my kids around it. But to ban it from all places is probably not the answer. Private establishments should have the choice. I won't go to them if they choose to allow smoking because there will be smokers, no doubt. But it should be a choice.

 

[Fingolfin269]

He changed his position because he doesn't like smoke. He cares about his own comfort and preferences more than the right of other people to be free to make choices. Here', have some negative kudos.

I don't like it either and I rather every place not allow it but they should still be free to choose to do so.

Matters of second-hand smoke or the right of minority or majority or health or your social engineering or whatever other bullshit card you want to play are irrelevant.

Fact is, its private property and they should be free to make their own rules as to whether they allow people to smoke or not. Don't like it? Leave or never go there.
End of discussion.

Perhaps i should restate my position a bit. If they repealed the ban it would probably never go back to how it was before. Now that we've seen the bliss that is smoke-free establishments people would never support an establishment that allowed it again. So yes, if the ban did anything it served as an eye opener for many and at this point I guess they can just repeal away and make everyone happy.

Btw the TN ban is different than what most of you are used to. Smoking is still an option but the business must be 21+.

 

[Craig234]

Sorry, there isn't anything about smoking that justifies it being a 'freedom of choice for businesses'. It's a public health threat that deserves to be banned.

We don't have 'freedom of choice' from other workplace safety rules, 'freedom of choice' from laws against discrimination, 'freedom of choice' from laws against child labor, etc.

Cigarettes are a product that don't belong legal. The only argument for their being legal, apart from not forcing nicotine addicts to quit - which has a point - is if the 'cigarette war' would be more harm than good, with a black market developing. But that doesn't apply to allowing smoking in public businesses, something that can be enforced.

In those, the public and the employees should be protected from the danger of smoke.

 

[zsdersw]

Sorry, there isn't anything about smoking that justifies it being a 'freedom of choice for businesses'. It's a public health threat that deserves to be banned.

... only in the mind of someone who thinks the government's proper role is to decide what people should/should not be allowed to do in/on private property.

Your idiocy on issues like this is a "public health threat", too, yet I don't think such idiocy should be illegal or banned.

We don't have 'freedom of choice' from other workplace safety rules, 'freedom of choice' from laws against discrimination, 'freedom of choice' from laws against child labor, etc.

The first two are things I believe we should have, and the third is dependent on the definition of what age someone becomes able to make decisions for themselves.

Horror stories about workplace conditions that come from the early days of the Industrial Revolution don't apply today. The vast majority of us are worth enough to our employers that our satisfaction is not something they can afford to completely ignore.

Cigarettes are a product that don't belong legal. The only argument for their being legal, apart from not forcing nicotine addicts to quit - which has a point - is if the 'cigarette war' would be more harm than good, with a black market developing.

The default condition in a free country such as ours is that the burden of justification rests on those who believe something should be illegal... not on those who believe something should be legal.

 

[Craig234]

... only in the mind of someone who thinks the government's proper role is to decide what people should/should not be allowed to do in/on private property.

They should be allowed to murder and rape children, force anyone there to take drugs, abuse animals, sell secrets to foreign agents, and play country music.

Oh, you the governent's proper role is to decide what people should/should not be allowed to do in/on private property.

Your asinine rhetoric is incivil and deserves no response. And it gets no more.

 

[zsdersw]

They should be allowed to murder and rape children, force anyone there to take drugs, abuse animals, sell secrets to foreign agents, and play country music.

Oh, you the governent's proper role is to decide what people should/should not be allowed to do in/on private property.

Oh Craig... you just can't resist the opportunity to make yourself look stupid, can you. Look, the basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness apply everywhere. The distinction I'm clearly drawing (and you're conveniently ignoring) is that the government cannot make otherwise legal acts illegal on private property.

Your asinine rhetoric is incivil and deserves no response. And it gets no more.

Your facocta rhetoric is concerningly stupid, yet hilarious.. and I will respond to it every chance I get.

 

[Craig234]

Zsderw, unread, on ignore.

 

[zsdersw]

Zsderw, unread, on ignore.

That's ok. Everyone who doesn't act like a baby will see the comment.

 

[Craig234]

This message is hidden because zsdersw is on your ignore list.

You were warned about incivility; nothing new about the response.

 

[zsdersw]

You were warned about incivility; nothing new about the response.

🙄 Grow a pair, Craig... honestly.

 

[xj0hnx]

🙄 Grow a pair, Craig... honestly.

You don't really expect Fail234 to "grow a pair" do you? He's a nanny stater to the core, people's rights mean nothing to him, only what's good for the state.

 

[JD50]

Zsderw, unread, on ignore.

LOL, what a baby.

 

[JD50]

🙄 Grow a pair, Craig... honestly.

At least he didn't whine to you in a PM.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is what it comes down to.

Some people like to smoke in bars, some do not.
There are some people that don't smoke who don't like to be around.

A lot of bar owners say, I'm going to allow people to come into MY bar and smoke if they would like. If you don't wanna smoke then fine, but you'll be around other people who may be smoking because I said they could in my place.If you don't like that don't come to my bar.

But then one group of people says, "nope, you may own the bar but we're going to tell you how to run it anyway, we're going to tell you how to run your bar because enough people want it like this. You are not to allow any smoking in your bar because we don't like it and if you do allow it men with guns will be sent after you".

Thats what our "free" society has come down to.

But there's already lots of government regulation about bars.

There are zoning restrictions on property (you can't just open up a bar in your basement and start selling booze to the public).
There are time restrictions (ie, bars here can't stay open past 2:30AM and must make last call half an hour before they close).
There are age restrictions (no minors, obviously; if a restaurant has a full bar, it must be separated by a barrier from the restaurant and no minors allowed in to that section).
There are restrictions specific to the license (beer and wine versus full bar; full bars here are required to offer some food options).
There are restrictions based on applicable anti-discrimination laws (you can't open a bar and make it "white's only").
There are restrictions on who may be hired (people with valid food handler's licenses and appropriate liquor licensing for the jurisdiction they are working in).

In short, the government already has a LOT of say in how bars operate. If they don't operate within the standards set forth (such as selling booze to minors), they can be shut down. In addition, I've seen bars shut down due to protests from surrounding neighborhoods for noise violations. To say that bars are some bastion of freedom ignores the stringent requirements they must adhere to to be allowed to continue operating.

 

[theeedude]

If you were more astute you'd notice that I never once criticized Germany... I was referring to US smoking bans.

Utopia? Who said anything about Utopia? If there's anyone who believes in Utopia it's communists/socialists; the people who believe that the perfect society is a matter of enacting more laws and regulations.

Libertarians believe that a better society depends on everyone making smart choices and bettering themselves because they recognize the necessity of doing so, not because of a law or regulation.

That's Utopia right there. I don't know what communism and socialism has to do with this discussion at all. You seem to think that the only choices are your libertarian pipe dreams and communism/socialism. That only demonstrates the limitations of your thinking abilities.

They also believe that laws/regulations are very poor at the details of improving society and, instead, prefer a more active, engaged, and responsible citizenry... not a society of leeches dependent on the government to tell them what's right and wrong. Libertarians don't believe in Utopia... they believe in constant improvement via a vigilant, engaged, and responsible citizenry. Libertarians believe personal responsibility is taught by real, life-and-death consequences; consequences that threaten one's life, health, and overall happiness... not the consequences that result from breaking a law or a regulation.

Is something a good or bad choice? The answer shouldn't be "bad because it's illegal" or "good because it's legal"... it should be "bad because I could die" or "good because it won't harm me or anyone I care about.".

And if it harms someone I don't care about, then it's not bad? And you wonder why no one serious sees Libertarianism as anything more than a bunch of Utopian pipe dreams.

 

[zsdersw]

That's Utopia right there.

No, "Utopia" is perfection... and impossible to achieve. "A better society" is one that's improving... and that is very possible to achieve.

I don't know what communism and socialism has to do with this discussion at all.

They're the philosophies that highly value government regulation of nearly all aspects of life. If you can't see how that relates to this discussion there's no hope for you.

You seem to think that the only choices are your libertarian pipe dreams and communism/socialism. That only demonstrates the limitations of your thinking abilities.

Reading into my comments what isn't there says more about your thinking abilities than anything I've said says about mine.

And if it harms someone I don't care about, then it's not bad? And you wonder why no one serious sees Libertarianism as anything more than a bunch of Utopian pipe dreams.

No... again, you presume too much and think for yourself too little. "Bad choices" are not just ones that are bad directly to one's self; since each of us needs others in our lives, be they friends, family, lovers, co-workers, etc. we must recognize the role their happiness plays in our own, so our decision-making process of what's good and bad should factor that in as well. This is not a concept that's missing from Libertarianism... and the apparent fact that you believe it is shows how little you actually know about Libertarianism.

 

[zsdersw]

But there's already lots of government regulation about bars.

There are zoning restrictions on property (you can't just open up a bar in your basement and start selling booze to the public).
There are time restrictions (ie, bars here can't stay open past 2:30AM and must make last call half an hour before they close).
There are age restrictions (no minors, obviously; if a restaurant has a full bar, it must be separated by a barrier from the restaurant and no minors allowed in to that section).
There are restrictions specific to the license (beer and wine versus full bar; full bars here are required to offer some food options).
There are restrictions based on applicable anti-discrimination laws (you can't open a bar and make it "white's only").
There are restrictions on who may be hired (people with valid food handler's licenses and appropriate liquor licensing for the jurisdiction they are working in).

With the exception of age restrictions (as it essentially is about who is an "adult" or not) and licensing, everything you've listed shouldn't exist either.

In short, the government already has a LOT of say in how bars operate. If they don't operate within the standards set forth (such as selling booze to minors), they can be shut down. In addition, I've seen bars shut down due to protests from surrounding neighborhoods for noise violations. To say that bars are some bastion of freedom ignores the stringent requirements they must adhere to to be allowed to continue operating.

No one said bars are some "bastion of freedom". All we've been saying is that just because some regulations exist doesn't mean more are good or justifiable.

 

[theeedude]

No, "Utopia" is perfection... and impossible to achieve. "A better society" is one that's improving... and that is very possible to achieve.



They're the philosophies that highly value government regulation of nearly all aspects of life. If you can't see how that relates to this discussion there's no hope for you.



Reading into my comments what isn't there says more about your thinking abilities than anything I've said says about mine.



No... again, you presume too much and think for yourself too little. "Bad choices" are not just ones that are bad directly to one's self; since each of us needs others in our lives, be they friends, family, lovers, co-workers, etc. we must recognize the role their happiness plays in our own, so our decision-making process of what's good and bad should factor that in as well. This is not a concept that's missing from Libertarianism... and the apparent fact that you believe it is shows how little you actually know about Libertarianism.

So it's only bad to harm people who we need in our lives one way or another. If harming someone does not negatively impact us, then it's OK. Yeah, those are some fine libertarian values right there 🙄 Shocking that Germany is not in a big hurry to adopt them 😀

 

[zsdersw]

So it's only bad to harm people who we need in our lives one way or another. If harming someone does not negatively impact us, then it's OK. Yeah, those are some fine libertarian values right there 🙄 Shocking that Germany is not in a big hurry to adopt them 😀

Don't be so pedantic. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so no... we cannot just kill or harm anyone. The thing with issues like smoking bans in private businesses, though, is that the "harm" of being around someone who smokes is entirely voluntary. Everyone who goes into a bar or restaurant (as either a patron or an employee) is making a choice to go there. If they have a problem with the business's owner allowing patrons to engage in a legal activity in his or her business, there's no one forcing those people to stay. It's really that simple.

 

[Throckmorton]

Horror stories about workplace conditions that come from the early days of the Industrial Revolution don't apply today. The vast majority of us are worth enough to our employers that our satisfaction is not something they can afford to completely ignore.

You know how offices have to comply with OSHA regulations? And you know how homes don't? Well as a result, most houses and apartments in America don't have adequate ventilation.


You're in fantasyland if you think employers give a shit about anything but the bottom line. And employees are ignorant of things tha impact health and safety, like having CO2 concentration at 5000ppm because the air conditioning doesn't bring in fresh air, just like they're ignorant about it at home.

 

[theeedude]

Don't be so pedantic. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so no... we cannot just kill or harm anyone.

That's nothing more than words unless enforced by a strong government.

 

[bfdd]

sacktoking is dumb. occupations don't have set hazards. trying to define an occupation by its "set hazards" is a stupid way to define an occupation. when I was millwright, yes that was my occupation, my hazards varied from job site to job site, never the same. One day it could be watch out on the 60ft scaffolding, the next day it was use fresh air to take care of an H2S leak. You're just bitching because you're a bitch, that's all bitches do.

 

[zsdersw]

That's nothing more than words unless enforced by a strong government.

A strong government? That's far too vague. "Strong" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people... just like the too-big and too-expensive government we have now can.

 

[zsdersw]

You know how offices have to comply with OSHA regulations? And you know how homes don't? Well as a result, most houses and apartments in America don't have adequate ventilation.

You're in fantasyland if you think employers give a shit about anything but the bottom line. And employees are ignorant of things tha impact health and safety, like having CO2 concentration at 5000ppm because the air conditioning doesn't bring in fresh air, just like they're ignorant about it at home.

Who determines what "adequate" is? "Experts"? Whose payroll are these "experts" on and what possible motives could they have?

You may put a lot of faith and gravitas in wholly inconclusive and arbitrary determinations of what "adequate ventilation" means made by various "experts"... but I don't and neither should anyone else.

Whenever anyone tells me an exact amount of something is dangerous to my health or a specific amount of something is needed to ensure it I am always skeptical. How was this exact amount determined? Upon what sample size is their data and conclusions based? Who sponsors the research? These are all questions we should ask before blindly believing things we're told by "experts".

A big part of an employer's "bottom line" is ensuring they have productive and skilled employees, so even when pursuing the bottom line employers must be concerned about their employees' lives.