100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Smoking in Private Owned Establishments | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think that each individual establishments should be able to choose wether or not they allow smoking in their own establishment. Now in public places I understand not wanting to smoke, but I think that people should be able to smoke in places where the owner says that it is allowed. Now people might say that they deserve to go anywhere and for it to be smoke free, but the problem is that if you make other people not smoke by law you are taking away other people's rights. You take away the right of the owner of the establishment to say what goes on in his own place. And you take away the rights of smokers to smoke. And if you want to go to a place where there is no smoking, then you go to a place that has made the descision to have a nonsmoking policy. You shouldn't take away other people's rights because you don't like something that you can easily avoid. Tobias..... I am not a smoker, but I agree with you. The owner of the establishment should decide whether his/her place should be smoke free or a haven for smokers. I believe the government is taking away the freedom of business owners when they make these mandates. Another thing that is out of whack is the handicap business. Our township's taxes went up dramatically about 10 years ago, because the township had to make all of the pavements handicap accessible. So, our taxes went up to put in handicap ramps on all of the sidewalks. I have never seen a wheel chair bound person use those ramps. Actually, I have never seen a wheel bound person in my neighborhood. The only thing the ramps on the sidewalks do is encourage kids to ride their bikes into the streets without having to stop since there is no curb on the handicap ramp. Prior to these ramps, it was unheard of for kids on bikes to be hit by cars. Now it happens every once in a while. Incidentally, I am not against handicap people. I am just trying to make a point that some government mandates are crazy. Actually I am a non-smoker too. I think its a bad habit, but i know that people have rights to smoke if they want. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a matter of time, they're pretty much making the walls of cloth so to speak. It will eventually come down to what we can and can't eat, drink, watch, and read. When the take our right to bear arms, this will be the point we need to stand up in unison...cause if we lose that we won't be able to keep the government in line if there comes a time that we need to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too many of these type of BANS ON SMOKING LAWS come up for a public vote and since SMOKERS are out numbered, the LAWS are PASSED.
DOES THIS MAKE IT RIGHT? NO Is this the Democratic way? GOOD QUESTION... DEMOCRACY MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN 2 WOLVES AND 1 SHEEP SITTING AROUND TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT'S FOR DINNER. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and it is currently the nanny govt's idea of something else to save us from ourselves...lol They key difference, though, is that technically it's protecting non-smokers from smokers....not ourselves from out literal selves. Once the government starts trying to protect me from my own solely personal actions, that's when I start storming my representative's office. drive without a seat belt for a while  smoke a little pot in front of a cop don't mow your lawn in sandy, ut I don't think that there should be a law saying you have to wear a seatbelt. What insurance companies should do is not cover medical injuries from a crash if people are not wearing their seatbelt. That would encourage people to buckle up, but if they want to take the chance then they don't have to. wow....i agree again about the seatbelt law too. The government is getting pretty famous for it's excessive interferance and its steadily getting worse which scares me. I think the seatbelt law might be for the protection of children and disabled people. However, the crazy thing about the seatbelt law is that in the school district where I live, there are no seatbelts on the buses that carry the children to school. thats cuz the state would have to pay the fine.....yeah....i may even be able to understand making kids wear it until a certain age like 10 or 12. But there does come a time where people need to take responsibility for his or her own actions instead of have our government tell us to. Although i think a big part of the seat belt law (and many others) is money. Instead of another tax you just make another law that you can write fines for. If they were really trying to keep us safe smoking, drinking, and fastfoods would also be illegal. Once again there is too much money in these industries. My state just passed a law where a cop can pull you over if he THINKS you aren't wearing a seatbelt. This allows him or her to check for other offenses ,which increases number of fines, not to mention, takes away the whole "probable cause" argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Tobias on both the smokeing law & seatbelts. Each bussiness owner should be free to make the decision that is best for his business I would personally go to smoke free places.
The seat belt law is stupid. I am hurting no one else when I don't wear one. Thank the insurance lobbiests. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
karmafury
on
Thu 02/14/08 10:29 PM
|
|
I'm a smoker. That is my personal choice. I enjoy going out to restaurants etc. I don't smoke around non smokers though, common courtesy. However not all smokers have common courtesy. Do I have a problem with the smoking laws.....Not at all.
If I choose the risks associated with smoking, as do other smokers, there is no reason to subject non-smokers to those same risks. If smokers won't / don't care for the health of non-smokers then the laws are needed to protect non-smokers. I also enforce those same rules on the job and have no problem doing it. I simply tell offenders that if I can go outside so can they. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a smoker. That is my personal choice. I enjoy going out to restaurants etc. I don't smoke around non smokers though, common courtesy. However not all smokers have common courtesy. Do I have a problem with the smoking laws.....Not at all. If I choose the risks associated with smoking, as do other smokers, there is no reason to subject non-smokers to those same risks. If smokers won't / don't care for the health of non-smokers then the laws are needed to protect non-smokers. I also enforce those same rules on the job and have no problem doing it. I simply tell offenders that if I can go outside so can they. Karma,  I thank you for your courtesy, & I support your right to smoke, although I hope you will consider quitting because you seem like someone I'd like to see around for a long time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karma, I thank you for your courtesy, & I support your right to smoke, although I hope you will consider quitting because you seem like someone I'd like to see around for a long time!I'm the last one still smoking in my family. The odds are that I'll quit soon. Somebody else wants me around for at least the next 500 years  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Karma, I thank you for your courtesy, & I support your right to smoke, although I hope you will consider quitting because you seem like someone I'd like to see around for a long time!I'm the last one still smoking in my family. The odds are that I'll quit soon. Somebody else wants me around for at least the next 500 years . Good you have great incentive & something else to occupy your hands & mouth! Sounds like you will be succussful! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a matter of time, they're pretty much making the walls of cloth so to speak. It will eventually come down to what we can and can't eat, drink, watch, and read. When the take our right to bear arms, this will be the point we need to stand up in unison...cause if we lose that we won't be able to keep the government in line if there comes a time that we need to. they are already attacking it with gun control laws bro. I agree ith you on this very strongly. No one will disarm me as long as my heart beats. All servicemen and women have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the united states of america against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Poloticians that try to infringe this right are, in my opinion, endangering the constitution. Most liekly washington will just it out over a few decades. They aren't nearly as stupid as people believe they are. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well technically, if you want to get down to the constitution and stuff, there is no right to smoke. Since we have rights to do whatever as long as it doesn't harm another (in theory) and since the smoke from cigarettes/pipes/etc. has been shown to cause damage to people, it shouldn't really be protected by any constitutional law, so banning it from bars isn't overstepping the bounds of the government.
I'm not saying that it is right, but I'm just saying that is a perfectly legitimate defense of banning smoking in any area that you do not own. Personally, the scariest law I can think of off the top of my head is that anti-suicide laws. Where if you attempt suicide and fail, you can be put in jail. Now I find that the most authoritarian law ever made. If I want to kill myself, it is my decision and not the government's. I also agree with the seat-belt thing, if I don't wear a seat-belt and it get into a bad accident, the other person isn't hurt more because of it, only I am. Now there should be responsibility with that, such as a parent should keep their seat-belt on to increase the odds of them living in a crash and being able to support their kids. But ya... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the seatbelt law might be for the protection of children and disabled people. However, the crazy thing about the seatbelt law is that in the school district where I live, there are no seatbelts on the buses that carry the children to school. the reason a seat belt is not used in a public school bus is because of the way the seats are desgined. The seats are designed to act as, well almost like, an air bag. A kid is actually safer by not wearing the seatbelt on a bus, because a seat eblt will cause their bodies to literally be shaken (and we al know what that can do to a child) whereas if hte are free to hit the front of the seat. or he back which are padded, they will not have tat back and forth shaking motion, and they will also have the padding to cushion them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well technically, if you want to get down to the constitution and stuff, there is no right to smoke. Since we have rights to do whatever as long as it doesn't harm another (in theory) and since the smoke from cigarettes/pipes/etc. has been shown to cause damage to people, it shouldn't really be protected by any constitutional law, so banning it from bars isn't overstepping the bounds of the government. I'm not saying that it is right, but I'm just saying that is a perfectly legitimate defense of banning smoking in any area that you do not own. Personally, the scariest law I can think of off the top of my head is that anti-suicide laws. Where if you attempt suicide and fail, you can be put in jail. Now I find that the most authoritarian law ever made. If I want to kill myself, it is my decision and not the government's. I also agree with the seat-belt thing, if I don't wear a seat-belt and it get into a bad accident, the other person isn't hurt more because of it, only I am. Now there should be responsibility with that, such as a parent should keep their seat-belt on to increase the odds of them living in a crash and being able to support their kids. But ya... This is twisted CONSTITUTION interpretation. So you think the key is you are free to do whatever "as long as it does not harm another". I COULD ARGUE that your mere existence HARMS ME. The people who DRIVE CARS are HARMING ME and should be outlawed. Any DOG bigger than a Chihuahua should BE OUTLAWED because they could harm me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liberty is the possibility of doubting, of making a mistake,... of searching and experimenting,... of saying No to any authority - literary, artistic, philosophical, religious, social, and even political. ~Ignazio Silone, The God That Failed, 1950
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well technically, if you want to get down to the constitution and stuff, there is no right to smoke. Congratulations, you have now opened the most annoying can of worms on JSH...be prepared to defend yourself now as hordes of people demand that the Constitution is not interpretable, and even if it is, that their interpretation is the only possibly correct one. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
these laws are to save the insurance companies money
the govt could care less about the peoples safety |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
these laws are to save the insurance companies money the govt could care less about the peoples safety The truth in a nutshell |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the insurance companies want people to quit smoking so bad, why do they refuse to pay for the remedies that actually help people quit? Most insurance companies will not pay for anti-smoking drugs that are quite successful in helping people drop the habit.... it's ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the insurance companies want people to quit smoking so bad, why do they refuse to pay for the remedies that actually help people quit? Most insurance companies will not pay for anti-smoking drugs that are quite successful in helping people drop the habit.... it's ridiculous. They refuse to pay for anything anytime they think they can get away with it. That's how they make money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about someones right to want to go some where and not inhale smoke? I mean if its a bar its ok, but if its a place where kinds go as well I don't think so. You do have the right to smoke, you just have to go outside. Usually about 25 ft or something. I mean is it really that hard? You have the right to choose to go where ever you want. If you want to go to a place with no smoking then go to one who wants to be a nonsmoking place. No one ever forces you to go to places that allow smoking. Most places that want to have kinds there already have non smoking policies. Its a general rule if there let smoking go on you don't want to bring kids there so why force them to go then complaine that smokers are there when you knew they would be there anyway? What about restaurants? Kids go to eat there with their folks. I remember when you could smoke in any food place. Non smoking sections didn't help. And to the person that said they didn't get the 25 foot rule. Its to give the smoke some room to disperse. You don't want to walk into a cloud of smoke when entering and exiting the buildings. Plus they don't want people crowding the doorways. |
|
|
|
|
