100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Smoking in Private Owned Establishments | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. Actually you are wrong. You could not argue his existence harms you. The preamble states that the has the right to LIFE. Life is a right. Cars can be harmful but not necessarily, they are a means to an end. There is no real reason to smoke. If cars suddenly didn't exist, life as we know it would change. It is not the case for smoking. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
scttrbrain
on
Mon 02/18/08 09:24 PM
|
|
I am a smoker; I agree that smoking should never ever be around kids of any age. Not in restuarants or anywhere.
There is a restaurant that is catering only to people of the age of 21 in order to bypass the law. Now, being a smoker it makes no difference to me whether the place doesn't allow you to smoke. I prefer it not. I enjoy the air in there better. I can smell the food better and enjoy eating it more. Besides the air is clearer to see through. Seat belts? They do save lives for the most part. In our state death by no seatbelts have dropped drastically. I personally know of a case where not wearing one actually did not just kill Cecil, but because it ejected him...he went through the window of the other car killing the passenger of that car. I allow no one in my car without it on. Besides, it is the law, so I follow it. Kat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am a smoker; I agree that smoking should never ever be around kids of any age. Not in restuarants or anywhere. There is a restaurant that is catering only to people of the age of 21 in order to bypass the law. Now, being a smoker it makes no difference to me whether the place doesn't allow you to smoke. I prefer it not. I enjoy the air in there better. I can smell the food better and enjoy eating it more. Besides the air is clearer to see through. Seat belts? They do save lives for the most part. In our state death by no seatbelts have dropped drastically. I personally know of a case where not wearing one actually did not just kill Cecil, but because it ejected him...he went through the window of the other car killing the passenger of that car. I allow no one in my car without it on. Besides, it is the law, so I follow it. Kat That is the exact reason for the law. It is not to protect the people not wearing the seatbelt, but to protect those they might injure by flying through the windshield. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. But they are dictating what owners can allow in their own private property. That's wrong. It's not the goverment's right to do that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. But they are dictating what owners can allow in their own private property. That's wrong. It's not the goverment's right to do that. If its open to the public they can. Thats why they have safety inspections(health inspectors) etc. You also have to have licenses to sell certain things. Technically I think you can smoke in there when you are not in operating hours. It would just be during business hours you can't, but I am not 100% sure on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have to wonder about the private business laws.
If it's not allowed in private businesses now, how long before you can't even smoke in your own home? If possible I would love to see smoking go extinct but that is highly unlikely. I do feel that public places should have smoking bans, and places where owners choose to ban it is fine too, but forcing businesses to ban it seems to me to trample some of our freedoms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before, if its open to the public the government still has the right to pass safety laws. If you privately own a restaurant you still have to pass health inspection to stay open. By your logic you are saying "I own this restaurant and if I want to keep poisons in my kitchen I should."
You have a right to open and run a business under the laws of a state. The same thing goes for a corporation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as seatbelts/restraints go, I give you this:
I've seen guys wreck cars at 300 mph and walk away. Yes, they have helmets and rollcages, but those belts hold em tight and keep them INSIDE of the car and cage. Smoking? My grandmother died at 54, looked 75. On oxygen the last 17 years of her life, but wouldn't, couldn't quit. My aunt and I once cleaned the smoke stains out of the curtains and drop ceiling. I was 9, and at that point was smart enough to truly realise what that would do to your lungs. So I support smoking bans in public places. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Tue 02/19/08 09:41 AM
|
|
i agree...smoking sucks, and wearing seatbelts is much safer than not. I guess my whole problem is that should restrict anything that doesn't violate someone else's "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". Only irresponsible people need to be told what to do. If there is smoking in a restaurant go somewhere else. If enough people dislike it than that store own will lose business (money). If people choose not to wear seatbelts, then they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty much proven, if people aren't given responsibilities and the right to choose whether or not to be responsible, then they themselves will behave less responsibly. People should have the right to choose. Isn't that what America is all about?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then we have to deal with the consequenses of increased insurance rates on both sides. Also, if you have your seatbelt on and you lose control of your vehicle, you have a much better chance of getting back in control, since the belt will pretty much keep you in place. Without the belt, you're at the mrecy of the motion of the vehicle, if you hit someting, who knows where you end up.
Don't get me started on second hand smoke. My mom had two non smoking friends who were life long waitresses die of lung cancer before they were 60. Eve though you think it should be YOUR choice, that choice affects those around you, and sometimes those whom you may never meet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People that smoke should be flogged, gassed and set aflame
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about someones right to want to go some where and not inhale smoke? Since when is that a right? I've heard the same argument made for people who work in those environments. You choose to go there. You choose to work there. Deal with it or don't go/work there. Pretty simple. 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 always have the right to choose not to go there. There are plenty of establishments that choose not to allow smoking without the government stepping in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i agree...smoking sucks, and wearing seatbelts is much safer than not. I guess my whole problem is that should restrict anything that doesn't violate someone else's "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". Only irresponsible people need to be told what to do. If there is smoking in a restaurant go somewhere else. If enough people dislike it than that store own will lose business (money). If people choose not to wear seatbelts, then they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty much proven, if people aren't given responsibilities and the right to choose whether or not to be responsible, then they themselves will behave less responsibly. People should have the right to choose. Isn't that what America is all about? Again what if you fly through your windshield and hit someone else. Your lack of wearing a seatbelt could endanger others. You say don't go there if they allow smoking. Well, before the smoking ban every restaurant I can think of in my town had smoking sections. If I don't want to inhale smoke and wanted to go to a restaurant I didn't have a choice. I am finding this discussion humorous though. I mean you say "if you don't want to inhale smoke don't go there" while we would rather everyone get to enjoy the location and just ask that if you would like to smoke to step outside. Seems the latter is more universally friendly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i agree...smoking sucks, and wearing seatbelts is much safer than not. I guess my whole problem is that should restrict anything that doesn't violate someone else's "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". Only irresponsible people need to be told what to do. If there is smoking in a restaurant go somewhere else. If enough people dislike it than that store own will lose business (money). If people choose not to wear seatbelts, then they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty much proven, if people aren't given responsibilities and the right to choose whether or not to be responsible, then they themselves will behave less responsibly. People should have the right to choose. Isn't that what America is all about? Again what if you fly through your windshield and hit someone else. Your lack of wearing a seatbelt could endanger others. You say don't go there if they allow smoking. Well, before the smoking ban every restaurant I can think of in my town had smoking sections. If I don't want to inhale smoke and wanted to go to a restaurant I didn't have a choice. I am finding this discussion humorous though. I mean you say "if you don't want to inhale smoke don't go there" while we would rather everyone get to enjoy the location and just ask that if you would like to smoke to step outside. Seems the latter is more universally friendly. The problem is it doesn't end there though. First you get it banned in restaurants/bars.. Then you get it banned 25 feet from those establishments... Then you get it banned in Public... Then you get it banned in Private... Look at California. The only legal place to smoke left there is in your home, under the covers, with the lights off. (And hope the neighbors don't call the police.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, sign me up for Cali. Sounds like a great place to live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah they've had these bans in Ca. for years now. I smoke and I have learned to go outside, I go outside at my own house , and I never smoke around people who dont....just like to be considerate.....wish i could stop , but just dont want to yet..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i agree...smoking sucks, and wearing seatbelts is much safer than not. I guess my whole problem is that should restrict anything that doesn't violate someone else's "life, liberty, and persuit of happiness". Only irresponsible people need to be told what to do. If there is smoking in a restaurant go somewhere else. If enough people dislike it than that store own will lose business (money). If people choose not to wear seatbelts, then they have to deal with the consequences. It's pretty much proven, if people aren't given responsibilities and the right to choose whether or not to be responsible, then they themselves will behave less responsibly. People should have the right to choose. Isn't that what America is all about? Again what if you fly through your windshield and hit someone else. Your lack of wearing a seatbelt could endanger others. You say don't go there if they allow smoking. Well, before the smoking ban every restaurant I can think of in my town had smoking sections. If I don't want to inhale smoke and wanted to go to a restaurant I didn't have a choice. I am finding this discussion humorous though. I mean you say "if you don't want to inhale smoke don't go there" while we would rather everyone get to enjoy the location and just ask that if you would like to smoke to step outside. Seems the latter is more universally friendly. Has anyone actually been ejected from a car and hurt others? When will the government outlaw bad language, bad foods, and uneducational toys? (Wait there's probably too much money in bad foods  )
Don't get me wrong though, i hear what you are saying... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
has anyone been ejected from a car and actually hurt others?
that was funny man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
simple subject. one's life and choices are not their own. ya for government overreach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iv'e been ejected and walked away with a small cut !
|
|
|
|
|
