Smoking ban in PA at last

ccbig · 09-16-2008, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Spider

Then I guess we just disagree on which right is more important: a smoker's right to smoke wherever he wants, or my right to go to whatever business I want without endangering my health.

Ah, but there is a difference. There are obvious places I agree should be smoke free. Schools, government offices etc. because everyone has to be able go there without a choice.

A privately owned business is not one of them. You can choose not to go to a privately owned business.

Here you are infringing on the rights of others when you take away the rights of the smoker and of the private business owner.

I never said a smoke can smoke where ever they want. You don't want them to smoke anywhere.

WrestlingTerp · 09-16-2008, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Spider

Then I guess we just disagree on which right is more important: a smoker's right to smoke wherever he wants, or my right to go to whatever business I want without endangering my health.

Spider:

I would narrow those rights down a bit more. Which right is more important: the rights of the smoker to contaminate the air or the rights of others who have to breath it.

Spider · 09-16-2008, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by ccbig

Ah, but there is a difference. There are obvious places I agree should be smoke free. Schools, government offices etc. because everyone has to be able go there without a choice.

A privately owned business is not one of them. You can choose not to go to a privately owned business.

Here you are infringing on the rights of others when you take away the rights of the smoker and of the private business owner.

I never said a smoke can smoke where ever they want. You don't want them to smoke anywhere.

But when a privately owned business is open to the public, why should a member of the public like me (or to a greater extent, bluestater) automatically be excluded from being able to patronize it without endangering my health. Again in my opinion, it's a choice I shouldn't have to make. A dynamite factory is inherently dangerous; a restaurant shouldn't be.

My bottom line: a smoker's rights end with the air that I breathe.

ccbig · 09-16-2008, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Spider

But when a privately owned business is open to the public, why should a member of the public like me (or to a greater extent, bluestater) automatically be excluded from being able to patronize it without endangering my health. Again in my opinion, it's a choice I shouldn't have to make. A dynamite factory is inherently dangerous; a restaurant shouldn't be.

My bottom line: a smoker's rights end with the air that I breathe.

You are so full of self righteous nonsense.

You have the CHOICE to use that privately owned business or not.

You have the CHOICE whether or not to "expose" yourself to the dangers of smoke filled air.

You are trying to restrict others from having a CHOICE.

A business that allows smoking would be an inherently dangerous place, you have the CHOICE whether or not to go there or work there. It is exactly the same thing as a dynamite plant in that respect.

You wanting to be lazy about having to make a choice should not deny others the right to choose.

Champ Kind · 09-16-2008, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by bluestater

But here's the thing, Champ. I have serious asthma. It's under control now, but most of my life, I was hospitalized often. I wanted to be a waitress or bartender in college, and make the good money associated with it, but I couldn't because of the smoking. That sure sounds like discrimination to me,

The same "discrimination" that you are feeling if you wanted to be a miner. Are you upset at the mining industry because it is bad for our asthma? As a worker you know the risks associated with your job and you accept them. People with bad backs aren't discriminated against in the roofing industry, they just don't do roofing, if they are smart.

The problem is the government is stepping in and telling you how to run your business. Along these same lines the government is saying that they can tell you not to admit people that wear red shirts to your establishment. If an individual owner wants to ban red shirts at their establishment that is 100% fine with them and they can do what they want, but NEVER should the government step in and tell them they have do to that.

wol118 · 09-16-2008, 08:36 AM

[quote=M Richardson;100327]First of all, having, a long time ago, been in the restaurant business, a restaurantuer is NOT allowed to "send as many drunks out into the streets as they please". Send an impaired driver out, assume the liability. Does that mean that bars cut everybody off? No. But if the driver is impaired, and you serve them, and they get into an accident, be ready to get sued for everything you ever thought you would own. Happens all of the time in California.
Secondly, yes, the customers have the option of entering or not. However, the employees don't. Sidestream and second-hand smoke are major health threats for everyone exposed. When you work as a waiter or bartender in a smoking establishment, you are smoking all night long, even if you don't light up.
The smoking ban in bars and restaurants has been in place in California for about 15 years. Everyone has adjusted. The smokers will go outside to get a fix during the evening, which is an inconvenience, but less of an inconvenience for them than their smoke is for everyone else. The ban is being expanded to other areas, including some outdoor venues. You can't smoke at a sports stadium, except in certain locations. Some cities have banned smoking in open-air food markets (farmer's markets). There is no smoking allowed anywhere on a school campus. (Anybody remember the days of opening the door to the teacher's lounge to what looked like a room on fire?) I really expect, within the next 10 to 15 years, for smoking anywhere outside the home or automobile to be banned. There are currently lawsuits in progress between condo owners because a smoker's smoke enters, through windows, or the smell through the walls and floors, a non-smoker's home. The non-smokers are saying that it makes their home unlivable. Smoking is a dying habit - literally and figuratively.[/quote

Spider · 09-16-2008, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by ccbig

You are so full of self righteous nonsense.

You have the CHOICE to use that privately owned business or not.

You have the CHOICE whether or not to "expose" yourself to the dangers of smoke filled air.

You are trying to restrict others from having a CHOICE.

Okay, I'll say it one more time. Here are the two alternatives:

1. My freedom to utilize any establishment I want without endangering my health.

2. The smoker's freedom to smoke wherever he wants (except the places you elaborated above).

Either way someone doesn't get to do what he wants to do, and I think #1 supercedes #2. I may well be self righteous, but I think it makes perfect sense.

Spider · 09-16-2008, 08:44 AM

This is a really good debate. Too bad I have to go do some work, but I'll be back.

tpay · 09-16-2008, 08:46 AM

I'm a smoker living in California, as Mike has explained a ban has been effect for 15 years, I've adjusted - no problem. At home I only smoke outside or in my garage and never smoke in the car.

On a another note, I work in Kuwait where currently it is the holy month of Ramadan and western expats MUST observe the fasting period from sun up to sun down which includes eating, drinking or smoking, unless we do it out of sight of Muslins. The police can actually arrest a person for not following custom.

For the time being we all smoke inside.

FloggingSully · 09-16-2008, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by ccbig

I have had several jobs where I worked around and with dangerous chemicals.

To work there I was given the information on material data safety sheets explaining each chemical that was used or handled at that facility. I had the option to work there or not.

So the company took reasonable precautions (educating you on the proper way to handle these chemicals) in order to protect the saftey of their employees? Are these saftey precautions mandated by the government (perhaps through OSHA)? or did the company do it out of the goodness of their hearts?

Smoking ban in PA at last

Non Wrestling Talk