Second Hand Smoke

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights.
Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them.

The others around them voluntarily bring the harm upon themselves, therefore their rights are not infringed.

Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned.

Name the specific part of the constitution that shows that allowing private businesses to allow smoking is unconstitutional.

And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections.

You could go somewhere other than a restaurant. There is no constitutional entitlement to business exchange.

By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights.

Define "extremely". How few places can you go before all other places have collectively infringed upon rights. 500? 200? 3?

The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights.

Someone else already addressed this. The Jim Crow laws were flat out designed to allow businesses to not serve Blacks. On the other hand, restaurants that allow smoking do not ban people that do not smoke. Because of this, anyone can go to virtually any restaurant and if there is second hand smoke there, by staying they are consenting to pay the extra cost associated with second hand smoke to receive the services of the restaurant.

[jpcduran]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

This is a very good subject. Myself being a smoker I understand how non-smokers feel about second hand smoke and I do agree with banning in public places. But for private place I don't understand.

[alainbryden]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

I agree with Jewpin and Guido in that smoking in privately owned businesses should not be regulated. People are knowledgeable enough of the dangers and unpleasantnesses of second hand smoke - but there will always be alternatives and options.

That's how the free market works. If you don't like what one private business is doing, you use the services of another. If second hand smoke was enough of a problem for individuals to warrant making laws about it - then some competitor would start making a killing off of smoke free environments and a balance would be established.

The desires of people dictate how the services market behaves - and should also dictate how the law behaves. If there aren't enough smoke free private facilities then it's not because the law isn't protecting the interests of individuals - it's because the number individuals that care enough to go somewhere else are outweighed by the people wanting to smoke, and so the private owners see no reason to change their policy and decrease their traffic.

Naturally the same distribution of people who are annoyed by smoke to people who are annoyed by lack of a place to smoke should also determine the outcome of a vote to implement a non-smoking bylaw. In a way, the market already held the vote.

[devonin]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

This is a very good subject. Myself being a smoker I understand how non-smokers feel about second hand smoke and I do agree with banning in public places. But for private place I don't understand.

Er...they -aren't- banned from private places. They aren't even banned from "ten feet outside a public place" either.

[sk1mNskat3]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.

[twitching77]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.

lmfao. . .
well you do bring up a good point. . .i'll give you that

[lord_carbo]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Wow...
You need to take legislation classes.

You need to learn the workings of the free market including and not limited to how giving businesses more options and not legislating them promotes more competition by allowing businesses to appeal to smaller crowds that would otherwise go to an otherwise better place. You ALSO need to learn more about your own darn free will along with your rights and privileges as a person in the USA.

By owners of private business (In a capitalist nation where all businesses are private) to allow smoking, you are infringing on peoples rights.

Owners are infringing on peoples rights because they are enabling customers to infringe on non smokers rights.
Smokers are infringing on others rights because they are hurting the well being of others around them.

What if their customers, rather, the market they're trying to appeal to, is a smoker's market? Isn't that infringing on the businesses' rights? The smokers' rights? Just don't go to the restaurant. You are not entitled to enjoy going there, and you are only harming yourself by doing so. It is your choice to go to a place full of smokers.

Owning a business does not make you immune from the constitution, hence why the JIM CROWE LAWS were banned.
And for the last time. WHERE ELSE CAN YOU GO? Before smoking laws were being past, almost EVERYWHERE had smoking sections.

By extremely limiting someones choices of where someone can go, the owners are infringing on your rights. The Jim Crowe laws were bant because of the same thing. While the owners have the right to choose what or who they want, they cant do so if it is over riding others rights.

Jim Crowe laws were disallowed for a very different reason. There is no comparison. That is the denial of services due to race. Nobody is denied services by having a smoking section in a restaurant. It is your choice to go or not. And as I said before, if smoking sections make customers stay away, it is good business practice (a.k.a. greed, becuz all buznes ownurs r greedy amirite?) to ban it from your own personal restaurant, thus balancing out this pointless legislation.

Lastly, that last sentence makes no sense. Erm, you told me to take courses on legislation? I suggest you do. Or listen to your professor better. Or get a better professor. Or use better clarity.

Trust me if you were a bartender that was around it almost every day you'd have a different outlook on it. This thread is completely useless seeing as the governments not going to decide laws based on what the computer nerds on FFR think. It's already illegal in my state and it's eventually going to be illegal in almost all of them to smoke in bars and restaurants. But as far as private businesses go f.uck that.

A bartender deliberately takes that job knowing there will be smokers, assuming the guy isn't an idiot and that smoking isn't banned at the bar. By chance are you a bartender? Then if this is such a concern, I only have one question for you and your common sense: what were you thinking?

Secondly, this is debate. No **** we are not out to change the law. We are here to enlighten each other.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Lastly, that last sentence makes no sense. Erm, you told me to take courses on legislation? I suggest you do. Or listen to your professor better. Or get a better professor. Or use better clarity.

While I was a bit clear last night on that one...

I would consider limiting someones options on where he/she can eat or drink in an industry where almost every placed allowed smoking (before laws started getting passed) is a breach of someones rights.

Essentially, by saying they have a choice to be there or not, you are saying they should just cut themselves off from using the service industry, or die from second hand smoke... when allowing second hand smoke in an establishment is a violation the ones constitutional rights in the first place.


This is not the half of it. Just trying to make that bit unclear.. More later

[Dragula219]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

By owners of private business (In a capitalist nation where all businesses are private) to allow smoking, you are infringing on peoples rights.

That is a completely false statement, and it's been told to you at least 10 times in this thread. You still insist on not listening to anyone else.

Just because all businesses are private doesn't mean you have to go to the ones that allow smoking. You don't have the right to go where ever you damn well please with encountering something you don't like. Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that "Non-Smokers have nowhere to go, because all businesses allow smoking. To not allow it would be a bad business move." I guess you can't see how many things are wrong with that statement. To reinforce what lord_carbo already said:

1. That is false! There are SO many private businesses that don't allow smoking. In fact, I'd venture to say that move businesses don't allow smoking than do.
2. It can be seen as a bad businesses move to ALLOW smoking, because no non-smokers will want to go there.
3. Visa-Versa: It can be seen as a good business move not allow smoking, because non smokers will go there. That's how capitalism works.
4. If you're saying that all businesses will have a smoking section, then what's the problem? You're not in the same area as the smokers anyway. The fact that you said parents would bring there kids into a smoking section just because they smoke shows you have prejudice against smokers to start. You think that just because someone smokes they don't care about there kids health?

The Main Point: None of that even matters. Why? Because, NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO GO TO A PLACE WHERE SMOKING IS ALLOWED. There will always be places you can go that don't allow smoking. End of discussion.

[devonin]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

The fact that you said parents would bring there kids into a smoking section just because they smoke shows you have prejudice against smokers to start. You think that just because someone smokes they don't care about there kids health?

I was exposed to more second-hand smoke from my parents as a child, than from any other source at any other time in my life. At no point do I consider that to be a result of poor parenting, or a lack of knowledge about second hand smoke. That is almost entirely "I am physically addicted to smoking, and when I crave a cigarette, I must have one" and if you're in a situation where you can't go elsewhere for a smoke (ie. that to do so you would have to leave your child unattended in a public place) well, I guess that just means your kid gets some second-hand death.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Second hand smoke is only harmful under constant exposure to it, such as a child of a smoker, or someone who works in a smoking environment. For everyone else, it's just an inconvenience. Tobacco odor lingers and usually isn't pleasant (unless flavored, like shisha or pipe tobacco).

Smokers don't have a sense of smell, so the odor doesn't bother them.

[talisman]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

So Ohio recently banned smoking in restaurants and bars (I voted for the ban) and I have to say it's been pretty nice. Don't think businesses have been hurt that badly, if at all. Turns out people go to bars in order to drink, not smoke.

[Dragula219]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

I was exposed to more second-hand smoke from my parents as a child, than from any other source at any other time in my life. At no point do I consider that to be a result of poor parenting, or a lack of knowledge about second hand smoke. That is almost entirely "I am physically addicted to smoking, and when I crave a cigarette, I must have one" and if you're in a situation where you can't go elsewhere for a smoke (ie. that to do so you would have to leave your child unattended in a public place) well, I guess that just means your kid gets some second-hand death.

Maybe you should. I think it's poor parenting.

[devonin]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Maybe you should. I think it's poor parenting.

I'm not sure who is better equipped to judge the ability of my parents to raise children: Their child, or a random stranger who has never met them, but is prepared to judge them poor parents simply because they would smoke a cigarette within 20 feet of me.

[Dragula219]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

I'm not sure who is better equipped to judge the ability of my parents to raise children: Their child, or a random stranger who has never met them, but is prepared to judge them poor parents simply because they would smoke a cigarette within 20 feet of me.

I didn't say your parents were poor parents, I said it's poor parenting to smoke around your kids. I have no clue if your parents raised you well or not, but I think they made one mistake by exposing you to second hand smoke all the time. You can disagree with me there if you want, but I wanted you to not misinterpret what I said.