Second Hand Smoke

[-Sleepless-]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

It is proper to ban In public places.

Restuarants, private businesses, etc. usually have a smoking/non-smoking section, or workers smoke outside. Therefore, they are not ignoring everyone's health, but they are not going to give up there freedom of being able to smoke.

Everyone in my family smokes. I just ask them to go outside when they do it, because unlike guido said, it's not my choice to live there. I can't just run away cause they smoke. They respect my boundaries so they do it outside. I don't ask them to completely stop smoking. Because to alot of people it reduces stress.

[Sir_Thomas]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

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.

If you try to argue lowering the quality of ones health is not a breach of the 14th Amendment, which
would be odd if you did... Im sure I could pull up plently of 14th Amendment cases that will prove it is.

Even, if someone owns a business, he still has to abide by, and follow the guidelines of the constitution. You cannot say "Well if we are infringing
on your rights then leave."



You wonder why I compared blacks and Jim Crowe laws to this?
What I stated above is exactly why. Owners of the establishments could argue the SAME THING.
They could say "This is my business, I am allowed to refuse to do business with people if I want."

This is why I was using blacks being banned from establishments as an example...

Blacks 5th amendments rights were being breached for being banned from establishments based on their color.
Citizens 14th amendmend rights are being violated by allowing second hand smoke to degrade someones health.

In both cases although the owners could argue that they are allowed to run their businesses how they like, both involve allowing a breach in constitutional rights... Private businesses are not allowed to ignore
the laws.


Thats why this debate can only come down to one thing. Whether or not second hand is a breach of 14 amendment rights.

[Dragula219]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

If you try to argue lowering the quality of ones health is not a breach of the 14th Amendment, which
would be odd if you did... Im sure I could pull up plently of 14th Amendment cases that will prove it is.

Even, if someone owns a business, he still has to abide by, and follow the guidelines of the constitution. You cannot say "Well if we are infringing
on your rights then leave."



You wonder why I compared blacks and Jim Crowe laws to this?
What I stated above is exactly why. Owners of the establishments could argue the SAME THING.
They could say "This is my business, I am allowed to refuse to do business with people if I want."

This is why I was using blacks being banned from establishments as an example...

Blacks 5th amendments rights were being breached for being banned from establishments based on their color.
Citizens 14th amendmend rights are being violated by allowing second hand smoke to degrade someones health.

In both cases although the owners could argue that they are allowed to run their businesses how they like, both involve allowing a breach in constitutional rights... Private businesses are not allowed to ignore
the laws.


Thats why this debate can only come down to one thing. Whether or not second hand is a breach of 14 amendment rights.

You're still avoiding the point. No one is forcing you to go to a business that allows smoking, so it's not infringing on anyones rights. If you go to a bar that allows smoking, you can't say someone is infringing on your rights, because you choose to be exposed to second hand smoke. I still can't believe you're comparing Jim Crowe laws to letting businesses allow smoking, it's really the opposite. It would be more correct to compare it to somthing like this "This restaurant has food that gives you diarrhea. If you don't like that, you don't have to come."

This will be my last post in this thread if you say the same argument again.

[Killer90_angel_Cat]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

If you go to restruants that allow smoking then you are a freaking moron.... so why are you all complaining? if you go there it's your choice no one elses..... you can choose to go somewhere else even it's your FAVEORITE place you don't have to go there because your family or friends go there every weekend or whatever

[gnr61]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Yes. Clearly people who would voluntarily be in the same general area as someone who smokes is a "freaking moron." Well put.

As it has been stated before (and not quite as articulately by Killer90_angel_Cat), it is silly to argue that allowing smoking in private businesses infringes on anyone's rights. It does -no harm- to anyone to allow smoking there, because anyone who does not want to be harmed by second hand smoke can invoke their right to NOT GO TO THAT PLACE. Since they are there voluntarily, they give up any right not to be harmed by second hand smoke.

Although this is getting a bit redundant. I really don't know how there can even be a debate about this. It's pretty set-in-stone.

[banditcom]

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.

Oh how I'd love to go to a bar that makes everyone smoke outside... No more having to take a shower after you get home.


Also, they have a ban on drinking in public. I can't walk the streets and drink, so why should smokers make every non-smoker completely miserable? :S No drinking outside, only inside. How much of a stretch is it to say no smoking inside, only outside?

[lord_carbo]

Re: Second Hand Smoke

Oh how I'd love to go to a bar that makes everyone smoke outside... No more having to take a shower after you get home.

Or, you know, don't go to a bar.

The bar market obviously attracts to smokers and people who would go to bars regardless of there being smokers, so in that sense, it's good business sense to allow smoking in bars. Would not allowing smoking improve the quality? Perhaps, but then it would be good business sense to disallow it in their bar. If you can't find a bar in your area that doesn't disallow smokers, well, then you're in the wrong crowd. The few in the bar scene who cannot tolerate smoking are removed for it is an unfavorable trait (via natural selection), so thus smoking is part of it.

It's a package deal. Smoking goes with bars. It's like walking into Hot Topic and wanting to hear Kenny G on the corporate radio. Yeah, I'm sure most of the HT people would still go there if they played Kenny G on the corporate radio, seeing as this is a less drastic example, but it's like a slice down the wrist for those people (literally, not sparing any emo jokes) -- it's part of the package for the majority.

I'm sure you would love to smoke at a bar that doesn't allow smokers. And if a lot of people did, I'm sure it would be good business to have a bar which bans them in your area.