Smoking, same rights as free speech?

[Doove]

[quote=China Doll;374399]
Back to my previous post, it's all about where the behavior of the individual harms innocent people the least.quote]

Damn, 23 posts it takes me and this chick says it all right here in one sentence.

[atlcomedy]

[quote=Doove;374751]

Originally Posted by China Doll

Back to my previous post, it's all about where the behavior of the individual harms innocent people the least.quote]

Damn, 23 posts it takes me and this chick says it all right here in one sentence.

No she doesn't get it either...

We, as a civilization, should not have to limit ourselves to the lowest common denominator of risky behavior.....

The "innocent people" have options. Don't eat there. Go to a different restaurant.

We shouldn't all have to accomodate poor Tushy because he has a medical condition....

And, geez, CD, given what you do for a living I'd think you'd have some appreciation for choice....

[China Doll]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

And, geez, CD, given what you do for a living I'd think you'd have some appreciation for choice....

Atl, please reread my post. My post was intended to be based on my opinion of why the ban is in place. It logically stands that if you believe that the government should not have the right to ban smoking, then you should be willing to give up certain similar protections. I personally am not willing to give those up, therefore I think the government should have the right. I also believe that there are different ways that it could have been handled, but that's not the topic, is it?

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by China Doll

Atl, please reread my post. My post was intended to be based on my opinion of why the ban is in place. It logically stands that if you believe that the government should not have the right to ban smoking, then you should be willing to give up certain similar protections. I personally am not willing to give those up, therefore I think the government should have the right. I also believe that there are different ways that it could have been handled, but that's not the topic, is it?

You talk in generalities.

1. Do you think you should be able to sell your body/sex for money in a private establishment? (Yes/No)

2. Do you think you (or others) should be able to allow others to smoke in their private place of business? (Yes/No)

[China Doll]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

You talk in generalities.

1. Do you think you should be able to sell your body/sex for money in a private establishment? (Yes/No)

2. Do you think you (or others) should be able to allow others to smoke in their private place of business? (Yes/No)

Yes and yes! Let me explain it a little better...I think it might be my fault after all that I'm not being clear. I know I can get a little wordy.

Do I think that businesses should be able to determine whether or not people can smoke in their establishment? Yes.

Do I think that the government should be able to supercede this? Yes.

Why? Because if the government didn't have this right, then the government also would not be able to protect me from other things.

I was addressing the question, "Does the government have the right?" instead of the question, "Should the government have done this?"

I think a better solution might have been to regulate the separation between smoking and nonsmoking sections.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

2. Do you think you (or others) should be able to allow others to smoke in their private place of business? (Yes/No)

One point that hasn't been mentioned is this. If a business owner is attempting to do the right thing - protect her customers and employees from the dangers (imagined or not) of 2nd hand smoke, is it fair that said business owner should actually lose business because of it to the guy across the street who doesn't care one way or the other.......but allows smoking only because it increases business?

Let me put it another way. 2 businesses are competing against one another. All else being equal, service, product quality etc, should a business owner be allowed to resort to gaining an edge over the well meaning guy across the street by subjecting his employees to 2nd hand smoke?

It's a very gray area, the whole thing. I think we've determined that. But if we're going to err, err on the side of caution.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Doove

One point that hasn't been mentioned is this. If a business owner is attempting to do the right thing - protect her customers and employees from the dangers (imagined or not) of 2nd hand smoke, is it fair that said business owner should actually lose business because of it to the guy across the street who doesn't care one way or the other.......but allows smoking only because it increases business?

Let me put it another way. 2 businesses are competing against one another. All else being equal, service, product quality etc, should a business owner be allowed to resort to gaining an edge over the well meaning guy across the street by subjecting his employees to 2nd hand smoke?

It's a very gray area, the whole thing. I think we've determined that. But if we're going to err, err on the side of caution.

See, I do read some of your gibberish

So now this is an employee argument? (and one that is currently playing out in the courts)

My POV is as long as the employees are given full disclosure it is their choice to apply or not, given the conditions.

Believe me a soldier or firefighter both incur greater risk of workplace peril than I do sitting in an office. Should we abolish high(er) risk professions?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by China Doll

Why? Because if the government didn't have this right, then the government also would not be able to protect me from other things.

Are you trying to say you don't want to be subjected to my masturbating next to you at a restaurant?

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Doove

Are you trying to say you don't want to be subjected to my masturbating next to you at a restaurant?

See Doove, that's funny. I'll laugh at that

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Doove

One point that hasn't been mentioned is this. If a business owner is attempting to do the right thing - protect her customers and employees from the dangers (imagined or not) of 2nd hand smoke, is it fair that said business owner should actually lose business because of it to the guy across the street who doesn't care one way or the other.......but allows smoking only because it increases business?

Bovine Feces! That makes no economic sense whatsoever. Oh wait, you are a liberal. Liberals don't understand economics or how market systems work.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

See, I do read some of your gibberish

And you even seem to have understood in on the first time through.

My POV is as long as the employees are given full disclosure it is their choice to apply or not, given the conditions.

Believe me a soldier or firefighter both incur greater risk of workplace peril than I do sitting in an office. Should we abolish high(er) risk professions?

If someone doesn't take an available job as a firefighter, i think they'd be forgiven. If they don't take an available job as a waitress, they're vilified for not paying their own way. Ironically enough, by the same people who are hiding behind the argument that they supposedly have a choice. That difference means your analogy question fails.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Bovine Feces! That makes no economic sense whatsoever. Oh wait, you are a liberal. Liberals don't understand economics or how market systems work.

To paraphrase: It doesn't fit in with my argument so it must not make sense.

[China Doll]

Originally Posted by Doove

Are you trying to say you don't want to be subjected to my masturbating next to you at a restaurant?

Doove, there is a time and place! Now I shall step off my throne to punish you.

[oden]

Originally Posted by Doove

One point that hasn't been mentioned is this. If a business owner is attempting to do the right thing - protect her customers and employees from the dangers (imagined or not) of 2nd hand smoke, is it fair that said business owner should actually lose business because of it to the guy across the street who doesn't care one way or the other.......but allows smoking only because it increases business?

Let me put it another way. 2 businesses are competing against one another. All else being equal, service, product quality etc, should a business owner be allowed to resort to gaining an edge over the well meaning guy across the street by subjecting his employees to 2nd hand smoke?

It's a very gray area, the whole thing. I think we've determined that. But if we're going to err, err on the side of caution.

Exactly, If your majority would do as you say the the minority business would go broke. But if there were people that would want to frequent them in sufficient numbers then they wouldn't.I know when the bartender of my favorite bar is a smoker and I don't go in because she draws other smokers.They loose my money on those days. I also know the bartender that pours the best drinks and wears the sexy clothes and doesn't smoke,she and the establishment get more money. It's called capitalism and I think we need more of it not less.

[Ansley]

Originally Posted by Doove

And you even seem to have understood in on the first time through.

If someone doesn't take an available job as a firefighter, i think they'd be forgiven. If they don't take an available job as a waitress, they're vilified for not paying their own way. Ironically enough, by the same people who are hiding behind the argument that they supposedly have a choice. That difference means your analogy question fails.

So the person gets a job in the bar or restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. In Atlanta there are a lot more public places that don't allow smoking. It shouldn't be that hard to find a job in a non smoking atmosphere.