Petitioning for the Repeal of the Smoking Ban (jobs, health)

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by boris63

Some people just don't get it, and never will. It's like trying to reason with a brick wall.

Maybe someday when the government bans something that you enjoy, maybe you will understand. I hope that day never happens. I want people like you to be free to enjoy whatever makes you happy, as much as I want smokers and business owners to have that right.

Of course as long as there are people like you that believe they have the right to force what they prefer on everyone else. That day is probably not far away.

Let me give you a couple of area where various government entities are doing what you suggest:

New York City - Banning "trans fats" - gotta keep people healthy

San Fransciso - Taxing up the wazzoo - and trying to ban, any soft drink with sugar in it -

Etc

It is nothing more than social engineering at work -

And, Social engineering is nothing more than reducing freedoms you have

But, it is only one little bitty bit at a time - they are hoping you won't notice it -

Or, they use the tear jerker phrase "its for our children"

[Inthesprawlpath]

Originally Posted by illini84

I used to work for the City government in a professional, office position. Several of my co-workers would go outside once every hour or two to smoke a cigarette, which took 5 or 10 minutes. No one EVER said anything. It used to really p*ss me off...I had to keep working at my desk, while they screwed around smoking outside. I figured up the time they spent smoking once and it came out to almost 45 minutes each day. Do the math and you'll see that (based on what I saw firsthand) smokers are actually working 36-hour weeks while the rest of us are working 40-hour weeks. And we're getting paid the same! We non-smokers should get to come in at noon on Fridays to make up for the difference

That was a government job.It's hard to tell when they are working or not anyway.

[boris63]

Originally Posted by Greatday

Let me give you a couple of area where various government entities are doing what you suggest:

New York City - Banning "trans fats" - gotta keep people healthy

San Fransciso - Taxing up the wazzoo - and trying to ban, any soft drink with sugar in it -

Etc

It is nothing more than social engineering at work -

And, Social engineering is nothing more than reducing freedoms you have

But, it is only one little bitty bit at a time - they are hoping you won't notice it -

Or, they use the tear jerker phrase "its for our children"

That's absolutely true!

People don't realize that if they support government having the power to ban things they don't like(i.e. smoking), that government can also claim that same power to ban something that they do like(i.e. fatty burgers, soft drinks, etc...)

The question is should we be allowed to make our own decisions, or should the government be allowed to make them for us.

It's frightening to me that here in "the land of the free", so many people oppose allowing people to make their own decisions about how to live their own life.

So much for the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness"

[boris63]

Originally Posted by Greatday

"they are hoping you won't notice it"

I've been noticing it for some time. I hope more people will wake up and start noticing.

[illini84]

It's not necessarily about freedom of choice. If that's the case, why not legalize marijuana and allow people to smoke it in public places? The smoking ban is meant to actually give non-smokers the freedom of going out in public without having to breathe it. After all, we're the ones who've made the smart choice not to smoke in the first place, so why should our health suffer because of all the ignorant people puffing away around us?

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by illini84

It's not necessarily about freedom of choice. If that's the case, why not legalize marijuana and allow people to smoke it in public places? The smoking ban is meant to actually give non-smokers the freedom of going out in public without having to breathe it. After all, we're the ones who've made the smart choice not to smoke in the first place, so why should our health suffer because of all the ignorant people puffing away around us?

If a resturant (a private business) chooses to allow smoking, and they make this clear to potential patrons, those patrons have the every right to refuse to patronize that resturant.

Each side maintains their freedoms

[illini84]

Originally Posted by Greatday

If a resturant (a private business) chooses to allow smoking, and they make this clear to potential patrons, those patrons have the every right to refuse to patronize that resturant.

Each side maintains their freedoms

Sure, I see your point, but I think the government is simply taking an appropriate step to protect its citizens' health and well-being. How about all of your immediate neighbors put toxic landfills in their backyards? They are rightful property owners, so they should have the right to choose what they want in their backyards. After all, if you don't like toxic landfills, go somewhere else!

[Katiana]

This issue has been discussued on Pennsylvania, Indiana and Minnesota (that I know of). IMO, the issue is the health of the employees, not the patrons. I would agree that 1 -2 hrs of exposure to a small amt of second hand smoke is not dangerous to one's health (as in the case of a customer). 40 hrs per week, in the case of an employee, is a different story. I think it is a public health issue, and not a "rights" issue.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by illini84

Sure, I see your point, but I think the government is simply taking an appropriate step to protect its citizens' health and well-being.

And, what is next? Banning sales of soda in the city? Don't laugh - one city is now trying this.

Or, banning all deep fried foods? Again, don't laugh

And guess what - all based on "citizens health"

No, it is social engineering - pure and simple

Let the marketplace decide - make the business identify if they allow smoking. If you don't want to go there - don't. Get the business in the pocketbook. If the business loses money because of their decision, they might just change that decision.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by pittnurse70

This issue has been discussued on Pennsylvania, Indiana and Minnesota (that I know of). IMO, the issue is the health of the employees, not the patrons. I would agree that 1 -2 hrs of exposure to a small amt of second hand smoke is not dangerous to one's health (as in the case of a customer). 40 hrs per week, in the case of an employee, is a different story. I think it is a public health issue, and not a "rights" issue.

Again, leave it up to the employee. "Potential employee, we allow smoking here. You will be exposed to smoking. Do you want the job or not"?