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

[NYrules]

Originally Posted by Drover

Just as I'd never deliberately go to any establishment that freely allows people to puke on the floor, you had the choice to not go to an establishment that freely allows people to smoke. As for the idea that people were blowing smoke directly in your face, you mean to tell me you couldn't find one single establishment that had segregated smoking and non-smoking sections? Never was a problem for me or for most other non-smokers who got along just fine in the non-smoking sections.

Some of these arguments are just silly.

Some of the places are great, Chili's, Bakers Square, Texas Roadhouse, etc. but others; Outback, bars around Orland (where I live), as well as numerous other restaurants in town would either locate the smoking section right in the middle of the restaurant or put it on one side of an aisle and set the non-smokers on the other. Now seriously, what are the chances in that case that the smoke will float over into the non-smoking area? PRETTY DARN GOOD!

Next which was actually the main reason for this law to be enacted in the first place is how about the people that have to work in a smokey restaurant? What are you supposed to do? Tell your boss, "I can't work the smoking section tonight" Guess what you will be told... Did you guess, "clean out your locker..."? I had to work years ago at Outback in Orland Park as a server and it was AWEFUL. Also I wasn't the only one that thought so. The pay was decent so I put up with it as well as the rest of us, but every night I would come home wreaking of smoke and coughing my head off. Other employees that would work the smoking section for the night would have a similar situation and some developed breathing problems. Now we could have worked somewhere else of course, but the money was good. Now we were in there to serve FOOD, not cigarettes of which was what many other people were in there for (eatting) not to smoke. This is what is apparently being overlooked here. You go to a restaurant to eat, not smoke, or inhale someone else's cigarettes. If you want to smoke then do it outside or in your house or car. Why should you have the right to go out and litterally poision an establishment's employees as well as their NON smoking patrons who value their health? What constitutional right do you have to kill someone else? The non-smoker has just as much right to visit an establishment as a smoker and to be fair to the establishment it should allow you all to do what you are there for. Not smoke, puke on the floor, take a dump in your booth, shout obsenities, etc. But enjoy a good meal without being made sick.

[boris63]

Originally Posted by NYrules

Now we could have worked somewhere else of course, but the money was good.

That's exactly the point. You could've worked somewhere else. You had the choice. You chose to put up with the smoke and make more money, just as if, for example, a construction worker may take a somewhat dangerous job because it pays well.

You weigh the risks vs. the rewards and make your decision accordingly. You can't have it both ways.

When you own the business you make the rules. if you're an employee you either abide by the rules, or find a job somewhere else. You might not like it, but that's how it works.

[Drover]

So NYRules, your complaints are basically as follows:

1) You actually did have choices, but that wasn't good enough for you, you wanted ALL restaurants to be forced to cater to your preference;

2) You didn't have to work at Outback and you eventually left, but those who work there now are too stupid or lazy or whatever to do the same thing. There were countless non-smoking employers across the state before this stupid ban was passed. People had plenty of opportunities to work in a non-smoking environment. Some chose not to.

Again, highly tenuous arguments, to put it politely.

[NYrules]

Originally Posted by Drover

So NYRules, your complaints are basically as follows:

1) You actually did have choices, but that wasn't good enough for you, you wanted ALL restaurants to be forced to cater to your preference;

2) You didn't have to work at Outback and you eventually left, but those who work there now are too stupid or lazy or whatever to do the same thing. There were countless non-smoking employers across the state before this stupid ban was passed. People had plenty of opportunities to work in a non-smoking environment. Some chose not to.

Again, highly tenuous arguments, to put it politely.

Well here is another way to look at this for you... You are saying it is one's right to go out to lets say a casino boat and smoke right? Now, that person is there to??? Gamble or smoke? Now the smoker feels it's his/her right to sit there and smoke, but on the other side of the coin isn't it my right to go to the same boat and breathe clean smoke free air? This is the case of wanting to work at Outback. Wasn't it my right to be able to work in an area that wasn't endangering my health? I GIVE THAT A BIG FAT YES and sorry apparently so does the government. So all this whinning and complaining about the ban is a waste of time. It is not going to get removed. The good outweighs the bad here and for the 30% or so of the population that is still smoking, they will die off soon enough so the government is not going to cater to the select few instead of pleasing the majority. SORRY.

[Drover]

You're missing the obvious point staring us right in the face: it's neither the smoker's right to demand the right to smoke on someone else's private property; nor is it the non-smoker's right to demand that nobody be allowed to smoke on someone else's private property. That is the property owner's decision to make.

[boris63]

This may be somewhat off topic, but I guess it's all what you believe is the proper role of government. Either to force the will of the majority on everyone, or to protect the rights of each individual.

While our system of government is set up so we can democratically elect representatives, it never was meant to be a pure democracy(in other words: mob rule) The founders were well aware of the dangers of pure democracy and gave us a constitution designed to protect individual rights even against the will of the majority(ever heard the phrase: tyranny of the majority?)

Unfortunately our government keeps drifting further and further from the intent of the constitution, and we are losing our liberty at a rapid pace. Until people wake up, realize this, and do something about it, we're gonna keep getting a lot of unjust laws shoved down our throats.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the results" - Ben Franklin

[SloopyJ]

Originally Posted by Drover

You're missing the obvious point staring us right in the face: it's neither the smoker's right to demand the right to smoke on someone else's private property; nor is it the non-smoker's right to demand that nobody be allowed to smoke on someone else's private property. That is the property owner's decision to make.

This is a rational argument, but one of the principal responsiblities of governments is to intervene when private markets fail to promote the public good. This is true in many cases - discriminatory practices, public safety, and public health. It is apparent that equilibrium in the private market was largely to accommodate smokers. That does not mean, however, that this represented the greatest public good, and government certainly had a right - perhaps even a responsibility - to intervene.

When a government makes such a decision, if it's doing its job, it will consider the consequences. In this case, the primary consequence is that smokers have to step outside to smoke. (No, it's not a resounding loss of liberty or personal freedom. It's just a request to avoid imposing one's unhealthy habit on others in a closed environment.) Quite clearly, the consequence in this case overwhelmingly justifies the public good.

[illini84]

Originally Posted by Drover

You're missing the obvious point staring us right in the face: it's neither the smoker's right to demand the right to smoke on someone else's private property; nor is it the non-smoker's right to demand that nobody be allowed to smoke on someone else's private property. That is the property owner's decision to make.

A bar/restaurant is not exactly the same type of private property that a person's home is. Bars and restaurants are subject to Health Code Inspections--if they don't meet these government-regulated requirements, they will be fined or shut down. Are you saying the government shouldn't interfere with the cleanliness of the business owner's place? "Hey, if the business owner wants to run the restaurant filthy dirty, let him! That's his choice! If people don't want to go there, they can go somewhere else!" That's parallel to the argument you're making against the smoking ban.

Also, guess what? A bar/restaurant's liquor license comes from the government. And those outdoor cafes that everyone likes? Guess what--those are actually on the public right-of-way and are City-regulated too. A business owner doesn't have very much freedom, in reality. But hey, if you don't like to abide by the government's regulations, DON'T BE A BUSINESS OWNER!

[boris63]

Originally Posted by SloopyJ

This is a rational argument, but one of the principal responsiblities of governments is to intervene when private markets fail to promote the public good. This is true in many cases - discriminatory practices, public safety, and public health. It is apparent that equilibrium in the private market was largely to accommodate smokers. That does not mean, however, that this represented the greatest public good, and government certainly had a right - perhaps even a responsibility - to intervene.

When a government makes such a decision, if it's doing its job, it will consider the consequences. In this case, the primary consequence is that smokers have to step outside to smoke. (No, it's not a resounding loss of liberty or personal freedom. It's just a request to avoid imposing one's unhealthy habit on others in a closed environment.) Quite clearly, the consequence in this case overwhelmingly justifies the public good.

I STRONGLY disagree. The legitamate role of government, at least as it was founded in the U.S. was to protect individual rights. Perhaps in a socialist, or fascist country what you are saying would be the rule of law, but In a free country, there should be a free market.

The government is way overstepping it's authority in this case by violating property rights. Property rights are just as fundamental to freedom as the right to free speech, religion, bear arms, etc...

Anyone that dosn't understand that dosn't understand what it means to be free.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by illini84

Also, guess what? A bar/restaurant's liquor license comes from the government. And those outdoor cafes that everyone likes? Guess what--those are actually on the public right-of-way and are City-regulated too. A business owner doesn't have very much freedom, in reality. But hey, if you don't like to abide by the government's regulations, DON'T BE A BUSINESS OWNER!

There's an entire political philosophy built around the premise that government has total dominion over business and business owners can take it or leave it. It's called fascism. It doesn't take long for militant smoking banners to show their true colors, but eventually they do. It's not an accident that I choose the phrase "Smoke Nazi." Ultimately, there's no arguing against people who are willing to surrender this much power to the state. One just hopes it never gets to the point where it becomes necessary to take up arms against them.