Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The link is about utilizing nicotine via nicotine patch. The only mention of smoking was a brief blurb about schizophrenic's EEGs normalizing briefly after smoking. In no way was the article justification for using tobacco -- only nicotine delivered via patch.
I'll say it again - the info is easily found, if you WANT to find it. I was in the middle of a busy work day when I wrote that post, and didn't have time to drill down very deep to make my point. It doesn't make the point any less valid. If you're genuinely interested, you'll find the information pretty easily. But smoking is icky, and you're not interested, and we all know it.
I'll say it again - the info is easily found, if you WANT to find it. I was in the middle of a busy work day when I wrote that post, and didn't have time to drill down very deep to make my point. It doesn't make the point any less valid. If you're genuinely interested, you'll find the information pretty easily. But smoking is icky, and you're not interested, and we all know it.
Being subjected to a room full of second hand smoke (whether a patron or an employee) is not a medical tobacco use. The smoking ban at the heart of this thread is about smoking and violating property rights.
Smoke away peeps.
When smoking causes breathing impaired individuals to not be able to utilize or patronize establishments, the owners have crossed the line into discrimination.
Yeah, that one went WAY over your head. That's what you get for replying to someone that wasn't talking to you in the first place.
I think we all await with bated breath to hear what magical health benefits cigarettes have... Surely you could substitute one of your hourly smoke breaks with a little propounding?
I own numerous businesses and can honestly say, I dont think any of them require a license.
Internet company.. Nope
Investment company. Nope, only need a license if I invest money for others
Real etate trust company. Nope, no license for that either
I had a hotel and bar which we sold last week, needed a license for the bar, but none for the hotel. An occupancy license isnt the same.
Didnt need one for my football franchise I owned several years ago either.
There are all sorts of licenses - anyone establishing a business in my city has to get a business tax license within 45 days.
COLUMBUS – The Supreme Court of Ohio today agreed to become the first state supreme court in the nation to determine whether a statewide smoking ban violates bar owners’ property rights. The Court also agreed to review whether the Ohio Department of Health has consistently exceeded its authority in fining business owners under the ban.
Its about time that some serious legal challenges are enacted to begin an aggressive challenge to severely limit the "Big Nose Of The Gobbermint" from intruding on our personal rights and freedoms !!!
Smoke em if ya got em ! ... I will smoke a very large cigar at the golf course this Saturday just for you !!!
Time to get that "Big Nose" out of the American Citizens Business" ! Smokers have rights too y'all !
Its about time that some serious legal challenges are enacted to begin an aggressive challenge to severely limit the "Big Nose Of The Gobbermint" from intruding on our personal rights and freedoms !!!
This group funds their challenges by donations alone, so if you want to help out, contribute to the law firms expenses.
Employees who must leave their jobs due to an allergy or hypersensitivity to tobacco smoke may be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Employees who quit due to exposure to tobacco smoke have "good cause" to quit, and are therefore eligible for benefits (Alexander v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 1980; McCrocklin v. Employment Development Department, 1984; Lapham v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1987).
Conversely, as an employer I can not discriminate against a potential employee because they smoke, but my clients can request their job site remain smoke free. My office is smoke free because of my medical problems. I am allowed to tell my employees they may not smoke in company vehicles. I've had to throw subs off job sites because they ignored a homeowner's request that there be no smoking in their house.
I understand smoking is an addiction and I am not trying to take anyone's cigarettes away, I ask that smokers respect that there are those of us who physically can not tolerate smoke. (Have you ever been in an ER for breathing treatments on a Saturday night while your friends were out dancing?) If you read some of my earlier posts, I am more about compromise than an outright ban. I believe the bar owner should have some right to determine what goes on as long as they own the premises. If not, the property owner should have some sort of a say.
Back when they had smoking rooms in various establishments, it was great for people in my position as well as smokers and bar owners. Non smokers could come in and buy drinks, smokers could remain on premises and continue to buy drinks and smoke in comfort while the non smokers could drink and breathe in comfort.
Having read through these pages, I will lean toward the van being a violation of property rights, but feel that there has to be some sort of middle ground for both smokers and non alike.
Though I don't smoke, I've always been against government smoking bans on private property. Many businesses were already going smoke free of the owner's choice based upon customers wishes. Plus these no smoking in the work place seems to be selective. Movies and television shows seem to be exempt even though in parts of California you can't smoke on beaches, parks, sidewalks, etc. Wonder of those smoking bans also includes state governors' offices, White House, and Congress.
I don't smoke and I abhor the habit. However on private property the government shouldn't tell a business owner if they can allow smoking or not. Now on public property, that's a different story. But private property should be left to the discretion of the owner.
Controlling public air means controlling everything that could potentially release harmful gases into the "public air". This includes the air we exhale and the gases we release out the other end since they are "greenhouse gases".
The air you breath out is naturally produced. The air coming from the exhaust of the coal plant aren't, particularly when there are alternative sources of energy, not alternative sources of breathing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
Is a smoking ban, a violation of property rights?
Absolutely! Government has no right to tell business owners what people can eat,drink or smoke in their establishments.
And Government has no right to tell me what I can eat, drink or smoke.
Actually, the government can issue advisories all day long. Most people have a problem when they enact laws telling you what you can eat, drink, or smoke. Most people would agree for you--except when it becomes a matter of health, like forcing food recalls and product testing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
I disagree. The air inside a busines does NOT belong to the gov't.
NO ONE is FORCED to go into a private business.
No, no one is forced to go into a private business, but business that accommodate the public are held to a higher standard, than say, a GM Auto factory. Hotels, restaurants, bars, etc, were all covered under anti-discrimination laws in the '65 Civil Rights act. Same reasoning can be applied here and more so, especially considering that the smoking isn't banned because of patrons, but often because it's seen as a hazardous material by OSHA, and it protects the workers of these establishments.
Workers, mind you, whom are often young and naive.
EDIT: Also, smoking bans show increase, not decrease, in business. If no one has mentioned that yet.
The air you breath out is naturally produced. The air coming from the exhaust of the coal plant aren't, particularly when there are alternative sources of energy, not alternative sources of breathing.
Actually, the government can issue advisories all day long. Most people have a problem when they enact laws telling you what you can eat, drink, or smoke. Most people would agree for you--except when it becomes a matter of health, like forcing food recalls and product testing.
No, no one is forced to go into a private business, but business that accommodate the public are held to a higher standard, than say, a GM Auto factory. Hotels, restaurants, bars, etc, were all covered under anti-discrimination laws in the '65 Civil Rights act. Same reasoning can be applied here and more so, especially considering that the smoking isn't banned because of patrons, but often because it's seen as a hazardous material by OSHA, and it protects the workers of these establishments.
Workers, mind you, whom are often young and naive.
EDIT: Also, smoking bans show increase, not decrease, in business. If no one has mentioned that yet.
I was reading a NYT article from when NYC enacted it's smoking ban. The statistics show an increase, however restaurant and bar business were lumped together. Bar owners (with no attached restaurant) saw a decrease in business because the smokers, who would normally hang out inside smoking, drinking and talking, were now going outside to smoke. The bar owners could not serve drinks outside so they lost a number of sales whenever a smoker went out to light up.
Restaurants, on the other hand, saw a very good increase.
PS -- I don't smoke, can't smoke, never smoked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Mind Yer Own Dang Business Thar Mr. Gobbermint" ... Quite !
On The Money ! 
