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.
I'd say it is well established that the government can regulate commercial establishments.
Broad word, broad claim. What do you mean by regulate? Now keep in mind, when you establish such, the government can not violate the constitution, more specifically the individual liberties of another.
Broad word, broad claim. What do you mean by regulate? Now keep in mind, when you establish such, the government can not violate the constitution, more specifically the individual liberties of another.
Well, I edited my statement - but as I said, the government can make drugs illegal, so I find it hard to believe they cannot regulate the consumption of it.
They can regulate - they can give out liquor licenses, they can make drugs illegal, they can say when and where you can consume drugs...
...Even if the Ohio supreme court were to say the governments in and of Ohio cannot regulate drugs, I'm pretty sure that ruling would never be adopted by a federal court... Indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court would really have to find that conclusion within the state constitution, not the federal constitution.
You have the right to choose not to breathe that air, not the right to never encounter it and have to choose. That is the problem with people.
When I have to enter a building -- like my recent trip to motor vehicle to surrender tags -- I had no choice but to walk through the cloud of smoke outside the door. The smokers, however, had a choice of many places they could smoke. This is a matter of courtesy. They can smoke all they wish in other places a little further from the doorway, but respect those who don't.
Quote:
What if I said I don't like you, the thought of seeing you made me physically ill, and you caused great distress on me when I did see you. Can I ban you from the public?
Unlike tobacco smoke, I do not cause cancer nor do I permeate the air with a malodorous scent. *sniff sniff* checking to be sure You could, however, get some sort of order of protection if I had done something to warrant you such distress, like stalking you or following you around with a fire extinguisher snuffing your ciggies.
Quote:
No, everyone loses. When you dictate freedom of choice, everyone loses because you disrespect the main concept of freedom. All you are doing is arguing a position for your own interest. You aren't concerned about others, you just want your interest to be mandated on others. That's a Win for you at the moment, a lose for those who you target, and a lose for you eventually because you start a ball rolling that will eventually run you over as well.
As opposed to being discriminated against and unable to enter places which are filled with smoke, rendering me physically unable to breathe, and in some circumstances, warranting a trip to the ER for treatments?
I have no choice when a smoker lights up and fills the air with smoke. I can't go to that establishment, can't visit that club, can't bowl with friends, can't shoot darts at the local watering hole. The smoker is exercising his or her freedom and dictating what another can or can't do. I am not for banning smoking, but for maintaining smokers lounges. I can breathe and my friends can have a smoke and best of all, we all can hang out at the same place. Compromise can work in this situation. If I were all about completely banning smoking, then you could suggest I am dictating freedom of choice.
Would you tell a person in a wheelchair who has fought for ramps that they are mandating their interest on others? What makes someone whose lungs are diseased any less worthy of clean air accessibility in a public place?
I could never convince my dad to quit smoking. A quadruple bypass and a partially clogged artery in his neck did the trick. The emphysema diagnosis keeps him honest. A few years ago we watched my father-in-law undergo the same procedures. We watched him gasping for air while he died a slow, miserable death. In my heart of hearts, I hope that the smokers who want to quit are able to find the strength to do so before they, too, are sickened like my dad and late father-in-law.
I looked at your site and that's the issue with figures that I have found; they are primarily given by anti-smoking campaigns and they do not source their cost data. Not saying these figures are incorrect but why don't they source their data? I wish there was a somewhat less biased source to get this information on because, in all honesty, I would like to know the real costs involved. I guess that's a problem with all issues these days, everyone is pushing an agenda and getting unsullied and non-biased data is nearly impossible these days.
NYSDOH is the source behind the data; this is one of the programs which, if I understood correctly, has been funded by money the states received from tobacco lawsuit settlements.
It would be nice to have a more in depth breakdown with sources, but for now this is the best the state has on line.
My thoughts exactly. Can't stand perfume, makes my eyes water and I start sneezing; if it's really strong, I break out in hives. But, I'll defend that person to bathe in perfume as much as I can't stand it and it causes me physical discomfort.
I agree on the perfume. The person a few rows away from me on the Southwest flight really poured it on. We hadn't taken off and I was getting a severe headache and became nauseated. We hadn't even left the terminal, but the plane was closed up and ready for the runway. I had to beg to be let out of my seat in order to use the toilet to throw up the contents of my stomach and then some.
Being sick delayed the flight from taking off, and as I walked back down the aisle to my seat, I was met by glares from my fellow passengers. If Jean Nate hadn't bathed in in gallons of eau de toilet, I wouldn't have gotten sick and the flight would have taken off as scheduled. What possesses people to pour on the perfume when they know they're going to be in close quarters?
The thing with all these laws and rules is that it highlights how ignorant and unable to regulate ourselves we actually are. If we WERE considerate and had manners and thought about others with a shred of logic we wouldn't have these problems. Alas...
I believe smokers should have the right to smoke (although I never would), so long as they are not affecting anyone else. What they do NOT have the right to do is pollute the air others have to breathe with massive toxins and carcinogens. That is tantamount to assault, and over the long term (like if you live with a smoker who smokes in the home), assault with a deadly weapon.
You are seriously comparing someone breathing in tobacco smoke as assault?
This is why I cannot take the positions of the anti-smoking movement seriously. You "assault" me every time you (or anyone else) drives a car. You "assault" me if you have a barbeque. You may even be assaulting me if you where too much cologne or deodorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
The key issue with any pollutant or substance that endangers health is usually the threshold. Parts per million for example. Second hand smoke has no such value that I'm aware of - but most laws that regulate smoking concern enclosed spaces.
Any smoke in your home that finds its way outside is unlikely have enough concentration to be judged harmful, right? A lot of that smoke ends up on your walls, lampshades and the floor.
You touched on a very good point. Tobacco smoke is not a magical substance, it is made up of mostly well understood chemical compounds which already have permissible levels of exposure. A sensible option would do away with the whole smoking ban nonsense and judge any potential health risks based on general indoor pollution regulations. As opposed to the same levels of a particulate matter becomes magically more harmful if it comes from a cigarette.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
I looked at your site and that's the issue with figures that I have found; they are primarily given by anti-smoking campaigns and they do not source their cost data. Not saying these figures are incorrect but why don't they source their data? I wish there was a somewhat less biased source to get this information on because, in all honesty, I would like to know the real costs involved. I guess that's a problem with all issues these days, everyone is pushing an agenda and getting unsullied and non-biased data is nearly impossible these days.
Usually they double dip as much as possible and don't include any economic benefit of tobacco. They don't include the economic benefit it has to tobacco farmers nor tobacco companies nor stores that sell tobacco nor government revenue. But they do include estimated loss of income from early death (usually significantly higher than the average income), loss of tax revenue (also usually significantly higher than the average income), increased absences from work (usually estimated and ignoring whether or not they are directed caused from smoking), effects of secondhand smoke, and cost of medical care for smokers (once again, usually not making a distinction on whether or not the illness was caused by smoking). They don't include less use of Medicare and Social Security in these estimates.
I smoke and agree that cigarette smoke,especially leftover stale smoke, stinks.
Not objectionable to everybody but certainly to most.
I often wonder what the level of objection would be if it was made to smell pleasant or even eliminated somehow.
The thing with all these laws and rules is that it highlights how ignorant and unable to regulate ourselves we actually are. If we WERE considerate and had manners and thought about others with a shred of logic we wouldn't have these problems. Alas...
I tend to think otherwise, that these laws and rules highlight governments inability to believe the private sector will do whats best for them, to the point that think our choices need legislated away.
This case struck my interest because we owned a family bar for years and we spent thousands of dollars installing air filtration systems so we could entertain both smoking, and non smoking customers. It made economic sense to do so because we wanted both customers in our establishment. Government comes along and takes away 1/2 of them by saying smokers not welcome and they wipe away the value of the investment we made in the filtration system.
I'd love to see a law which requires government to compensate the private sector for "taking" when they reduce the investment so many businesses make daily. It happens everyday in america and this is just a minor example. Car companies constantly spend tens if not hundreds of millions to re-retroffit their factories to comply with federal laws which change constantly. The government is choaking our businesses to non-existance while we sit here and moan about how we need more and more legislation.
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.
I used to agree but there is a competing and superior right, the right of workers to non-hazardous working conditions. And libertarians spare me the "if you don't like the working conditions find another job argument".
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.
You could, however, get some sort of order of protection if I had done something to warrant you such distress, like stalking you or following you around with a fire extinguisher snuffing your ciggies.
