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.
that is the problem with states, always trying to legislate a legal substance.
States legislate all kinds of legal substances and activities. Why should smokers be above regulation? Does tobacco impart some magical angelic quality to smokers that makes them special? 'Cause I gotta tell you, I'm not seeing it. Seriously.
States legislate all kinds of legal substances and activities. Why should smokers be above regulation? Does tobacco impart some magical angelic quality to smokers that makes them special? 'Cause I gotta tell you, I'm not seeing it. Seriously.
look, I am saying that legislating a private business while trying to get them to go out of business is not a good thing.
if an employee does not want to work at a place that allows smoking, then they have the choice of not working there.
it is none of the state business to be making laws against smokers just because they want to smoke in an establishment that does not mind them smoking there.
How many say stupidity was the cause of death? Yet many people die from stupid acts (including smoking). But you will never see that on a death certificate.
Nice try.
then all you have is extimates. they say 2nd hand smoke kills, but it never will be on a death certificate.
cant you see? you are still discriminating against smokers. you are telling them that they cannot enjoy their legal habit. would you rather have your taxes go up by 10%-30% instead of having smokers in your state?
I'm afraid you're wasting your breath. So long as it's "legal," it's not discrimination. :roll eyes:
Of course, that presupposes that all laws are just and fair and that they never need to be changed. Just as there can be order without law, there can also be discrimination WITH the law.
It reminds me of the days when sodomy was illegal. It was applied to everyone, gay and straight, but it was finally determined to be discrimination against gay's because without anal or oral sex, they had no legal sex life at all.
I'm afraid you're wasting your breath. So long as it's "legal," it's not discrimination. :roll eyes:
Of course, that presupposes that all laws are just and fair and that they never need to be changed. Just as there can be order without law, there can also be discrimination WITH the law.
It reminds me of the days when sodomy was illegal. It was applied to everyone, gay and straight, but it was finally determined to be discrimination against gay's because without anal or oral sex, they had no legal sex life at all.
you can roll your eyes all you want. according the Constitution, which has always favored the people over the state or the central goverment, the 10th Amendment would be the one to use in this case.
I am a smoker, but I totally understand the not smoking laws. There have been lots of hotel fires, and second hand smoke kills. I have always been a respectful smoker. I just wish the folks would be as radical about drinking, because alcohol kills too.
For most deaths, this would mean the deceased person was a smoker. It could also be used if a nonsmoker who lived with a smoker died of a condition that could be caused by second hand smoke.
"Despite the significant economic recession of 2008, the study found the hospitality industry to be the most economically successful industry in the smoke-free cities. Employment in the industry remained high and overall there were no significant differences in economic trends between those with and without smoke-free ordinances.
'Today’s study coupled with state data showing widespread compliance with the new law is encouraging. It shows the law is working to protect workers from the serious health effects of secondhand smoke exposure while still enabling businesses to adapt and thrive,' said Sumi. 'Wisconsin really is better smoke-free.' ”
you can roll your eyes all you want. according the Constitution, which has always favored the people over the state or the central goverment, the 10th Amendment would be the one to use in this case.
The tenth amendment actually gives the states the authority to regulate smoking.
What about housing units that won't rent to smokers, even if you smoke outside 100% of the time? I'm not saying they don't have that right, but since you asked for an example - there's one.
I had a landlord once who only listed it as a non-smoking house, which I was more than happy to abide by... then he saw my roommate ad (after I'd moved into the house) stating that I was an outdoor smoker, and called me to say "if I'd known you were a smoker, I'd never have rented to you!" I assured him there would never be any smoking inside, and did keep to that promise for the 3+ years I lived there.
That's hilarious........a smoker living in a non-smoking building............and actually obeying that rule...................HAHAHAHAHA.
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.
