Why is secondhand smoke not considered a form of assault? (high school, states)
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.
Why should that decision be taken away from the business owners?
If the bar owner sees a local market for non smoking bar, then they are free to open a bar that does not allow smoking. If the bar owner decides that the target market of choosing wants tk relax with a smoke, the he too should be free to make it an essential part of their business.
Why would a nonsmoker who hates smoke go into a smoking bar? Why should the establishment be forced to cater them if it is a business of smoking... Would you go into a porn shop and demand they only carry regular movies because it offends you? Of course not.. Porn shop is in the business of porn just like a smoke shop or smoking bar is in the business of cigarettes and cigars.
Short answer.. Who are you to decide what is or is not essential to their business?
You said smoking is expected at a bar, with no qualifications. Many smoking bans do have exemptions for smoke shops. Since the number of smokers is shrinking, a bar owner who wanted to allow smoking would have to decide if turning off non-smokers would be worth it. The non-smokers would be less likely to go into a bar that allowed smoking. Smokers can go to a non-smoking bar and go outside to smoke, preferably not standing right next to the door.
Would you insist that your non-smoking friends go to a smoking bar with you?
Secondhand discussion aside, it doesn't fall under the legal definition of assault no more than pollution from a neighbor's car is considered assault.
Intent is an essential component of legal assault.
Raising a fist is not considered assault.
Raising a fist as if to cause harm with a clear verbal threat can be considered assault.
It is near impossible for laws to cater to everyone's views... everything is a compromise. So rather than argue over second hand smoke, I rather say "Talk to your representative and change the law then... good luck". Laws have already been passed to ban smoking indoors.... what else do you want?
I personally glad they don't allow smoking on planes, restaurants, work etc... I say this as a cigar smoker. However, I think the law reached too far when it also banned smoking in areas that smoking is expected as a part of business (example bars). If you cannot handle peanuts, don't work or enter into a place that handles peanuts... if you do not want to be around smoke, don't work nor enter into places that handles smoking.
I think there are far worse things in life to consider.... I am a long daily commute. My life has been threatened several times a week by cellphone users and tailgaters more so than someone's quick walk-by a smoking area.
Well said.
That being, people who finds it an assault might as well just stay in their four walls and buy their own oxygen tanks. All kinds of "assaults" are all around in our daily life once you step out the door if that's what it means.
Many smokers are like heroine users. I didn't realize this until we started taking people on our boat fishing and told them in advance they couldn't smoke because of an older gentleman (the guy footing the tab) couldn't be around it. People literally sucking on dry cigs and shaking like leaves trying to get their fix. They would run up the ramp when we docked and chain smoke. WTF.
Many smokers are like heroine users. I didn't realize this until we started taking people on our boat fishing and told them in advance they couldn't smoke because of an older gentleman (the guy footing the tab) couldn't be around it. People literally sucking on dry cigs and shaking like leaves trying to get their fix. They would run up the ramp when we docked and chain smoke. WTF.
That is for enjoyment? Help me out here.
Not unlike people who are starved for food will gorge themselves when they finally eat. That crave for smoking is similar to the need of eat to fill that hunger.
You said smoking is expected at a bar, with no qualifications. Many smoking bans do have exemptions for smoke shops. Since the number of smokers is shrinking, a bar owner who wanted to allow smoking would have to decide if turning off non-smokers would be worth it. The non-smokers would be less likely to go into a bar that allowed smoking. Smokers can go to a non-smoking bar and go outside to smoke, preferably not standing right next to the door.
Would you insist that your non-smoking friends go to a smoking bar with you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by usayit
However, I think the law reached too far when it also banned smoking in areas that smoking is expected as a part of business (example bars).
Expectations of goods and services are determined by the business proprietor. Now you just argue for the sake of arguing... Thats a sign of a failure to make a stance.
So pretty much will say what I have always said... Take it up with your rep.. And good luck.
Expectations of goods and services are determined by the business proprietor. Now you just argue for the sake of arguing... Thats a sign of a failure to make a stance.
So pretty much will say what I have always said... Take it up with your rep.. And good luck.
You are projecting your wish to have a place to smoke onto business proprietors. There are many more non-smokers than smokers. Restricting your clientele to smokers makes less economic sense as the number of smokers continues to shrink.
Because they're a child and their parents forced them. I remember my parents forcing me to go to smoking bars.
Parents should be responsible rather than expecting laws to do the parenting and common sense.
Also, smoking bars rarely have anything family oriented so I doubt what you say. I am not saying that the bars that are a part of a restaurant. If the business expects family and expect families who prefer non smoking for their children, the thr business is free to make non smoking a part of the expectations of service.
Parents forced kids to a strip club too? If so... Blame the strip club?
The point is that the parents should be responsible and the laws should not tell businesses what is or is not expected in their services.
Barking up the wrong tree... I think and support the idea that smoking should not be allowed in most indoor public areas but should be exceptions where the business owners decides that smoking is an expected service they wish to extend to their customers.
... and the laws should not tell businesses what is or is not expected in their services.
Poppycock.
Laws govern many aspects of business service. Should business owners be allowed to lock fire exits? Ignore safe food handling practices? Fail to collect sales and payroll taxes and pay them?
Services not safety regulations two different things. You are reaching...
Sti arguing for the sake of arguing eeh.. Go talk to your rep and good luck. You haven't even proposed a solution... Except offering an assault for smoking which is absolutely Poppycock.
As I said.. I think current laws are adequate and your judgment is clouded (seriously assault for smoking??) ... Laws made to impose parenting common sense and etc.. Always end up taking away people's freedom.
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.
