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 could get a job working at a restaurant tomorrow.
The place in question, is a restaurant, and there are lots of those in Detroit.
Sure, there's an outside possibility that someone running a restuarant would overlook your shortcomings and possibly pick you out of a pool of applicants to work for minimum wage for 20 hours a week to wash the dishes and haul the trash out to the dumpster.
But you wouldn't last the week. You would be fired just as soon as you were caught sneaking offsite every 15 minutes for yet another unauthorized smoking break.
It's obvious that you don't realize that the better paying jobs in the Detroit restuarants and bars are hard to come by, but then I'd wager you're not qualified to cook or wait tables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Trust me, I've lived there.
But you DON'T live here now. Now why is that, I wonder?
Bottom line...you place your need to have a smoke within the next 30 minutes or an hour over the right of the restuarant workers to have a safer workplace.
Wrong. I place my need on what is fair for everyone over my own selfish needs. I don't smoke, I have never smoked, I don't like the smell of people smoking. If people want a closed environment where they can smoke with their friends, and enjoy a meal at the same time, I don't see where serving food endangers the employees, but if they did not serve food, their workplace would be safe. You might like to explain that to me.
I have never made a statement in this thread in which I advocated a situation that would conform with what I personally would wish to avail myself of. But you constantly do. Personally, I'd like it if nobody smoked. But I do not demand laws to force people to conform with everything I want.
In other words, Bottom Line, MY need does not enter at all into my argument.
Wrong. I place my need on what is fair for everyone over my own selfish needs. I don't smoke, I have never smoked, I don't like the smell of people smoking. If people want a closed environment where they can smoke with their friends, and enjoy a meal at the same time,I don't see where serving food endangers the employees, but if they did not serve food, their workplace would be safe. You might like to explain that to me.
You stated back on post #16 in this thread that "a smoking environment is not conducive to good health". In your most recent post you state that "I don't see where serving food endangers the employees, but if they did not serve food, their workplace would be safe".I trust that you would concede that serving food, or drinks, or most any other activity performed in a smoking environment is not conducive to good health.
Basically, my argument boils down to a recognition of competing rights, the right of a smoker to smoke whenever and whereever he so chooses versus the right of a restaurant employee to have a workplace free of airborne carcinogens (aka second hand smoke) which demostratably has an adverse effect upon the health of the employee.
I've said it before in this thread, there are no unlimited rights. You can drink and you can drive, but you can't drive drunk. You can yell fire all you want, but not in a crowded theater. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but not nuclear arms. In certain narrowly defined situations the rights of the group temporarily outweigh the rights of the individual.
In this debate, I unequivocally state that the right of the employees to a safe workplace supercedes the right of the smokers to smoke whenever and where ever they wish.
If you believe otherwise, then you'll have to explain to me why the temporary postponement of a smoker's nicotine fix trumps the truncation of a restaurant worker's life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
I have never made a statement in this thread in which I advocated a situation that would conform with what I personally would wish to avail myself of. But you constantly do. Personally, I'd like it if nobody smoked. But I do not demand laws to force people to conform with everything I want.
Point made...you don't smoke. Nearly all people that I encountered in real life who are against the Michigan Restaurant smoking ban are smokers and are vehemently opposed to the ban. From your reaction to my arguments I mistakenly included you in that group. On this point please accept my appology.
But also understand, you do me a disservice when you state that I want to force people to conform with everything I want. I am only discussing one particular item - please don't assume any more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
In other words, Bottom Line, MY need does not enter at all into my argument.
NOBODY WANTS THAT. Argue the points. You are arguing with nobody.
So you concede that smoking rights aren't absolute.
Along with you conceding that a smoking environment is not conductive to good health, that's two of my three points of my premise that you agree with.
The last point in my premiss is that employees deserve a safe work environment. Do you not agree with that point?
And I have been arguing the points of my premise. Even though you've knocked it off topic with side trips to topless bars and to sporting events. Or don't you remember those trips?
Last edited by djmilf; 04-26-2010 at 05:39 AM..
Reason: spelling
No right is absolute unless you say it is. Everything must be the way you want it to be. You are not a smoker, so they must be banned.
You're stuffing words into my mouth - I've never claimed to be the final arbitrator of all rights and I've never said that I sought a total ban on smokers.
Guess what? I myself occassionally smoke a cigar every month or two. Yet I'm able to contain my urges long enough to eat a meal at a restaurant without lighting up. According to you I want to ban myself?
I'm not for banning smokers, I'm for banning smoking within bars and restaurants. Smokers are still welcome - they just can't smoke while they are there. Aparently that subtle distinction is somewhat beyond your comprehension.
To clarify my position, which you just attempted to misrepresent, here's my argument in a concise format:
Quote:
Premise 1: No rights are absolute (which you've conceded to be true)
Premise 2: Employees have the right to a safe work environment (which you've partially conceded to be true - "a smoking environment is not conducive to good health")
Premise 3: The right of a smoker for immediate self-gratification of his nicotine habit is outweighed by the right of an employee to have a workplace free from airborne carcinogens (which you have never addressed)
Conclusion: There should be a smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
It seems to me that you're ignoring the third premise.
So instead you've taken the debate on side trips to topless bars and sporting events and drinking binges at the local McDonald's restaurant (actually you WERE the one who introduced boozing drunks at McDonald's back in post #16, then later denied it in post #23). You've claimed persecution for incorrectly being labelled a smoker. You've mis-stated my argument in an attempt to disparage me directly. What a wild, strange trip it's been.
Still, you could win this debate. It just seems that you don't know how.
You can back track on the first premise and become yourself what you accused me of being - the final arbitrator of all rights. Which would make you a hypocrite.
You can back track on the second premise by joining good old Memphis1979 in his claim that employees don't have the right to a safe work environment. Mempis1979 has lots of friends in Michigan and he'd probably enjoy having a friend like you from Texas who thinks just like he does.
You can back track on the second premise by joining the tobacco company executives who claim that second-hand smoke is totally harmless. Except they're paid lying stooges, while you'd just be a freebie stooge.
You can directly refute the third premise by declaring that a smoker's need for immediate gratification outweighs another person's health and well-being.
You can prove that the third premise is a false dilemma.
Or continue to flounder and lose the debate by default.
I live in Michigan and this smoking ban infurates me. I am not a smoker, never have been and in fact I think smoking is disgusting. Why do I oppose it??? well I am a freedom loving American and I do not believe the goverment has the right to controll my life like that. If I dont like smoky bars or restaurants I do not have to go. THe goverment regulates whether or not I wear a seatbelt, or a motercycle helmet, tells me my kid must sit in babyseats until the age of 20, now they ban smoking in public places. There is talk of banning salt in food, using my health insurance rates to deter me from being fat, forcing children to wear bicycle helmets. I do not want goverment keeping me safe. That is my job, no one elses. Big brother needs to back off, or the people will eventually make him back off.
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.
