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 don't know whether this was written tongue in cheek or seriously, but it makes some devastating points (intentional or not) about the logicial extensions of the Public Accomodations Act. Which the anti-smoking zealots retreat into when they can't -- or won't -- address basic freedom issues.
It is worth either reading or at least, scanning! Here is the main link and an excerpt from it....
It took decades for the workplace to acknowledge the dangers of smoking and to
recognize the deadly effects of exposure to second-hand smoke. Once acknowledged, it was a
few more years before the workplace became safe for workers from the dangers of second
hand smoke. This paper suggests that fragrance is following the same trajectory. To date most
of the research on fragrance exposure has been localized in the health care profession and has
not received the necessary attention it deserves in the management literature for managers to
become knowledgeable about the extent of employer liability and what constitutes a good faith
effort to protect workers.
This was written for business managers.
The difference with fragrance vs. second hand smoke is that the potential pool of people who can be seriously injured is smaller with fragrances.
That does not mean that there is no risk.
Most of the time, fragrances become an issue when someone complains. At that point, an employer would be wise to suggest that employees ditch the fragrances.
I see no reason for wholesale bans for fragrances on the line of tobacco bans.
Our home is pretty much fragrance free. DH dislikes strong odors --- they make his nose run --- so I do not use perfume, cologne or hairspray. I choose unscented personal care and home cleaning products as much as possible.
Strangely, DH is not bothered by the smell of gun oil.
Who of us has not been in an elevator with the woman doused in perfume, surrounded by a nauseating cloud of cloying scent --- or the teenager who thinks Axe replaces bathing!
Without a law you the non smoker has freedom of choice, the smoker has freedom of choice and the business owner has freedom of choice. With a law 2 of these groups lose that freedom of choice. How could possibly argue it isn't a freedom of choice issue?
You mention private home ownership, do you support the new bans on private homes that are attached to others?
There is no absolute right to freedom of choice. Otherwise, a business owner could put up a sign for his business that is as large as he wants it and wherever he wants it. He could buy a residential building lot and put a used car lot there. He could open a liquor store or a strip joint right next to a school. He could throw garbage in the street. He could sell liquor to minors.
Instead, communities and states have regulations that restrict these activities. Sign ordinances, zoning ordinances, sanitation ordinances, liquor laws --- all these limit the business owner's choices.
These ordinances are developed with input from the people in the community.
Ordinances that limit smoking are developed the same way.
And make no mistake about it. The only reason the anti-smoking zealots have not done so yet on a truly national campaign scale is because it is not yet feasible from a public relations point of view; it is always incremental by calculated prudence. The ultimate goal is becoming increasingly clear (in some ways, by some posters on this thread)...and they will get there eventually. That is, if they are not stopped by those who know their true agenda, and not being fooled by cosmetic covers, expose it at every opportunity ...
"Since the home remains a major source of secondhand smoke exposure for children, this work shows that an additional justification for enacting smoke-free legislation is the secondary effect of encouraging voluntary smoke-free rules at home, particularly in homes occupied by smokers,"
Note the euphemism (delection, if one will! LOL) as with the use of the phrase "encouraging voluntary smoke-free rules at home." Hmmmmmm....wonder what THAT means in all its implications....?
Using this logic we could ban nearly anything and the last I checked you don't have a constitutional right to smoke free hotel room.
But the states have a constitutional right to limit smoking. Where bans exist, it is because elected representatives perceive that those bans reflect the desires of the majority of the people in the community.
How a business handles smoking restrictions during business hours is up to them, certainly I'd be a hypocrite to suggest otherwise. As far as the employees go I draw the line when they start testing for it. There is a hospital near here that is now testing for nicotine usage and that would include nicotine gum. Not are only are they not hiring people that smoke which is completely legal activity they are not hiring people using perfectly legal products to help them quit.
Of all the businesses that could ban non-tobacco use of nicotine, I suspect that hospitals and other health care facilities have the strongest leg to stand on. The rationale is that it would be hypocritical of them to tell patients that it is unhealthy to use nicotine and then hire people who do.
If the person still feels the need to use the gum, he has not really quit, has he?
The issue is not the legality of the product. It is the fact that many people who use the gum or patches for extended periods are susceptible to taking up smoking again.
There is no absolute right to freedom of choice. Otherwise, a business owner could put up a sign for his business that is as large as he wants it and wherever he wants it. He could buy a residential building lot and put a used car lot there. He could open a liquor store or a strip joint right next to a school. He could throw garbage in the street. He could sell liquor to minors.
These are sensible laws that can effect others if not in place but in the case of smoking bans since you as an adult can make the choice to enter a smoking establishment you can't claim there is any detrimental effect to anyone other than those willingly participating.. or are you suggesting adults are incapable of making their own decisions and those decisions should be left up to the likes of you?
These are sensible laws that can effect others if not in place but in the case of smoking bans since you as an adult can make the choice to enter a smoking establishment you can't claim there is any detrimental effect to anyone other than those willingly participating.. or are you suggesting adults are incapable of making their own decisions and those decisions should be left up to the likes of you?
The state has the right to limit smoking venues. Not everyone is "willingly participating" when it's the only such business in town, which is the case with many motels in small towns. Employees need to be protected. Many will take any job just to have a job, and years later end up with cancer d/t exposure. IT'S A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE!
Glad to see your back Katiana, back to previous question:
Quote:
Now that we agree the non smoker will not be harmed by smoke if they do not enter one of these establishments my next question is could you agree that these non smokers are fully capable of making this decision on their own?
These are sensible laws that can effect others if not in place but in the case of smoking bans since you as an adult can make the choice to enter a smoking establishment you can't claim there is any detrimental effect to anyone other than those willingly participating.. or are you suggesting adults are incapable of making their own decisions and those decisions should be left up to the likes of you?
Just as those other regulations are passed because the majority of the community feels they are valuable and contribute to the quality of life in their town or state, so are smoking bans.
Why are smoking bans any less sensible than zoning laws or sanitation laws?
Glad to see your back Katiana, back to previous question:
It's a little hard to "choose" a non-smoking motel (the topic of this thread, remember) if there isn't one available. It's hard to "choose" a non-smoking work environment if one isn't available.
No one is harmed by not being able to smoke, neither the smoker nor the non-smoker. Smoking is an "optional" activity.
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.
