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 think this explains why it can't be left up to the free market. It didn't work. I can remember the days when smoking was allowed in college classrooms; when even my nursing instructors smoked in class! I can remember when hospital patients were allowed to smoke. I can remember people smoking in grocery stores, just about everywhere in fact.
Nice to meet you, Katiana! And for two people who swear they won't get too far into this, we sure do a poor imitation, don't we? LOL
BUT...gotta reply to this. You say the free market didn't work? What you seem to REALLY be saying is that it didn't work the way you would have preferred it to have worked. The free market is the sum total of millions of people making individual choices and it manifesting in the way businesses are run and the choices allowed to all. It doesn't guarantee a particular outcome. You might as well just come right out and say smoking should be made illegal because you don't like it. Of course, remember Prohibition...
Quote:
A business person does not have an unfettered right to do whatever s/he pleases. It is typical on these threads to argue people's examples to death, e.g. food safety laws.
No one has argued otherwise. A business owner cannot and should not be able to violate public SAFETY standards. Allowing smoking or not does not fall under that heading...of something that people don't know about ahead of time.
Quote:
So I'll touch on one that is hopefully less arguable from that perspective. A business owner must pay his/her employees minimum wages (different in the restaurant industry, but nevertheless, there is a minimum). Those wages apply even if s/he could find people who would be willing to work for less. So the argument that some, or even most or all employees don't mind being exposed to second-hand smoke (which has been posited on some other threads on this issue), even though it is a proven carcinogen, is not relevant.
Sorry, but I don't quite follow your reasoning. But that is just me!
the clear and present dangers of the fascist left in this country are on full display in this thread. The blantent disregard for property rights and the liberty of business owners to permit smoking in their establishments is totalitarian in nature.
HI Texas Reb! You are right, we're not doing a good job of staying off this thread. I hope (but can't promise) this will be my last response.
Believe it or not, I was there with about half my nursing class, smoking along with the instructors. When I was a young nurse, we would take smoking breaks in the supply room. I know how badly one can crave a cigarette.
On most of these threads, someone tries to prove that smoking and second hand smoke do not cause lung cancer. The science on this is about carved in stone certain.
On some of these threads, people have proposed having "smoking bars" where smoking is allowed, and non-smoking bars where it is not. When I have posted that I have concerns about the employees in these places, the response is the usual "let them go work someplace else", or "they all smoke anyway". missymomof3 has shown us that not all the employees do smoke, and that the non-smokers don't like to be in the smoking areas. My feeling is: to the first; it may be difficult if not impossible in some situations to avoid working in these "smoking bars", if say all the bars in your area are smoking, or only the smoking bars have openings, etc. To the second, even if the employees do smoke, second hand smoke is still a health hazard.
I would like to see someone sue an employer for exposing them to second-hand smoke and causing them lung cancer. A successful lawsuit such as that would likely put a stop to smoking in any place that has employees.
The free-market approach, that is, just go somewhere else, has not been very successful. Many restaurants and bars opposed even having non-smoking sections. Here in Colorado, the wait for a non-smoking table was generally longer than the wait for a smoking table, indicating that most of the customers were non-smokers. However, the owners felt they had to cater to the smokers, in part thanks to a lot of the lobbying from the tobacco industry. If only 20% - 25% of the population smokes, why must restaurants and bars accomodate them? The tobacco lobby, that's why! I remember when my 24 yr old daughter was a tiny baby. My in-laws were visiting and they wanted to go to a specific restaurant in our town that they had heard about. I don't think there was even a non-smoking section in the restaurant at the time. It was so smoky in there, we didn't stay long. No, there were no lasting ill-effects to my daughter, but it was not a safe environmnet. I really don't understand why someone who could make money for a restaurant (called a customer) should be told to just go somewhere else if they don't like it there. One positive effect of smoking bans in lot of places, e.g. offices, restaurants, hospitals, etc, is that smokers do smoke less, and it has helped some to quit.
HI Texas Reb! You are right, we're not doing a good job of staying off this thread. I hope (but can't promise) this will be my last response.
We are good, are we not? LOL In THIS instance, however, I think I MIGHT be able to promise this will be my last post on this particular topic (gotta go fry some good Southern food before it get outlawed, ya know, cos it ain't good for you! j/k)
Quote:
On some of these threads, people have proposed having "smoking bars" where smoking is allowed, and non-smoking bars where it is not. When I have posted that I have concerns about the employees in these places, the response is the usual "let them go work someplace else", or "they all smoke anyway". missymomof3 has shown us that not all the employees do smoke, and that the non-smokers don't like to be in the smoking areas. My feeling is: to the first; it may be difficult if not impossible in some situations to avoid working in these "smoking bars", if say all the bars in your area are smoking, or only the smoking bars have openings, etc. To the second, even if the employees do smoke, second hand smoke is still a health hazard.
I am sorry, Katiana, but I just don't understand this line of reasoning. In NONE of the situations you speak of did the person in question not have an understood choice beforehand. If one doesn't like smoking (which anymore, I don't) then DON'T apply for a job in a place where it is allowed! And taking it to the next level, then DONT go into a place where it is allowed! It is NOT "difficult or impossible" to avoid if those sweet simple rules are followed.
Quote:
I would like to see someone sue an employer for exposing them to second-hand smoke and causing them lung cancer. A successful lawsuit such as that would likely put a stop to smoking in any place that has employees.
This is truly scary. To SUE someone for something that the employee knew ahead of time was a (supposed) risk when they applied for the job to begin with? Good gawd, is there ANYTHING left in this country that is not subject to a lawsuit? Your phrasing of it gives me negative chill-bumps. An employer EXPOSING "them" to second hand smoke? This implies that something is FORCED in the way of a job relationship.
Quote:
The free-market approach, that is, just go somewhere else, has not been very successful.
Read some earlier posts. It boils down to -- with all due respect -- you really don't believe in the free market. The FREE market is manifested by the ways and means of the sum total of how people are free to make their own business and social arrangements. It does NOT guarantee a particular outcome. So, again, why not just come right out and say you would prefer smoking be banned? THAT approach would be more consistent with your philosophy.
Quote:
Many restaurants and bars opposed even having non-smoking sections. Here in Colorado, the wait for a non-smoking table was generally longer than the wait for a smoking table, indicating that most of the customers were non-smokers. However, the owners felt they had to cater to the smokers, in part thanks to a lot of the lobbying from the tobacco industry. If only 20% - 25% of the population smokes, why must restaurants and bars accomodate them?
Why must the restaurants and bars accomodate them? Because, somewhere, somehow, along the line the owners decided that it made good sense to do so! What are your qualifications and rationale (and I mean this respectfully) to tell them they are wrong? THEY are the ones who put up the money and take the chances of being sucessful or failing. THEY are the ones who provide a service to be taken or left. THEY are the ones who have the right to decide what it best in the realm of smoking or not.
Quote:
The tobacco lobby, that's why! I remember when my 24 yr old daughter was a tiny baby. My in-laws were visiting and they wanted to go to a specific restaurant in our town that they had heard about. I don't think there was even a non-smoking section in the restaurant at the time. It was so smoky in there, we didn't stay long. No, there were no lasting ill-effects to my daughter, but it was not a safe environmnet. I really don't understand why someone who could make money for a restaurant (called a customer) should be told to just go somewhere else if they don't like it there.
I don't care a damn about the tobacco lobby one way or another. I DO care about freedom. Ok...so what? They told you to go elsewhere. Why would you want to go to a place like that, anyway?
Quote:
One positive effect of smoking bans in lot of places, e.g. offices, restaurants, hospitals, etc, is that smokers do smoke less, and it has helped some to quit.
What if some people DON'T want to quit? What if they enjoy smoking and are willing to take the risks? Then what? Why not just be honest and come right out and say smoking should be made illegal by way of a federal law?
I hate it when I go to a restaurant and try to have a pleasant dining experience only to have some smoker mess it up by puffing toxins into my precious breathing air. I also hate the fact that he thinks he has the "right" to mess up his health as well as my own. I also hate the fact that he thinks his right to mess up my air is more important than my right to have clean air and enjoy a pleasant, tranquil dining experience.
So I have a solution to this problem that I just may take up: I am going to go to restaurants and start wearing dirty clothes that reek and sit next to a smoker so he can smell me. Then I am going to constantly let out the nastiest, most ferocious fartbombs known to man. I am also going to slurp my beer loudly and burp it out loudly. Finally I am going to start coughing, hacking, and wheezing these phlegm-filled coughs so loud that even the cooks can hear.
All this just so a smoker can know how it feels to have his dining experience destroyed by the insensitivity of others. And if anybody tries to give me crap I'm going to say I have a natural right to fart, cough, and burp. Unlike smoking the body actually needs to do those things in order to stay healthy. And if anybody tries to give me crap about my stench I'm going to disregard them. "Why do you think I stink?" I'll say. "You're insulting me. I naturally smell this way. You should enjoy my company and disregard my stench because it is my natural right to act this way. The government shouldn't regulate my funk no more than it should regulate smoking. Get out of my face!" And if they try to throw me out I'll say it is bad for business to throw away a paying customer. Me and my funk help keep this joint alive.
So what do you think? Should I do it?
I probably wouldn't even smell you. As a matter of fact, I have next to NO taste buds. Food is for sustenance, not for pleasure, the way I see it. I buy nothing based on "taste".
As far as "minimum wage" laws go? An employer could pay what he calls a "training wage" for a period of time...and pay them less than minimum wage, regardless of the SIZE of his company. Small business owners are ALSO exempt from minimum wage laws. I think it's "if you have less than 25 employees"...but I'm not sure what the size is. Read it RIGHT off the minimum wage law poster posted by the company!
As far as "minimum wage" laws go? An employer could pay what he calls a "training wage" for a period of time...and pay them less than minimum wage, regardless of the SIZE of his company. Small business owners are ALSO exempt from minimum wage laws. I think it's "if you have less than 25 employees"...but I'm not sure what the size is. Read it RIGHT off the minimum wage law poster posted by the company!
All right, I knew someone would argue with me about this. Whatever wage laws are in effect, the business owner has to obey them! I do not think it is correct that small businesses are exempt from minimum wage laws entirely. DH worked for a company with 5 people once, and they had to comply with the law.
In other words, the pay a person receives is not just a matter between the employer and employee. There are laws stating what the employer may and may not do.
We are good, are we not? LOL In THIS instance, however, I think I MIGHT bet able to promise this will be my last post on this particular topic (gotta go fry some good Southern food before it get outlawed, ya know, cos it ain't good for you! j/k)
I am sorry, Katiana, but I just don't understand this line of reasoning. In NONE of the situations you speak of did the person in question not have an understood choice beforehand. If one doesn't like smoking (which anymore, I don't) then DON'T apply for a job in a place where it is allowed! And taking it to the next level, then DONT go into a place where it is allowed! It is NOT "difficult or impossible" to avoid if those sweet simple rules are followed.
There are plenty of people so desperate for a job they would take one no matter what the conditions, even if they knew it was dangerous. Which brings me to my main point: second hand smoke is dangerous!
This is truly scary. To SUE someone for something that the employee knew ahead of time was a (supposed) risk when they applied for the job to begin with? Good gawd, is there ANYTHING left in this country that is not subject to a lawsuit? Your phrasing of it gives me negative chill-bumps. An employer EXPOSING "them" to second hand smoke? This implies that something is FORCED in the way of a job relationship. It is forced if you have to put up with it in order to keep the job.
Read some earlier posts. It boils down to -- with all due respect -- you really don't believe in the free market. The FREE market is manifested by the ways and means of the sum total of how people are free to make their own business and social arrangements. It does NOT guarantee a particular outcome. So, again, why not just come right out and say you would prefer smoking be banned? THAT approach would be more consistent with your philosophy. I have said that. I'm trying to explain why. It's not just because I think it should be.
Why must the restaurants and bars accomodate them? Because, somewhere, somehow, along the line the owners decided that it made good sense to do so! What are your qualifications and rationale (and I mean this respectfully) to tell them they are wrong? THEY are the ones who put up the money and take the chances of being sucessful or failing. THEY are the ones who provide a service to be taken or left. THEY are the ones who have the right to decide what it best in the realm of smoking or not. NO THEY ARE NOT! It is a medical decision, not a business decision. A person with active TB can't go into a restaurant and expose everybody. Why should a smoker be able to?
I don't care a damn about the tobacco lobby one way or another. I DO care about freedom. Ok...so what? They told you to go elsewhere. Why would you want to go to a place like that, anyway? No one told us to go elsewhere. That is something you read into my post. We just decided to leave, when we might have stayed and spent more money. The "just leave" part was implied by not having at least a non-smoking section. The tobacco lobby "uses" people who smoke and who want to defend smoking on the basis of "liberty" to achieve their goals.
What if some people DON'T want to quit? What if they enjoy smoking and are willing to take the risks? Then what? Why not just be honest and come right out and say smoking should be made illegal by way of a federal law?
I'm not a fan of prohibition and I don't think it would work. But I do think smoking should be banned in public accomodations, which restaurants are considered. I do think the less people smoke, the better for them.
All right, I knew someone would argue with me about this. Whatever wage laws are in effect, the business owner has to obey them! I do not think it is correct that small businesses are exempt from minimum wage laws entirely. DH worked for a company with 5 people once, and they had to comply with the law.
In other words, the pay a person receives is not just a matter between the employer and employee. There are laws stating what the employer may and may not do.
This is straight from the poster posted AT the workplace. Next night I go to work, I'll be sure to get the number of people considered a "small business"...who are exempt from the minimum wage.
Not saying it's "right"...just that it IS.
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.
