|
|
#61
06-27-2007, 08:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
What's tribal is the idea that everyone needs to do things the same way, and what's primitive is the desire to force your preferences onto others. Respecting others' decisions and property is what's civilized. When I go to someone else's establishment and I don't like the music they play, I either tolerate it, or if it's too objectionable (perhaps it si loud enough to harm my eardrums), I go elsewhere. I don't seek to use force to get them to change it.
|
|
#63
06-27-2007, 10:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Your claim the restaurant cartel will increase their market share because smokers will start eating out (Why weren't they already? Isn't it a necessity for them too?) and non-smokers can't stop is laughable. [/ QUOTE ] You don't get it, right? Not smoking whilst you are eating is quite eaqsy to do, and smoking is not a necessity. For a lot of people smoking is harmful. even second-hand but neccesary. [/ QUOTE ] You don't get it, right? Not being in a restaurant whilst you are eating is quite eaqsy to do, and being in a restaurant is not a necessity.
|
|
#64
06-27-2007, 10:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you don't wanna inhale cig smoke then don't go to a smoking restaurant. [/ QUOTE ] Or the reverse: if you want to emit foul-smelling and toxic smoke, go outside the restaurant. Why should I be forced to avoid certain restaurants because of another person's addiction? [/ QUOTE ] Because the owner of the resturaunt owns the property, not you. [/ QUOTE ] The reason businesses have codes and regulations to follow is to ensure the safety of customers and employees. Simply owning a piece of property does not allow a business owner to choose which regulations he wants to follow and which he doesn't. [/ QUOTE ] Begging the question.
|
|
#65
06-27-2007, 10:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
Is going to a bar a necessity? What about casino gambling, why do non-smokers patronize smoky casinos? [/ QUOTE ] Because they enjoy bars and gambling? Again I think all this debate ignores the health impact on the employees, which is probably one of the main reasons the bans were introduced in the first place. A business owner has a responsibility to provide a safe workplace for his employees, or at least as safe as possible. Breathing in smoke for 40 hours a week is not a safe workplace. Yes you could argue that the employees should just leave and find another job, or band together and start their own smoke-free business, or whatever. But telling an employee to quit if they don't like it is not a reasonable accommodation of their health concerns.
|
|
#66
06-27-2007, 10:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you don't wanna inhale cig smoke then don't go to a smoking restaurant. [/ QUOTE ] Or the reverse: if you want to emit foul-smelling and toxic smoke, go outside the restaurant. Why should I be forced to avoid certain restaurants because of another person's addiction? [/ QUOTE ] Because the owner of the resturaunt owns the property, not you. [/ QUOTE ] The reason businesses have codes and regulations to follow is to ensure the safety of customers and employees. Simply owning a piece of property does not allow a business owner to choose which regulations he wants to follow and which he doesn't. [/ QUOTE ] And I'm against such codes as well, as long as the information is disclosed. You aren't convincing me bringing this up. [ QUOTE ] The smoking ban allows the majority of people to enjoy a meal without breathing in someone else's smoke. [/ QUOTE ] Arguments like this make me glad that we have a constitution that protects individuals rights, not bossing people around to the whim of a majority. If there is such a demand for non-smoking places, and non-smokers really do have a strong preference, they will be created. If you are so sure of this, find a city that has no smoking bans, and open a non-smoking resturaunt or club. You'll be rich, right? [ QUOTE ] It also gives smokers yet another message that what they are doing has serious health risks - both to themselves and to others. If the ban has made a few smokers quit because it was a hassle going outside to smoke all the time, then I'd classify that as a nice side benefit. But even if they don't quit smoking, they can still go to any non-smoking restaurant and enjoy a meal just like everyone else. [/ QUOTE ] Should we make people who buy donuts run a mile first too? Your post scares the hell out of me. I really hope you are not an American.
|
|
#67
06-27-2007, 10:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
Should we make people who buy donuts run a mile first too? Your post scares the hell out of me. I really hope you are not an American. [/ QUOTE ] LOL I am an American and yes many Americans think a ban on indoor smoking is a reasonable step to protect the health of non-smokers who wish to eat in a restaurant (or play in a casino, work in an office building, etc.) You can eat all the donuts you want. Unless donuts somehow start causing secondhand obesity to bystanders, I don't care.
|
|
#68
06-27-2007, 11:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Should we make people who buy donuts run a mile first too? Your post scares the hell out of me. I really hope you are not an American. [/ QUOTE ] LOL I am an American and yes many Americans think a ban on indoor smoking is a reasonable step to protect the health of non-smokers who wish to eat in a restaurant (or play in a casino, work in an office building, etc.) You can eat all the donuts you want. Unless donuts somehow start causing secondhand obesity to bystanders, I don't care. [/ QUOTE ] O RLY? [ QUOTE ] It also gives smokers yet another message that what they are doing has serious health risks - both to themselves and to others. [/ QUOTE ] Do we need to send a message to donut eaters a message to themselves too?
|
|
#70
06-27-2007, 12:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
Do we need to send a message to donut eaters a message to themselves too? [/ QUOTE ] Well what I said was that if some people quit smoking altogether as a result of the ban that's a nice side benefit, but it's not the main point of the legislation. Likewise if people stopped eating donuts and became less obese that would be a nice side benefit for them also - but the main purpose of the legislation would be to prevent the secondhand obesity they cause.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
