A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject. He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants. I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.
First of all, smoking is legal. Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment? I told my friend this is a very slippery slope. He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach. So what's next? Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol?
This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl. Our economy is about the worst out there. If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke. The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.
I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it. If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity? Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.
I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.
That's a subjective opinion. There are plenty of studies that show the damage loud music can do. The point is, if you start with smoking, why won't music be next?
Subjective opinion is always involved, but for some reason the subjective opinion of smokers ("smoke doesn't bother anybody") is worth more than the subjective opinion of those bothered by smoke.
It is objective fact that there are still fewer pubs with loud music in Dublin than pubs with lots of smoke before the ban. And that's why loud music doesn't bother me that much. I can go to a pub next door. It's not a problem.
Smoking on the other hand is not done with the intentions of hurting other people
I have the same opinion about accidental shootings.
If someone happens to shoot at a wall in a bar and accidently harms someone without meaning to, I would still want that to be illegal (despite the fact that I have no problems at all with shooting per se be illegal).
I don't like smoking, I avoid it at all cost but there are times I can't because I must be around it for a short period of time. But if it's legal to smoke and the location I am at chooses to allow people to smoke, who am I to tell them otherwise and who is the Gov't to tell them otherwise?
Not everyone is harmed by breathing in some smoke. EVERY SINGLE PERSON gets harmed when shot.
You are you, a human being with rights. One of those rights is that other people may not harm you without your consent. Being you is enough. Anyone has the right to tell those who want to do them harm otherwise.
And the government is the agency that is supposed to enforce those rights.
You shouldn't have to avoid being near smoke at all cost. Smokers should avoid smoking next to you at all cost. The responsibility not to cause conflict lies with the person who want to do something that is or can be harmful to others.
A smoker's right to smoke ends where somebody else's nose starts.
I used the shooting example to see how far it goes with the right to harm people. I realise getting shot is worse then breathing in some smoke.
But "some smoke" is also quite a term for the atmosphere in a smoker's pub.
(It is possible to bet shot at without getting harmed. It happened to me. But I nevertheless demand that people please shoot at something else and not me, even if I happen to be where they want to shoot, even if I could go somewhere else, and even if I might not be harmed at all but only risk harm.)
I agree with you 100% Leauki. In fact you make the argument much better than I ever could.
We live in a society, by definition that means we can't do whatever we want when we want. Our rights stop when they violate the rights of others. Being a business owner doesn't give one human being the right to expose others unnecessarily to harmful substances.
As far as parents exposing children unnecessarily. IMO, that is abuse.
There is no humane reason or excuse to expose anyone to second hand smoke.
There are obviously financial ones though.
Then what is wrong with my example of having the bar owner post a warning outside? That way noone is exposed to any unknown risk and the bar owner reserves his right to allow smokers as he sees fit.
But in the end the gun can only harm if shot and people shooting guns regardless if by accident know that harn can come from it especially when they have control of the direction where the bullet goes. Smoke, on the other hand can not be controlled so even if people were restricted to smoke within their own property lines, what is to stop the smoke from reaching the people outside that property line? Sure, bullets can also leave a property line, but it can only happen if being pointed in a specific direction whether by accident or on prupose, smoke on the other hand can not be controlled.
If we gonna get technical here then we should ban cars, trucks, factories, BBQ's, flares, etc. I mean where will this stop? Every time someone believes the Govt should intervene in the populations "safety" we continue to take pieces off the concept of freedom. Ban smoking, ban alcohol, ban all modes of transportation that use fossil fuels, how much more freedom are we gonna give up just to avoid things we have the power ourselves to avoid? Hardhat laws? Sure, if you work in a dangerous location, you need that money you know. think we are going too far or not far enough. We either ban it all together or let people chose. If we truly believe smoking is bad than ban it for good. Not restrict it.
What should be done about that?
vasectomy.
PS. allow smoking though. It is a GREAT source of tax revenue. if some idiots want to destroy themselves, let them.
As silly as this may sound.... what about flatulence? Should government control that?
There are some flatulence that is toxic!
The bar owner knows second hand smoke is a carcinogen and harmful.
He exposes his employees to it not because he believes it is good for them, because he knows it is not. He exposes them to it, knowing full well it is damaging their bodies, possibly their very lives, for one single reason: profit.
This is America. I get that. People should have the right to kill themselves anyway they want too and get paid while doing it.
But, because we live in a social structure with "norms", we actually don't have unlimited rights.
I'd argue a business owner is being unethical, at the very least, to knowingly allow his employees to be harmed on his property for profit. Even if they consent. For example, its not illegal to cut yourself. So, why not have a business where people pay to see this occur? Line girls up on a stage and give them razor blades, let them bleed for their pay? So long as they live, do it themselves, no law is broken, no rights infringed.
I can't imagine living in a society where this would be "ok" a "choice."
Generally the cutting situation I used is not tolerated in our society. It goes against social norms. Smoking, while once wildly celebrated, is shifting into what is no longer socially acceptable. We are in the transition period. Unless something really drastic happens, the heyday of smoking is gone, eventually left to the fringe.
Personally I like the way Ohio did it. The issue was brought up by voters, and citizens decided. The gov didn't step in until asked too.
Child abuse is child abuse. So I'm not sure I understand your question.
There are laws in place in each state for people abusing children. If you're asking me about those, that is another topic entirely.
Charles there are safety regulations in place for each of those things. When used appropriately they are generally not harmful. Cigarettes, by their very nature, are damaging when used as intended. And not just to the person choosing to use them.
Are you serious? People do all sorts of freaky things in the name of entertainment all of the time and they do it for what? That's right, profit!
Noone is forced to work at a bar! You couldn't pay me enough to be a window washer. People choose to do that for money. You couldn't pay me enough to go out on a lobster boat. People do that for money.
There's no law against smoking around your children. If you think it's child abuse, should there be a law against it?
People do all sorts of freaky things in the name of entertainment all of the time and they do it for what? That's right, profit!
Not in cities/states where the majority has decided a particular flavor of freaky is unacceptable. Not legally.
Those things are currently not harmful to other people by their very nature, are they? More to the point, those things are not currently under public scrutiny.
(And you wouldn't wash windows to feed your family if it was the only job you could find? Really?)
At one time in this country, prostitution and gambling were easy to find, and not illegal.
Why did that change? Did the big bad government come in and put those brothel owners out of business?
Yes, if you want to look at it that way. They did.
But what led to them closing? The citizens, the voters, decided those things were no longer socially acceptable. It no longer fit the societal norms of the majority. The citizens demanded government act on their behalf and get rid of such establishments.
My point is, smoking is going down the same road. Is it harmful? Yes, but even that takes second seat to the changing social norms of the country.
The gov, under public pressure, is responding to smoking much the same way it has done to other once socially acceptable practices, which have for whatever reason, fallen out of that acceptable zone.
Personally I believe child endangerment laws cover it. Though they are rarely enforced, even when the smoking involves illegal substances.
no there isn't, nor is it a choice, nor is it something that a person has willing control over. Nobody can choose to fart toxic gas... So the analogy is as stupid as it sounds.
Again, if the owner of the establishment posts a warning and people aren't forced into working there, what it the problem?
In some states it's illegal to smoke around children if you are a foster parent.
but not if you are a biological parent?
How about drinking while pregnant?
Those things are no less child abuse then beating your child. well, actually there is a difference, you might be doing it out of ignorance and stupidty. While a beating is deliberate.
Are you kidding? It's part of a woman's body until it's born. Legally she can do whatever she wants while pregnant (smoke, drink, dance at the Grammys).
Nope.
Quite simple really. If you choose to smoke, and it's only harming your health, then fine - you've made that decision, it's your body, your right.
If you choose to smoke and it harms everyone around you, then it's no longer fine - it's now your decision to harm them.
Hence, there is a strong case for smoking being banned in public places. Otherwise you are effectively legalising someone who harms the health of others with or without their consent. It's not so much about businesses rights vs the governments, but rather about smoker's rights vs non-smokers. Who should be given priority, those that harm others health, or the victims of their actions? It'd be a bit like looking at the problem of pollution and saying that people have to pay for clean air from the polluters, rather than the polluters paying the people for the right to pollute their clean air. Why should the rights be with the destructive person? You want to poison yourself, go ahead, just don't poison me at the same time.
No, No, NO, they can't shut down the gravy train yet!
After today, I've decided that the only sure way to provide for my grandchildren's future is to start smoking & have my wife sue the bastards when I die. Damn site better payoff than a lifetime of hard work, dedication & sacrifice.
Shit, if I'd only known, I'd have been sittin' home smokin' 3 packs a day & throwin' back Buds all day watchin' effin Oprah & the Cartoon channel. I know my wife would have been grateful for that deep expression of love, knowing how it would provide so well for her & my dependents after I was gone.
Sounds like the High School Guidance Counselors better get up to speed quick & drop all that worthless crap about loser careers in technology, health care, banking, manufacturing, & whatnot. Full-time smoking is the career of choice, folks.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
