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.
Then have a kid who pays for its idiotic mother's choices for the rest of its life. Funny how people aren't drawing up laws for this and yet everyone's riled up over abortion.
~Zoo
he or she, not an it. And once born he or she will potentially have brain defects, cancer, and other issues. Issues that will cause suffering for the rest of her/his natural life as well as cost the taxpayer money to releive them.
Does the mother have the right to intentionally introduce birth defects to an unborn child as long as it is unborn? A simple operation could snip off a developing hand for example.
This reminds me a story about a deaf couple that had treatments to ensure their healthy child is ALSO born deaf.
You failed to mention that the employees choose to work there. It's a choice to be exposed not a mandate. Sure, jobs are not a dime a dozen these days but I don't see myself applying at jobs I deem bad for me unless I have no choice and I seriously doubt it will come to that. Don't forget them employees are there for profit as weel, it's called a paycheck.
Have you stood behind the muffler of a car lately or watched the smoke that comes out of factory chimney's or inhaled the smoke created by the charcoal used in grills? There may be laws, but thatdoesn't make them safe. There are laws for cigarettes as well, why can't children smoke (not that I want it just making a point)?
I agree but then the same could be said about the smoke from a cars muffler, or the smoke from a BBQ grill, or drinking in excess (driving or not), or the garbage we throw on the ground everyday that make it to our water sources. The truth is cigarettes are one of many forms of indirectly harming other people with or without their consent. That's why I say either ban them completely (honestly I don't get the pointof smoking at all, even alcohol can be good for your health in some cases) or leave it the way it is. Govt interventionshould be kept toa minimal.
Great debate article jilluser, this is the kind argument I enjoy.
I've been smoking for my entire life and yet I've never had a cigarette in my mouth.
Having two parents that smoke is fun...all the carcinogens, none of the supposed pleasure.
Luckily I seem to have dodged the cancer and respiratory issue bullets so far.
Let me say it more plainly $$$$$$$$$$$$
Oh, I agree. I don't agree with late term or partial birth abortion either. But we're talking about the wisdom of our laws here.
I agree.
Thanks, this is what I was hoping for. I'm thoroughly enjoying it too!
Did you have a lot of ear infections growing up? My hubby's cousin is a doctor and she said there are new studies linking second hand smoke to ear infections in infants and children. My husband's parents smoked and he had tubes in his ears. My parents didn't smoke but my grandparents and aunts and uncles did and I was with them a lot. I had chronic ear infections growing up so we figured our kids would too. Our kids are 12, 8 and 2.5 and have had an average of 2 ear infections in their life.
Oh, I've certainly had my fair share...seemed like an average of once a year I got one of those damn things. Haven't had one in ages now, thankfully.
Adults don't often get inner ear infections because the eustachian tubes connecting the ears and throat are more developed and less susceptible to harboring the bacteria or viruses that cause those infections.
Yeah, I suppose the linkage does seem valid...in my case, anyway.
Alcohol is NEVER good for your health, ALL the benefits of red wine come from RED GRAPES. eating grapes gives you the exact same benefits without of the damage of alcohol.
This is not true. Alcohol itself in moderate amounts has long been known to increase longevity, lower the number of heart attacks and strokes, along with reducing the risk of a number of other health problems.
A quick reference.
That's not really the point though. Even if alcohol killed you slowly like tobacco does*, it not an analagous situation, since the point of contention is the harm the smoke does to others, not the imbiber.
*I of course mean this in general. Some smokers live till they're 100 without any adverse effects. Those people are in a tiny minority.
(JU messes up quote tags again...)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.
Actually, smoke can be controlled. If nobody smokes near other people, the smoke is controlled.It's the problem of the smoker that smoke has no specific direction, not the problem of everybody else.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.I am all for making it illegal to drive cars into other people without their consent.You talk about freedom as if it came without responsibility. Freedom has to be restricted when it is the freedom to harm others.
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.
It's as wrong as a factory or mine corporation posting a sign that the factory or mine doesn't abide by safety regulations.
That way noone is exposed to any unknown risk and the corporation owner reserves his right to allow accidents to happen and his workers to be affected, voluntarily of course.
I don't see people being riled up over abortion in America.
You have very vocal abortion opponents, but remember that abortion is legal in the US. It's not legal in most of Europe.
Funny how one misses these arguments when one posts them.
Yes, freedom does come with responsibilities, but you cant take freedom away simply because someone else chooses to puts themselves at risk as oppose to the other person doing it irresponsibly. Look at it this way (gonna use the gun concept as an example), if you stand behind a person who is shooting a gun and somehow they harm you, whos's fault is it? It depends on how the bullet got to you (mistake or on purpose), but what is you actually ran into the path of the bullet as the shooter fires?
You know that's not my point Leauki.
Unless you plan on created a super fast bullet train that can take people (say in New York) to a far away location within seconds so they can have a smoke break without harming anyone else then bring them back in a few seconds I don't see how this can be controlled at all. Either leave it alone or ban it completely, there is no middle ground here.
Here's why it's not the same, you can't mine or run factory operations in your own home. Drinking at a bar is not a NEED, it is a WANT. People NEED to work in factories and mines to keep society going. Going into a smoky bar is optional. If a bar is full of college kids, I would go to a different one. If a bar has really loud music, I'd go to a different one and if a bar is smoky, I'd go to a different one and if I didn't find one that met my criteria I'd have some friends over for some drinks and music to our liking. Noone suffers from my not going to a bar. Matter of fact, it might save lives because I might use poor judgement after having one too many.
You don't see the religious Right wing then. Just write an article about being Pro abortion and see how people feel. People are very passionate one way or another about that subject. I got good at arguing both sides all the way back in 8th grade. It's another thing that separates Americans quickly. There are just enough people who feel they would never do it themselves but think others should have the right that keeps it legal. Hypocrites like Nancy Pelosi who claims to be a "fervent Catholic".
This is the best debate I've had in a long time! Noone is calling anyone names and everyone has intelligent arguments. Thanks!
You honestly see no middle ground?
Here in Ireland smokers simply leave the bar and smoke on the street.
Out in the fresh air the smoke is likely to escape before harming others too much.
Here's why it's not the same, you can't mine or run factory operations in your own home. Drinking at a bar is not a NEED, it is a WANT. People NEED to work in factories and mines to keep society going. Going into a smoky bar is optional.
No. Society would also work if only those willing to risk their lives would work in mines. And if mine owners were free not to implement safety features, because a sign posted will do instead, society will likely find many people "willing" to work in those mines (hence the need for those laws in the first place).
There is no "need" for anyone to go to bars or work in a mine. But I prefer living in a society where anyone can go to a bar or work in a mine without having to undergo a greater risk than required for the task.
You don't see the religious Right wing then. Just write an article about being Pro abortion and see how people feel. People are very passionate one way or another about that subject.
What I mean was that they are a minority. In Germany the abortion issue is different. The opponents are actually in the majority and the law reflects that. If it weren't for the weird assumption Europeans have that all Americans are radical fundamentalist Christians, I am sure they would notice that when it comes to abortion (and stem cell research too) the US are far too liberal for your average German to accept.
In Germany (and Ireland and Poland and most other European countries) the legality "partial birth abortion" is not an issue because abortion or abortion after the first trimester are simply illegal. And attempt to liberalise those laws always meet hefty opposition, not among a minority of radicals, but among a vast majority of citizens, the (state) churches, all other religious groups, and most politicians, including those on the left.
The most "legal" way to get an abortion in Germany today involves being in the first trimester of the pregnancy and getting a certificate from your pastor/priest (if you are Christian) that you spoke to the pastor/priest about the potential problems. And the Catholic Church are not even giving out those certificates (but Catholics can go to a Lutheran pastor or non-religious licenced advisor). And I am in favour of that law.
(Note that abortion is still completely illegal in Germany. The high court just said that parliament can decide that abortions in the first trimester can remain unpunished if the woman proves that she sought official advise about the medical and spiritual issues. Otherwise the penalty is prison time.)
Yes, freedom does come with responsibilities, but you cant take freedom away simply because someone else chooses to puts themselves at risk as oppose to the other person doing it irresponsibly.
I told you before that I am NOT "choosing" to put myself at risk. The smoker has chosen to put me at risk. It is his action and his action alone that created the danger. It has nothing to do with me.
Look at it this way (gonna use the gun concept as an example), if you stand behind a person who is shooting a gun and somehow they harm you, whos's fault is it?
His.
I wonder how many anti-smokers support the legalization of pot? Naybe don't mind that second hand smoke?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
