This is, too...

Starya said:
He he, stretching it like a rubber band if you ask me.
Click to expand...


It's the same argument you are using for smoking. You don't like the smell of flatulence is discomfort, and the monetary cost of their cholesterol habit is costing me money...It may be funny, but you can do that with almost any substance. You can even make the case for banning wood-burning fireplaces/stoves the same way, and that is the point I'm making. It's not just about cigarettes. I sometimes go 2 days or so without one. It's about the rights of the property owner. ;)
 
Sorry, Starya, he's right. I don't smoke, and I don't think Gato does either. I've been playing in blues clubs off and on for thirty years, and if you ban smoking in them they will lose half their business and two thirds of the musicians will stop playing there. If I owned a blues club where smoking was banned, I would ignore the ban. I think the most the government has a right to ask is that you post conspicuously that smoking is allowed. You want to hear something really stupid? In California, you can't smoke in a tobaccanist's shop. :lloyd: If a business is privately owned, the owner needs to be able to decide.
 
Starya said:
Answer: I don't bother considering "what if"-scenarios that are incredible unrealistic. The day pepperoni is proven to cause discomfort or health problems to the people at other tables, I'll get back to you.
Click to expand...


What do pepperoni & second hand smoke have in common? Neither cause health problems at another table & both have an odor than may cause discomfort.
 
Quebec either.

but personally, I think it's a good law. Smoking may not yet have been proven to cause cancer (although it's full of chemicals which have been) it is proven to be a health hazard, similar to asbestos, and subject to the same control.

Sorry Gato, but in this case, you're wrong.

(btw, if smoking means so little to you, quit)
 
Professur said:
Quebec either.

but personally, I think it's a good law. Smoking may not yet have been proven to cause cancer (although it's full of chemicals which have been) it is proven to be a health hazard, similar to asbestos, and subject to the same control.

Sorry Gato, but in this case, you're wrong.

(btw, if smoking means so little to you, quit)
Click to expand...

Drinking causes more deaths per year than smoking. Why not just ban bars altogether, prof? Free enterprise, and a free market should always be the deciding factor in whether a business owner allows a legal activity in his place of business or not. This law is not only short-sighted, it's also invasive. Whether I smoke or not is not the issue. It's whether the business should be dictated about whether or not they must limit their customer base by banning an activity that's legal. Sorry, Prof, but his law is wrong. If you don't like smoking, don't go to places that allow smoking. If there are none, then open your own, and see how things go. If it's your business then, and only then, does this whole smoking vs non-smoking issue become your business. ;)
 
Really? Maybe down there, but up here, I have to pay the higher health care costs because of smokers. That alone makes it my business.

As for bars, they're a workplace, aren't they? Yes? No? Isn't a person entitled to work in a non smoking environment? But if you're a bartender, or a waiter, how do you do that? That's not a matter of where a non smoker want's to go for a beer. It's where a person has to go to earn a living.
 
Professur said:
Really? Maybe down there, but up here, I have to pay the higher health care costs because of smokers. That alone makes it my business.

As for bars, they're a workplace, aren't they? Yes? No? Isn't a person entitled to work in a non smoking environment? But if you're a bartender, or a waiter, how do you do that? That's not a matter of where a non smoker want's to go for a beer. It's where a person has to go to earn a living.
Click to expand...


And down here, WE have to pay for obesity-related illness...and what do you think costs more? We also have something called air pollution, which is something that causes more damage to health per year than cigarettes. Want to ban driving cars and eating twinkies? You're smarter than that, prof. ;)
 
You didn't address forcing waitresses to inhale your smoke, gato. That's the whole issue here. Not your right to smoke, but the employees right to not.
 
Professur said:
You didn't address forcing waitresses to inhale your smoke, gato. That's the whole issue here. Not your right to smoke, but the employees right to not.
Click to expand...

Actually, I did. The smoke they are 'forced' to inhale :rolleyes: is no more, or less, dangerous than going outside and getting a breath of 'fresh air' in the middle of the city. As for my right to smoke, that is not what's being addressed here. It's the business owners rights on his own property. :rolleyes:
 
There was a reference to OSHA in the article ,so I'll assume these regulations are to protect the workers in these establishments not the general puplic.In B.C. these laws are enforced to protect the hospitality workers much the same as there are regulations to protect Millworkers (not allowed to carry cigarette lighters in their pockets) or they must perform lockout procedures on equipment before working on them.One might argue that the employee simply find another line of work,but allowing an employer to specify what and how a job can be performed safely ,in order to remain employed is hazardous.

[edit] you were typing at the same time I was[/edit]
 
A.B.Normal said:
There was a reference to OSHA in the article ,so I'll assume these regulations are to protect the workers in these establishments not the general puplic.In B.C. these laws are enforced to protect the hospitality workers much the same as there are regulations to protect Millworkers (not allowed to carry cigarette lighters in their pockets) or they must perform lockout procedures on equipment before working on them.One might argue that the employee simply find another line of work,but allowing an employer to specify what and how a job can be performed safely ,in order to remain employed is hazardous.
Click to expand...

Correct, A.B., but OSHA has it's own problems as well. Let's take, for instance, silica sand. Did you know that OSHA has declared silica sand to be a carcinogen, and must be stored, manufactured, and used in such a way as to not permit the dust from entering the environment? Do you know what silica sand is? The same stuff they've been using to make housing bricks for over 1000 years! The particles are too large to inhale, but that didn't stop OSHA from declaring that all brick-makers adhere to their standards of health!
How about this one...I have certain chemicals that I am not permitted to use at work anymore because I'm not licensed to do so. Know what they are? Automotive window-washing fluid...the same stuff I put in my car at home, I am not allowed to put into the fluid tanks of the forklifts I drive at work. Want some more? How about Vinegar...

OSHA used to stand for workers and health, but now it only stands for it's own beaurocracy. Don't use them as a source...they're a joke now.

I'll say this one more time for the cheap seats...THE AIR YOU BREATH IN THE CITY IS JUST AS HAZARDOUS FOR YOU AS SMOKING A CIGARETTE. YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT A SMOKE-FREE WORKPLACE IS BS. THANK YOU.
 
Gato_Solo said:
I'll say this one more time for the cheap seats...THE AIR YOU BREATH IN THE CITY IS JUST AS HAZARDOUS FOR YOU AS SMOKING A CIGARETTE. YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT A SMOKE-FREE WORKPLACE IS BS. THANK YOU.
Click to expand...


If you truely believe that, I pity you. Fortunately, most people aren't so foolish.

But, on the off chance that you're right, let's look at the rest of it. You say that city air is as toxic as cigarette smoke. Then why do I wind up with watery eyes and a sore throat when I breath smoke, but not city air? How about, why do my clothes stink from cigarette smoke, but not from city air?

Let's try this. Why is it that smoker's machine's that I work on, are often glued shut with tar, but non smoker's machines, from the heart of downtown aren't? Why do smoking room walls turn yellow, when the rest of the walls stay white? How about a smoker's hands? Teeth?
 
damn zoning....
I used to live in the country, but now it's the burbs.
When I first moved here it was not really even zoned.
Hell you could build an out-house out back if you wanted.
Now you can't even build a treehouse without a permit.
In certain places around here, you can't let your grass grow over
6" tall, and your car has to be in the drive. If a car on the grass
they will make you move it, or tow it off. :mad:

Don't even get me star... Oops too late.
I guess I'll stop with that.
 
Professur said:
If you truely believe that, I pity you. Fortunately, most people aren't so foolish.

But, on the off chance that you're right, let's look at the rest of it. You say that city air is as toxic as cigarette smoke. Then why do I wind up with watery eyes and a sore throat when I breath smoke, but not city air? How about, why do my clothes stink from cigarette smoke, but not from city air?

Let's try this. Why is it that smoker's machine's that I work on, are often glued shut with tar, but non smoker's machines, from the heart of downtown aren't? Why do smoking room walls turn yellow, when the rest of the walls stay white? How about a smoker's hands? Teeth?
Click to expand...


If you think your clothes smell fresh after a bit of time in the city air, I pity you. If you think peoples eyes don't get watery, and throats aren't sore after a time breathing that good, clean downtown city air, then I guess you must be breathing through a filter. Why does my car window (I don't smoke in my car) get filmy when I drive down the road, outside and inside? Why does the room I'm in now, in a non-smoking building, have yellowed walls after only 18 months since painting them egg-shell white (inside with no windows)? What about coffe-drinkers teeth? I haven't seen the yellowed hands on a smoker, so I can't judge that. I also haven't seen anything 'glued shut' from smoking, so I can't judge that, either. But I do know one thing. A business owner should have the right to decide the activities that go on inside his place of business as long as those activities are legal.
 
Gato, what city do you live in? I suggest moving, if smoking makes you healthier. But for most of the rest of the world, I assure you, that's not the case.
 
Professur said:
Gato, what city do you live in? I suggest moving, if smoking makes you healthier. But for most of the rest of the world, I assure you, that's not the case.
Click to expand...


Says whom? But that wasn't the main point of this, anyway. The main point of this is that a property owner has a right to allow, or disallow, any legal activity that he, or she, wants. What's so difficult about that statement? Why do you have so much trouble with it?
 
cause you're wrong. in his own home for his own private use, yes. but when you open up your property for the use of the public, you lose the right to do whatever the hell you want and have to do what the gov't feels is for the benefit of the public. don't be open to the general public, and you can smoke yourself beyond death if you want. otherwise, shut the fuck up and do what you're told.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top