This is, too...

[Gato_Solo]

The owner can permit ANY legal activity within his premises.

If the government decides that a certain activity is not suitable for certain premises, it can make that activity illegal. Whether you like it or not, that's the government's right.

And it has EVERYTHING to do with a safe work environment.



Your analogy is faulty. Working in a bar does not REQUIRE the Bartenders, etc, to drink. By necessity, construction workers or miners are placed in dangerous environments where the danger of physical injury is very real, and employers have to eliminate this danger where necessary or otherwise mitigate it. Restaurant workers etc, by necessity due to smokers, simply by doing their jobs are placed in a hazardous environment.

Ever wonder why car makers use dummies & not real people? Because the potential danger is so high that the GOVERNMENT made that activity ILLEGAL in the workplace. Same goes for smoking. It has nothing to do with bar owners' rights, and everything to do with workplace safety. If you want to convince the govt. they're wrong, you have to show them that second-hand smoke is not hazardous to people's health. Go for it.

Sorry, but your analogy is even more faulty than mine. Second-hand smoke does not cause grave bodily injury, as do car crashes et al. Because you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying, I'll say it again, and I'll put it in bold print...Second-hand smoke has not been proven to cause anything other than an offended nose. Data linking second-hand smoke to any known disease was faulty, and every study about the issue since that point all refer back to the original, faulty test. Only a retard would think that one test, with 'cherry-picked' data and a changed scenario when the results are not as they were anticipated, constitutes proof that something is bad.

 

[a13antichrist]

And only a retard would not understand that whether it's proven or not is totally beside the point - the crucial point is that the govt can outlaw what it chooses; if you don't like what they choose, you can always leave the country or vote against them next time.

 

[Gato_Solo]

And only a retard would not understand that whether it's proven or not is totally beside the point - the crucial point is that the govt can outlaw what it chooses; if you don't like what they choose, you can always leave the country or vote against them next time.

Only a retard would say that a practice that has not been proven to be harmful to those not primarily partaking would demand that practice to be outlawed.

Here, in the US, we have a court system that can, and has, overturned such drivel in the past, so your 'crucial point' is only true in Europe, and your own mind.

BTW...In France, where you happen to be, the government is in the process of outlawing open displays of religious beliefs in schools. How long do you think it will take before your government is ousted, and the people are allowed to espouse their beliefs once more?

 

[a13antichrist]

Only a retard would say that a practice that has not been proven to be harmful to those not primarily partaking would demand that practice to be outlawed.

Perhaps, but remember it's your citizen who have asked for it to be outlawed. Maybe you should then be complaining to them, not the government.

Here, in the US, we have a court system that can, and has, overturned such drivel in the past, so your 'crucial point' is only true in Europe, and your own mind.

No, the point is perfectly true. The fact that the court then overturns it just proves it even further - it's a LEGAL issue, not a rights issue. If your government chooses to outlaw it, that's your problem. If you can subsequently persuade the court otherwise then good for you. Until you achieve that though you have to live with the government's decision.

BTW...In France, where you happen to be, the government is in the process of outlawing open displays of religious beliefs in schools. How long do you think it will take before your government is ousted, and the people are allowed to espouse their beliefs once more?

Well, as it happens France is highly atheistic and I woulnd't be at all surprised if it turns out that people place more value on being able to provide their children with religiously neutral schooling than they place on freedom of religious expression for others. Sound selfish? Maybe. Try asking any parent to pick someone else's civil freedoms over their child's welfare.

 

[Gato_Solo]

.

No, the point is perfectly true. The fact that the court then overturns it just proves it even further - it's a LEGAL issue, not a rights issue. If your government chooses to outlaw it, that's your problem. If you can subsequently persuade the court otherwise then good for you. Until you achieve that though you have to live with the government's decision.

Sorry, but if a law is overturned it's usually because the law itself is illegal. Most times that 'illegal' law is defined that way because it directly affects a right. That would, and does, make it a rights issue.
Most times, you don't have to petition the courts, either. They issue rulings directly.

 

[a13antichrist]

Well, that being the case it would probably end up coming down to the right of the worker to good health vs the right of the bar owner to maximise his profits. As the right to good health is clearly a more fundamental right than the right to commercial liberty, any new law citing/favouring someone's right to good health over someone else's right to commercial freedom does not stand much of a risk of being overturned due to illegality. Illegal it certainly isn't; unfounded, possibly, but courts don't deal with "unfoundedness", only legality.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Well, that being the case it would probably end up coming down to the right of the worker to good health vs the right of the bar owner to maximise his profits. As the right to good health is clearly a more fundamental right than the right to commercial liberty, any new law citing/favouring someone's right to good health over someone else's right to commercial freedom does not stand much of a risk of being overturned due to illegality. Illegal it certainly isn't; unfounded, possibly, but courts don't deal with "unfoundedness", only legality.

All of your argument still hinges on the same faulty testing. If something has not been proven to cause ill health to anyone but the primary user, then your argument holds no moral, or legal, ground. If you can back up the claims of second-hand smoke with a study that doesn't 'cherry-pick' it's data, and doesn't change the ends to suit its (the study's) goals, then you, and all of the other people will have something. Until then, find another scapegoat for the problem. All you still have, in the end, is hysteria, and laws written with hysteria as their back-bone have none to speak of.

 

[a13antichrist]

And since when was it a requirement of laws to have a back-bone?
I think you'll find that the vast majority of laws are either to protext the stupid public from themselves, or to quell one source of hysteria or another. Your problem is, the public is already hysterical so you're going to have to PROVE that second-hand smoke is not harmful in any way, shape or form to have any hope of reversing the decision.

Maybe I haven't stressed enough that whether it's PROVEN to be harmful or not is IRRELEVANT - the simple fact is that THE GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED THAT THIS LAW IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AnNd, as we all know, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.