15 Mar 05
Originally posted by DelmerBecause non-smokers are permited to work in private businesses. Therefore, they have as much right as smokers to submit there opinion.
But why should non-smokers have any say in how private businesses are operated? No smoker ever tried to pass a law preventing anyone from operating a non-smoking bar, restaurant, bowling alley etc.
No smoker ever tried to pass a law preventing anyone from operating a non-smoking bar, restaurant, bowling alley etc.
Why do you think this is? Because smokers are more rational, caring individuals? Of course not. The reason is because it would never make it to the bill reading stage.
I don't neccessarily agree with banning smoking from specific public places (such as bars), but the argument that non-smokers shouldn't have a say is shaky. Its like saying "In the process of lowering the drinking age from 20 to 18, we will be taking submissions from only those under the age of 20".
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioNZ has recently passed a law that prohibits smoking in public establishments.
Wait a second.
Maybe I have misunderstood the law, but I thought that they did!
Are you saying that a theater cannot have a 'smoking' screen?
I always thought that they simply chose not to have one because
the market is much smaller for smokers.
Nemesio
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by PullhardI don't understand your logic. Business people have always been free to ban smoking within their establishments. Those who have built a business in bars and bowling alleys etc. with a high percentage of smokers now are being told they can't run their business in a manner that was legal in the past. Some will go out of business. Health is not the issue of the tobacco free coalitions. Prohibition is the issue, just as it was with alcohol in the USA in the 1920s. And who will make up the incredible amounts of tax money once tobacco goes underground? You will, Pullhard, you will.
Because non-smokers are permited to work in private businesses. Therefore, they have as much right as smokers to submit there opinion.
[b]No smoker ever tried to pass a law preventing anyone from operating a non-smoking bar, restaurant, bowling alley etc.
Why do you think this is? Because smokers are more rational, caring individuals? Of course n ...[text shortened]... rinking age from 20 to 18, we will be taking submissions from only those under the age of 20". [/b]
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by PullhardA small city not far from us recently tried to pass a law prohibiting smoking in all business establishments. Several main highways run through that city and the law stated that semi-truck drivers would be fined if smoking in their cabs while driving through the city because their cabs were a place of business. Homeowners would also be fined for smoking in their own homes or o their own property if they did so while conducting business, for example with a door-to-door salesman or an insurance agent. The law was voted down but now the group is pressuring the mayor and council to enact it without a vote. Freedom in the USA will die soon, but it evidently won't be from secondhand smoke.
NZ has recently passed a law that prohibits smoking in public establishments.
15 Mar 05
1 edit
As I have already said, I don't neccessarily agree with the prohibition of smoking in a particular public place. My point was that I don't believe smokers have exclusive right to a say in any legislation. I don't mind having bars that allow smoking.
I am a non-smoker, not surprising given my opinion on the subject. Out of curiosity Delmer, are you a smoker?
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by PullhardI've been a heavy smoker for 50 years. Never found anything I liked better than smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee. Never was much of an eater. Never liked alcohol. Always looked forward to the next cigarette and the next cup of coffee. Still do. Nothing more enjoyable for me than sitting in a restaurant with a good book, reading, smoking, drinking coffee and watching the people come and go. BTW, I was raised in a home where no one smoked. I went into the Army right out of high school and started smoking at that time. I enjoyed it right from the beginning and still enjoy it.
As I have already said, I don't neccessarily agree with the prohibition of smoking in a particular public place. My point was that I don't believe smokers have exclusive right to a say in any legislation. I don't mind having bars that allow smoking.
I am a non-smoker, not surprising given my opinion on the subject. Out of curiosity Delmer, are you a smoker?
15 Mar 05
Homosexuality is different from abortion and smoking. With abortion, there is an argument that the fetus itself has rights. With smoking, the smoke pollutes the atmosphere.
I am not saying that I think either one should be illegal. All I am saying is that I see how an anti-abortion or an anti-smoking argument might make some sense. Anti-homosexuality arguments (in which people propose making laws to limit this behavior) have no reasonable basis that I can see.
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by slimjim'fraid not there, Slimjim.
How about the man who got the woman pregnant and wants the child. Doesn't he have any rights? It's his child also isn't it?
You see...until that baby pops out the foetus is attached to the female body. Whatever she wants to do with her own body is up to her. If what she does to the body destroys the foetus...there ain't nothin' you or I can do about it.
That's where the buck stops. Right there. Her choice.
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by shavixmirThe United States does not agree with your premise, shav. I don't know if Scotland or other countries do.
'fraid not there, Slimjim.
You see...until that baby pops out the foetus is attached to the female body. Whatever she wants to do with her own body is up to her. If what she does to the body destroys the foetus...there ain't nothin' you or I can do about it.
That's where the buck stops. Right there. Her choice.
In the U.S., suicide is illegal, as is taking most drugs. Therefore women do not have absolute rights regarding their own bodies.
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI guess they should feel free to prosecute after the suicide has occurred then.
The United States does not agree with your premise, shav. I don't know if Scotland or other countries do.
In the U.S., suicide is illegal, as is taking most drugs. Therefore women do not have absolute rights regarding their own bodies.
15 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI guess they should feel free to prosecute after the suicide has occurred then.
The United States does not agree with your premise, shav. I don't know if Scotland or other countries do.
In the U.S., suicide is illegal, as is taking most drugs. Therefore women do not have absolute rights regarding their own bodies.