Subject:
|
Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Nov 2004 15:58:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1319 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 05:00:03PM +0000, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > I'm more than convinced it should be a law. When the smoker's right to
> > > smoke and the citizen (worker, patron, or other)'s right to breathe
> > > clean air are in conflict, the right to breathe clean air should
> > > always win.
> >
> > No contest there. I do think we should allow people to make stupid
> > decisions for themselves - if you choose to take the job at the bar, you
> > accept the risks that go with knowing you're working in a place that
> > allows smoking.
>
> I'm with Dave on the interpretation of the job issue.
So you would oppose mandatory non smoking areas as a way to lessen health risks
to restaurant workers, then?
> As for letting people make their own stupid decisions--in general--sure. Let
> people choose to smoke, I can't prevent them from doing so in their own home, or
> among a group of consenting individuals. But I DO NOT CONSENT to people smoking
> around me in public,
I agree. Are restaurants and bars public places, though? I would argue not.
> and WILL NOT, unless I am in a smoker's private residence
> (which, for obvious reasons, I rarely go there). I think its criminal to force
> the harmful effects of smoking on another individual who doesn't consent, and
> I'm determined to fight for the rights of all nonsmokers to breathe air clean of
> the filth.
>
> > > The economics are quite simple too -- leave it up to the 'market' to
> > > decide, smokefree bars won't swim.
Has this been adequately demonstrated? If it is true, why is it true?
> > > Ban it statewide, and to no
> > > surprise, business goes up in every case. Banning smoking is not only
> > > good for the public health, it's good for the restaurant and bar
> > > business. The only people it's bad for is the 20% [1] of the
> > > population who smokes, and the tobacco industry [2].
> >
> > If 80% of the population doesn't smoke, you'd think that smokefree bars
> > would work, wouldn't you? I've made the choice in the past to go to a
> > place that doesn't allow smoking instead of one that does. Figure
> > enough people do that, bars will get the hint anyway.
>
> If you dig up articles on smokefree.net, you should find that in any case,
> business goes up with a total ban. I'm on their mailing list, every couple weeks
> a new one comes over the wire. Like me, there are many people out there who
> avoid bars where smoking is allowed because of the smoke. I believe this number
> is greater than the number of smokers who go to bars and smoke.
>
> Also, take a look at restaurants. Busy restaurants make their money on turnover.
> It's known that people who smoke in restaurants take much longer per sitting,
> and I believe even order less food than their nonsmoking counterparts.
So why would restaurants not want to do this, then? I think before more laws are
proposed, it would be better to dig into why, and if there are laws already on
the books that are hindering restaurants from going smoke free, remove those
laws rather than introduce additional ones.
> There's
> more money to be made in the restaurant business by serving nonsmokers than
> smokers--and this has been proven where total bans are in effect.
>
> > I just think it's another case of people trying to force their belief on
> > others. I'm surprised there weren't bans on strip-clubs attached to
> > these initiatives. I mean, it's not good for the dancers to work there,
> > is it? How is it different?
>
> Banning clubs themselves? Or banning smoking at clubs? AFAIK, banning smoking at
> strip clubs would be covered in most, if not all, legislation to ban smoking.
>
> We're so hung up on individual rights being paramount, but I don't believe it
> should apply 100% of the time. Not when by exercising your 'right' you harm
> another innocent person.
I agree, if we are talking about public places (courthouses, council meeting
rooms, and other government facilities). But are we?
> Same goes for rape, murder (abortion counts too),
> environmental issues, heck, even noise ordinances.
>
> I'm also firmly against the tobacco industry. Yes, I believe individuals have
> the responsibility to choose whether or not to *begin* smoking [1] but it's
> clear people don't have free choice to quit. 3% of people who try to quit
> succeed, and IIRC somewhere around 70% of smokers want to quit. People choose to
> get in, but big tobacco manipulates the contents of cigarettes to create
> insurmountable odds to quitting, thus handing disease and death to their
> customers.
That seems like a lawsuit against tobacco companies rather than a law against
smoking. But we already had lawsuits and the chief beneficiaries seem to be
government and trial lawyers rather than the victims, don't you agree?
> We're talking about an industry that calls youth smokers 'replacement smokers.'
> What for? To replace the over 400,000 Americans (and many more worldwide)
> smoking kills each year. Murderers.
> [1] Not arguing peer pressure or target markets here, though I could.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
| (...) I'm with Dave on the interpretation of the job issue. As for letting people make their own stupid decisions--in general--sure. Let people choose to smoke, I can't prevent them from doing so in their own home, or among a group of consenting (...) (20 years ago, 3-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
