Subject:
|
Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:50:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1613 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> Nontheless, I don't sense we can agree on this issue, as we take a
> fundamentally different approach towards individual rights. Individual rights
> are a good thing, but I don't believe they trump all, they should be tempered
> in certain cases (like this one) by appeals to the common good.
Just thought of this one:
I think your basis for saying that these establishments should ban smoking is
for the employees, not the customers. Basically that if the employees were, say,
robots, that it would be ok to have bars that allowed smoking. But the catch is
that when you force someone to work in a potentially smoking environment, THAT's
the part that should be illegal, yes?
If so, what about a police officer who is forced by their job to go to a private
residence where people smoked? Or a telephone repair man, mover, live-in nanny,
etc? Should peoples' private residences be forced to be smoke free by law, since
their residences may coincidentally be someone else's workplace?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
| (...) They're open to the public. We aren't talking about esatblishments that close their doors to people walking in. Nontheless, I don't sense we can agree on this issue, as we take a fundamentally different approach towards individual rights. (...) (20 years ago, 10-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
|
|
|
|
