RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio

RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

eyesopened -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 7:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol What about restaurant and bar workers, who neither own nor patronise the establishments? Should workers stick to jobs that make them sick with smoke, especially in the present economic climate? Industrial companies provide Material Safety Data to employees. There are health and safety issues in most any type of job. It boils down to Risk Aware. Restaurant and bar workers do have a choice in where they work. Again, it boils down to choice. People are not forced to work at one particular restaurant. Economic climate doesn't equate to slavery. There are other career choices besides bar/restaurant work.

kittinSol -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 7:25:08 AM)
People take the jobs they can get, especially nowadays. Do you see that they don't always have a choice of where they work? I agree with smoking restrictions - in the past, I enjoyed smoking in bars, nightclubs and restaurants, but in retrospect I see how it's necessary to make the air everyone breathes cleaner. Why should smokers' "rights" win over everyone else's, especially when the rights in question create health problems for everybody? I would hate to be a person with asthma and allergies who had to work in a bar that permits smoking because that was the only available job to me, and I had no other alternative but to breathe in that crap on a daily basis. Just a hypothesis...

Termyn8or -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 7:59:37 AM)
FR I like cats. We always had cats and I always had allergy problems until I desensitized myself. To this day I have problems, but they are minor. However long term exposure does get to me. It inhibits my ability to work because of excessive tearing in my eyes. Moreover the effects do not go away immediately, so it inhibits my ability to drive home from work safely. at times after work I have to pull over and find something with which to wipe my eyes. At these times even normal sunlight can actually cause me great irritation to the point of actual pain. I will swear and attest that the paragraph above is 100 % true. My sinister is a notary and I will send affidavits out to anyone who may request. I also have witnesses who have known me ALL MY LIFE who will also swear and/or attest to those facts, or most of them to the best of their knowledge. Back to the farm days when they let me drive those big tractors, I had to stop from time to time to wipe my eyes. By the spirit of "the law" this directly affected the food source in this country and should therefore be regulable. By the same token I should be able to force my employer to get rid of all cats. I should not need clout to do this, even as a floor sweeper I should have the same rights as a key Man right ? Well I can't stand the smell of certain perfumes. I swear I smelled one person who smelled like insecticide. Realize the when you smell RAID ! you are not smelling the insecticide, it is actually a perfume which is added as required by law so people can tell if they are exposed. The same is true of natural gas. (but for even better reasons obviously) As the owner of a business is it not my perogatrive to set policy ? To say if you smoke stay the hell out ? Or conversely if smoke bothers you stay the hell out. This is MY economic well being at stake here, and no matter how polarized this issue, if the consequences are mine, so is the choice. Take the case of the diesel mechanics, a group with a higher incidence of lung cancer than smokers. By law, then we should have to pay them not to work, but to make these big rigs costing well into six figures, disposable. Once they need maintainence or repair they must be discarded and disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner. Why is that not done ? I think it might have something to do with the fact that people don't want to pay $100 for a head of lettuce. But think of those thankless mechanics literally dying so that we can afford to eat. And people who have a hissy fit over the smell, get over it. I would sooner make it illegal for someone to eat burritos and pickled eggs and drink a cream ale style beer. The flatulence is downright dangerous. So where do my rights end again ? That was the point of the thread, not the smoking, but the choice. The inappropriate ability of the government to deny that choice. And now the people. But the people will still speak louder with money than anything else. With accomodation and/or segregation of people who do not want to be around one another, the world works alot better. Maybe noone has ever been in certain environments, I could design an HVAC system so good that a person sitting right next to you can smoke a big stogie and you won't smell it at all. This system would cost, and all the money comes from the customer ultimately. If the root of everything is money, the greatest pool of possible patrons is one that is not restricted in any way. So from which side of our mouths are we talking today ? That's the point, not the smokers v the antismokers. The point is just how far the law should be allowed to go. To require warnings is perfectly acceptable, but to dictate in that manner is dictating, no matter how you slice it. T

kittinSol -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 8:05:37 AM)
I don't want to derail your thread, but over there there's another thread where some people are arguing vociferously in favour of full-body scanners at airports, even though those scanners are proven to: a) not be effective, b) harmful to human health, c) blatantly contravene the right to dignity and d) potentially lead to terrible invasions of privacy. Yet, such people are quite happy to trump my rights in order to promote their fake sense of security. People's idea as to what constitutes acceptable rights violation varies so much...

Termyn8or -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 8:27:26 AM)
Exactly kit. That's why the Constitution was written. Too bad so few are aware of it's content. T

kittinSol -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 8:29:03 AM)
Thing is... so many use the Constitution literally to justify the stupidest things (such as unequivocal gun ownership, which, as you know, I believe to be moronic)... Where does the Constitution say that we have the right to smoke out other people?

Termyn8or -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 8:36:20 AM)
The Constitution is not, nor was it ever meant to be a complete blueprint for the whole body of law. It does set the boundaries though, in a fairly clear and concise manner. In other words it draws the line. If we move that line we might as well wipe our ass with it, just like the government does. And then we are as guilty of it's subversion as they. T

subrob1967 -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 8:55:14 AM)
A privately owned business should have the right to determine which kind of environment they want to promote. Government needs to stay out of my business, as long as it's run legally.

eyesopened -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 12:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Thing is... so many use the Constitution literally to justify the stupidest things (such as unequivocal gun ownership, which, as you know, I believe to be moronic)... Where does the Constitution say that we have the right to smoke out other people? I am not unsympathetic to your views (even as a smoker who owns guns), I really am not. However, I believe a private business owner has the right to allow any legal activity he ro she chooses to in his or her private business. I cannot accept that a person applies for a job and then goes to work every single day thinking they have no choice but to work at that specific place. I've had to work in food service when I could find no other work but at no time did I ever believe I would have to stay employed there forever. I chose a stop-gap measure. It was my choice. What has been discussed is allowing a private business a choice and then clearly posting what kind of environment a patron or employee would expect and allow everyone a choice. No one has suggessted smoking to be allowed everywhere. Many employers now exercise their right to not employ smokers at all even if that person only smokes at home, outside, after 9pm, on weekends. That is their right. I applaud them for it. One reason jobs get outsourced is that a company finds it much cheaper than to comply with all the restrictions necessary to accomodate every employee who poses a litigation lawsuit threat. A lot of people are allergic to perfume. Let's pass a law requiring all stores and restaurants and bars to employ bouncers to keep out the Axe abusers! The sound of a screaming toddler sets my teeth on edge and I can get an immediate headache. We need to pass legislation to include mandatory child gags to be worn in all "public" places. C'mon, it just gets ridiculous. Government is not a magical fairy that makes everybody's life wonderful.

Termyn8or -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 1:10:11 PM)
sub, let's run down the road "legally". This is exactly to the point. If anybody can write any fucking law they want, we have a mess. Incidentally we have a mess. They can make it illegal to sell french fries, and in fact have. But only in NY when fried in a certain legally defined type of oil. Well what if I want mine fried in that illegal oil ? I will go to the place that will do it for me. This really is just the place for this. Someone has to decide what is to be governed and what is not. While there are issues, and I try to see all sides to an issue, some are better left to the informed public rather than the mob or the government. For example, in one's own home smoking may be prohibited. What if they run a day care center ? Common sense would prevail in an ideal world. An ideal world is not possible with the current inhabitants though, so what do we do ? We write documents, delineating the rights of one vs the rights of society at large, in theory. However our right are now subject to the availablity of funds. If Obama lights up on AF one do you think they'll arrest him. We commoners have similar venues. I was at a bar with a sign on the wall that read NO MORE POT SMOKING IN HERE. The owner didn't like the smell. That was the place also where the clock had been shot, and though the glass was broke, the works were unaffected. The patrons took cuesticks to move the hands back so they wouldn't have to leave by the statutorily imposed closing time of 02:30. The cps walk in and the owner is aghast to find out it was hours too late. He got another clock and kept it under the bar. The point is, why not let people do what they want ? This bar, at least half the patrons had at least one gun. You don't prefer such an environment, don't go there. And no matter what the business does it has no control over what goes on outside. Laws like this are to be enforced by disarmed retired people who decided to invest in a bar ? Or is the bar owner compelled by law to call the police on a customer who lights up a Winston ? And this my friends comes from one who can be annoyed. One of my best friends smokes those cherry flavored cigars. They are by far the most disgusting thing on the planet. I have said something but never discouraged him from soking them, why ? I mean even in my own house. Why ? And this is from a smoker. T

pahunkboy -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 1:39:19 PM)
Obama would never smoke. I swear- that is a vast right wing conspiracy- and racist (JK)

kittinSol -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 2:10:51 PM)
Hey, eyesopened - the difference between the examples you give (screaming children, perfume and so forth) and cigarettes is that second-hand smoke has been proven again and again to have a very noxious effect on human health. So noxious, in fact, that we are seeing the tobacco companies, who used to run the show, having to cower in order to exist. There's even a doubt as to whether cigarettes will survive the backlash. I'm not crying over it. Lets not forget what the tobacco companies are; how they promoted cigarettes whilst hiding the terrible addiction and danger, and how they have been involved in (what I believed are justified) lawsuits by victims of their fierce marketing tactics. They have known for decades that their product was lethal. If people really need the nicotine high, let them chew it [8D] . That way, it affects only themselves. Yep: ex-smokers are the fiercest :-) .

eyesopened -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 2:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Hey, eyesopened - the difference between the examples you give (screaming children, perfume and so forth) and cigarettes is that second-hand smoke has been proven again and again to have a very noxious effect on human health. So noxious, in fact, that we are seeing the tobacco companies, who used to run the show, having to cower in order to exist. There's even a doubt as to whether cigarettes will survive the backlash. I'm not crying over it. Lets not forget what the tobacco companies are; how they promoted cigarettes whilst hiding the terrible addiction and danger, and how they have been involved in (what I believed are justified) lawsuits by victims of their fierce marketing tactics. They have known for decades that their product was lethal. If people really need the nicotine high, let them chew it [8D] . That way, it affects only themselves. Yep: ex-smokers are the fiercest :-) . Again, I am not unsympathetic. I'm a smoker and feel if the government was actually concerned about your health and mine, they would make tobacco illegal. End of debate. I have said a private business should have the right to allow any legal activity in their place of business. Tobacco companies have the technology to remove nicotine from tobacco. The government is not even proposing such a thing. It is in the government's interest to allow this addictive substance because it insures tax revenue. If you are looking for legislation, look to the source problem, tobacco, not the rights of the business owner. Most of the people responding to the thread want the onus on the smoker. The real issue is the "noxious" substance. I'm an addict for fuck's sake. (But it's cool cuz smokers and fat people are about all we are allowed to hate anymore so I provide some kind of benefit to society.) As long as tobacco is legal, then I should have to right to this legal activity. I used the examples I did because no matter what, it seems there will be someone whinning over something and call it their "right" and then demand a law. Enough is enough.

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 2:50:05 PM)
Hello kittin, So what other "rights" are you advocating the government take from us? Does it stop with smoking? Banning ALL guns from everyone? That's a good idea now isn't it? Frankly there have been times I too have been an "ex-smoker", and I felt the same back then as I do now. I am not saying, smoke everywhere and anywhere, but come on, why shouldn't a private owned business be allowed to run it as he/she sees fit? YOU have the right not to go in. Recently my FC and I went to Vegas, non-smoking casijn's are clearly marked as such. What is the problem with that? Why do you think you and/or anyone else has the authority to take away MY rights? Yet, in Ohio, it has happened. Maybe these casino's will be built on reservations, so they are NOT a part of the state of Ohio. How do you feel about same sex marriages? Ohio voters in their infinite wisdom voted that down too. So now we have the government involving THEMSELVES again; infringing on what should be our right. A marriage is a religious ritual. So why does anyone cares who the hell who marries whom? Oh yeah, the right wing whatever they call themselves, or is it the Moral Majority. Whatever, they are very wrong. Elizabeth Both these wonderful laws were passed. Blah.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 2:53:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eyesopened quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Hey, eyesopened - the difference between the examples you give (screaming children, perfume and so forth) and cigarettes is that second-hand smoke has been proven again and again to have a very noxious effect on human health. So noxious, in fact, that we are seeing the tobacco companies, who used to run the show, having to cower in order to exist. There's even a doubt as to whether cigarettes will survive the backlash. I'm not crying over it. Lets not forget what the tobacco companies are; how they promoted cigarettes whilst hiding the terrible addiction and danger, and how they have been involved in (what I believed are justified) lawsuits by victims of their fierce marketing tactics. They have known for decades that their product was lethal. If people really need the nicotine high, let them chew it [8D] . That way, it affects only themselves. Yep: ex-smokers are the fiercest :-) . Again, I am not unsympathetic. I'm a smoker and feel if the government was actually concerned about your health and mine, they would make tobacco illegal. End of debate. I have said a private business should have the right to allow any legal activity in their place of business. Tobacco companies have the technology to remove nicotine from tobacco. The government is not even proposing such a thing. It is in the government's interest to allow this addictive substance because it insures tax revenue. If you are looking for legislation, look to the source problem, tobacco, not the rights of the business owner. Most of the people responding to the thread want the onus on the smoker. The real issue is the "noxious" substance. I'm an addict for fuck's sake. (But it's cool cuz smokers and fat people are about all we are allowed to hate anymore so I provide some kind of benefit to society.) As long as tobacco is legal, then I should have to right to this legal activity. I used the examples I did because no matter what, it seems there will be someone whinning over something and call it their "right" and then demand a law. Enough is enough. I have a problem with these businesses being called "private" because the public uses them. A private home, no problem, they can do as they like. But places such as restaurants and bars, which are intended for use by the public are better as non-smoking establishments so that non-smokers as well as smokers can enjoy them. I'm a smoker by the way, I just don't feel I have the right to impose my nasty habit on others. I have no problem at all with restaurants and other public places being smoke-free, in fact I think it's pleasant to be able to eat a meal without smoke wafting all over the place.

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 3:04:04 PM)
Hello zephyr, They are private - because they are privately owned. So what is happening is the restaurant/bar owners are having their rights evoked. My solution is for establishments to state clearly they are either smoking or non-smoking. It gives people choice, they choose for themselves. As a free person I am quite capable of making my own choices, I do not need/want a government telling making this choice for me. Elizabeth

Louve00 -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 4:05:18 PM)
Yea, as I think on this, I think Elizabeth has the most diplomatic way of looking at it. To restrict a business owner from allowing something legal (unless, as in Fl, it is illegal to smoke in public places), is taking away as much of his rights as it is the non-smoker. Hang the sign, make patrons aware of whats being done there, then decide. People know what goes on in munches and dungeons, knows the content of the movie playing, knows what kind of food they're in the mood for when they pick a restaurant. Why not pick what place of business you want to bring your business too, especially if they cater to your lifestyle. The choice would be yours, after all.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 6:18:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne Hello zephyr, They are private - because they are privately owned. So what is happening is the restaurant/bar owners are having their rights evoked. My solution is for establishments to state clearly they are either smoking or non-smoking. It gives people choice, they choose for themselves. As a free person I am quite capable of making my own choices, I do not need/want a government telling making this choice for me. Elizabeth Hi Mistress Elizabeth, I see your point, I guess I never thought of it that way before. It does make good sense for people to be able to make up their own mind when it comes to whether or not they choose to eat at a particular restaurant. Serious question, have you ever considered writing your local congressman/woman and suggesting this solution. If so, what was the response? zeph

ElizabethAnne -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/8/2010 7:09:42 PM)
Hello zephyr, It was on the ballot and voted and passed, Ohio is completely a non smoking state. I really don't know how it could be overturned, someone with far more knowledge than me could better answer that question. While I could write a letter, I am not sure it would help. Zephyr, even if I were a non smoker I would feel this way, I do not believe in government taking away individual rights. Marriage is another huge issue. Whose business is it whom a person chooses to marry? Marriage in itself is a religious ritual. Because of the right wing, moral majority, we are ...at this time...stuck with an unfair law. Unfair because it infringes on people's rights. If I want to marry a woman, that should be MY choice. No I am not gay, I have many many gay friends, and because of some zealots they can not get married. That is wrong. Again it was on the ballot, and it was voted down, it also included language that did effect my FC and me; because we are NOT married, there are benefits in which we do not qualify. Simply because we have not gone through the "religious" ritual; even though we are committed, and have lived together for several years. Total discrimination. I hope the same sex marriage is again placed on the ballot, I will do more to help get it passed. Take care, Elizabeth

eyesopened -> RE: Just the place for this - smoking & Ohio (1/9/2010 4:46:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElizabethAnne Hello zephyr, It was on the ballot and voted and passed, Ohio is completely a non smoking state. I really don't know how it could be overturned, someone with far more knowledge than me could better answer that question. While I could write a letter, I am not sure it would help. Zephyr, even if I were a non smoker I would feel this way, I do not believe in government taking away individual rights. Marriage is another huge issue. Whose business is it whom a person chooses to marry? Marriage in itself is a religious ritual. Because of the right wing, moral majority, we are ...at this time...stuck with an unfair law. Unfair because it infringes on people's rights. If I want to marry a woman, that should be MY choice. No I am not gay, I have many many gay friends, and because of some zealots they can not get married. That is wrong. Again it was on the ballot, and it was voted down, it also included language that did effect my FC and me; because we are NOT married, there are benefits in which we do not qualify. Simply because we have not gone through the "religious" ritual; even though we are committed, and have lived together for several years. Total discrimination. I hope the same sex marriage is again placed on the ballot, I will do more to help get it passed. Take care, Elizabeth Now here I both agree and disagree with you. Marriage is NOT a religious ritual, it is a civil one. My daughter got married in a judge's chamber without invoking any diety at all. Marriage is not like baptism or confirmation. My baptism doesn't give me anything in any legal sense whatsoever. Marriage does. As a civil ritual it should be devoid of the same kinds of discrimiation afforded to employment, housing and the like. A religion can do whatever the heck they want. They don't wanna marry people, that's fine, but when my government who tells me on one hand that discrimination is illegal and can jail me for "hate" crimes, actually commits a hate crime by disallowing same-sex marriage, then I have a real problem with it. And while on that subject, I could not find a single instance in the bible that says two people of the same sex cannot love each other or be married so I don't know what they are thinking.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.736328E-02