quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Sinergy I know how the law currently sits on the issue (I am an Authorized OSHA Safety Trainer), I am argueing the point that the law goes too far not what the law is currently. I am providing a logical argument to allow an exception.

If it is legal to hire only non smoking employees (as case law already says it is) then the reverse hireing only smokers is also legal.
If you hire only smokers then the presence of second hand smoke at their job site is of negligable health detriment compared to what they already volentarily inhale. Thus the employer is not increasing their risk by any real factor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

No.

You personally smoke in my face and you will damage my health.

You personally drink in my face and you will not damage my health.

See the difference?

Not a group of people, or a wider social issue, but you personally and me personally - personal responsibility. Next time we go for a beer, you don't smoke in my face and I won't piss on your leg. Sounds a fair enough exchange of civilities if you ask me.

quote:

You might like it, but others don't.

In your own home or in a smoking establishment - fine, your health.

In a public place - your freedom doesn't involve damaging someone elses' health.

NG - I have seen you take the issue of smoking to this example (above) often, and I have to say I am getting a bit frustrated.  As a smoker, and as to all the other smokers who have given opinions on this issue, I have to say that you seem to lose sight of the fact that we state over and over that we have no desire to smoke in your face.  We will observe the proprieties, and now the law.  Yet you continue to take it to an entirely different argument.

Bollocks. Copy and paste, or point to a thread, where I've taken "an entirely different argument".

I would have to point you to the recent "Smoking Ban - When is it too much?"  thread
 
http://www.collarchat.com/m_776649/mpage_1/key_smoking%2Cban%2Ctoo%2Cmuch/tm.htm 
 
I am not specifically taking your arguments out of the thread, but referring you to the entire thing in context. 
 
You stood out like a sore thumb to Me in that thread.   Note the original question and see how quickly it was able to get off track.  You jumped on that bandwagon in a hurry! 
You seem to take any discussion regarding a choice to smoke to an argument that if this is allowed people will take advantage and kill you with their second hand smoke.  When you proffer that type of argument then the other side will come back and state that if you are that upset about second hand cigarette smoke, to the extent that you are all for creating smoke free environments for yourself, without regard to the access to smoking environments for others, then you do leave yourself open to the additional argument that this mass hysteria about second hand smoke is almost laughable when we are all breathing in so many toxic fumes from cars and trucks that it makes the second hand smoke issue seem like a paper cut we have to bandage while ignoring the  bloody amputation that is occuring at the same time.   
My point, NorthernGent, is that you immediately jump to people being rude and ignoring any social propriety unless there is a law that protects you.   Although you can say that people can smoke their brains out in their own homes, you failed to see that this was the exact point of the original discussion.  Taht was all that needed to be said.  Not, "I'm okay with that...but..."  Always the big "but".  By arguing as you did, it would appear that this is not going to necessarily affect you in a negative manner, therefore you are all for more and more restrictions for a ban on smoking in all public areas.  Pick a pleasure and then imagine it being taken away from you in all manner and then tell Me that you will go along with the status quo because other people are affected by your pleasure.  Even when you can say, they would not be. You seem to be pretty big on your pub time. It is a reasonable pastime and harmless, is it not?  You state that  you will not drive drunk, you will not puke on the other non-consensual person's shoes, and you will not fall down in the pub and sue the owner because his bar stools were too high.  I guarantee you that there are people out there who could start a wave of hysteria and state that you  and your ilk are dangerous and causing more problems and that we need to ban drinking in public places.  Yes, it is a bit of an extreme example...or is it?  
Now, I did not see you address any other point of My post.  Where is the rest of My post?  Is it so unimportant to you?  It did address, with example, the lack of balance regarding what is okay to be banned and what is not.  Are you concerned at all that I will no longer have any smoking establishment to choose?  Or do you not care because you don't smoke, therefore it does not affect you on a personal level?  Why is it okay, NG, to remove all ability to smoke in any public place, even if I am patronizing a private business?  Why is it okay to tell that private buisness owner that s/he will now be in violation of a law if s/he does not maintain a completely smoke-free establishment?  Are your rights to what you perceive as "clean air" more important than My rights to have a place to indulge in My pleasure or the rights of the private business to determine if there is a "this is a non-smoking establishment"  or this is a "smoking establishment" sign in the window? 
 
Remember, this is a thread about being selective in your stance on bans.  It is not a thread about the ills of smoking or second hand smoke. 

quote:



Bollocks

quote:

Go into a bar, does one know for a fact that all the people who work there smoke?  The law in California states people cannot smoke in a place of business.  I am driving through your town and want to stop and get something to eat, how does the "I can go somewhere else that has no smokers at it" approach apply to me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Devilslilsister

quote:

Go into a bar, does one know for a fact that all the people who work there smoke?  The law in California states people cannot smoke in a place of business.  I am driving through your town and want to stop and get something to eat, how does the "I can go somewhere else that has no smokers at it" approach apply to me?

Screw the law, all of us are breaking it almost non stop anyways. 

grow up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking?  With every drink he takes he's killing his liver.  So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking?  With every drink he takes he's killing his liver.  So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health.

I know, this hypocrisy is what is so laughable about the whole ban smoking brigade. Drink is a bigger killer and danger to health and costs society much more than smoking does. In Britain anyway.

Though I guess drinkers will say they are only damaging their own health and nobody elses which isn't true. Some drinkers drive cars and kill people, some beat the shit out of passing strangers, drink is a known cause of domestic violence, some attack medical staff after they have been taken hospital after walking into a wall or something equally stupid. Then there is the medical costs to society which is more than the medical cost of smokers.

Hmm Now why isn't drinking banned?  Not that I want it banned but banning smoking and not drinking doesn't make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking?  With every drink he takes he's killing his liver.  So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health.

I know, this hypocrisy is what is so laughable about the whole ban smoking brigade. Drink is a bigger killer and danger to health and costs society much more than smoking does. In Britain anyway.

Though I guess drinkers will say they are only damaging their own health and nobody elses which isn't true. Some drinkers drive cars and kill people, some beat the shit out of passing strangers, drink is a known cause of domestic violence, some attack medical staff after they have been taken hospital after walking into a wall or something equally stupid. Then there is the medical costs to society which is more than the medical cost of smokers.

Hmm Now why isn't drinking banned?  Not that I want it banned but banning smoking and not drinking doesn't make sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kitbaloo

Should someone also point out that if he's so worried about his health he would complain about the very thing he enjoys..drinking?  With every drink he takes he's killing his liver.  So to me it seems a bit hypocritical just to pick on smokers cause he doesn't "approve" of smoking on the basis it is damaging to his health, drinking is equally as damaging to his health.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

I would have to point you to the recent "Smoking Ban - When is it too much?"  thread
 
http://www.collarchat.com/m_776649/mpage_1/key_smoking%2Cban%2Ctoo%2Cmuch/tm.htm  
 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
p.s.  Another attribute of growing up involves not acting like a spoiled 3 year old because you have to sit nicely in the circle with the other children.  For those playing the home game, that would be synonymous with following the laws and rules and customs your society has put in place for the benefit of the People.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

Yet yu will never see a report being issued that sates one cigarette a day is beneficial to your health...Yet they are plenty of reports that tout the benefits of a glass of wine or more recently fruity drinks served with a splash of rum, tequila....

quote:



I am aainst most bans...But as a casual smoker if I am really jonesing for a smoke there is always outside....That way no one is forced to partake in my habit and their clothes don't have to smell like smoke as well....No big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
p.s.  Another attribute of growing up involves not acting like a spoiled 3 year old because you have to sit nicely in the circle with the other children.  For those playing the home game, that would be synonymous with following the laws and rules and customs your society has put in place for the benefit of the People.

Kinda like how EVERYONE obeys the speed limit, right?

When you create a society so saturated with arbitrary bans and restrictions that almost every individual becomes a criminal at one time or another, generally without ever causing harm to another person or their property, you devalue the rule of law.

...dave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Trying to figure out how it goes from, smokers wanting some places where smoking is legal and acceptable, to Inflicting it on others.
I never had a problem with smoking and non smoking sections.

quote:



When they required seperate air handling for them I was OK fine sounds like a good idea.
But to go beyond that and require all resturants and bars to ban smoking was a step too far.

quote:



Nobody is forceed to go into a bar that allows it, (other than the employees and as stated before levels can be engineered the same way they are for any other place where chemicals are a part of the environment the work takes place in.
Set an OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) based on the actual toxins in smoke and mandate the facility meet the standard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Trying to figure out how it goes from, smokers wanting some places where smoking is legal and acceptable.