I work for the government. They own the building.
And indeed, all indoor workplaces are smoke-free in CA.
Already covered that up-thread; government property being a good example of a place that really is “public” means smoking bans are probably a fairly good idea. And not just inside.
California isn’t the world and even there you have enough exceptions and loopholes. Never studied quite how to use them - but I do know some Californians well enough to figure they do. And “All”? You mean to tell me someone working from home MUST have that home smoke-free in California? The People’s Republic of Santa Monica maybe ----- but the entire state? When did that one sneak through?
The governor Arnold, keeps a satelite office outside the main capital building in a tent, specifically so he can smoke cigars inside.
Declan
<hangs head> That was one of the ones I was hinting at. There are other examples of “outside” and “inside” being toyed with in the case of bush pilots, factory ships and others. Lord knows the last factory ship I was near was a darn sight larger than any building I worked in – and held more workers as well.
In this “political sense of exception” I think Democrats may even be worse offenders; I believe the cigar magazines have run pictures of President Clinton smoking in the White House during his stay there and our current President smoking in his old offices. So much for that “government offices” ban being serious.
It’s one of the things I find most offensive in this entire thing. An exception for Joe’s Bar? God forbid! An exception if you’re rich enough? How many would you like?
Id say what would be more amazing is if Hilary , who was the one that brought in the no smoking rule at the whitehouse, allowed that. I also would not be surprised if some of LA and other locations within the SoCal area are not as smoke free as the law would like. In equally smoke free Ontario Canada at least three clubs in the Toronto area are smoke freindly, and enough gossip mags have a few celebs being commented on for smoking freely in areas that should be smoke free.
Declan
Wow, you’re a regular Columbo. The point was that your response was nonsensical. I have no personal stake in whether or not a restaurant bans smoking. I won’t be shivering in the cold or be driven crazy by an addiction as a result of the ban. It was simply to point out that your Farmer Says retort was a non sequitur.
Wrong. Your non-answer speaks volumes. Of course it’s absolutely analogous, which is why you won’t answer.
But they haven’t eliminated it. They really should, right? My health is sacrosanct. Screw your bad habits.
Once Michigan repeals this backward law, they can set their sites on repealing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 that aimed (and succeeded) at reducing the number of Black Lung Deaths. I can guarantee you that not ONE coal miner was unaware of his crappy work conditions. If it wasn’t disclosed to him in the job interview, then surely all that coal dust in his hair and face should have been his first clue. Yet they CHOSE to work in that environment anyway. So to hell with 'em and their diseased lungs! *As long as the company discloses its crappy work environment, then they should be able to do whatever they want. * Who cares if the companies prey on uneducated, poor people with few employment options? Free enterprise, people!
Another straw man. No one balks at reasonable restrictions and safeguards. But when the restrictions change the very nature of the service offered, it’s reasonable to ask if it’s overbearing. Mining companies want to get coal out of the ground. Whether or not the restrictions you refer to are reasonable or not, I have no idea, but I assume when all is said and done, there’s still coal being mined.
A bar where one can smoke a Marlboro and drink a Bud is changed into something different when someone dictates to the owner that he cannot permit smoking. You don’t want to breath cigarette smoke, then don’t work in a place where people go to smoke. If you don’t want to handle hazardous waste, as another example, don’t go into the hazardous waste removal business. It’s the very nature of the business. Again, coal is still presumably mined in spite of the restriction you refer to.
And PunditLisa, I’m sure you’d agree to give up all non-essential driving, correct? Given the health impact of car emissions. What the hell, I’ll try again: it’s just as reasonable that I demand that you not be permitted to drive to the same bar I can’t smoke in, for the same basic reasons, correct? Let’s see just how sturdy that high horse of yours is, if it can support this notion as well.
One thing Monica taught us was that in terms of personal affairs (pardon the expression) Hilary wasn’t the power we thought she was. Wouldn’t surprise me if Michele found out the same thing at some point.
Luckily for you you have an old coalpatch kid from the Woodward Breaker here to give you the straight dope - so to speak. No offense but you have heard of the Mollies and the UMWA right? A little “monkey-wrenching” here and there and maybe a strike or two and free enterprise (or at least the private sector) accomplished as much or more than Uncle Sugar ever did to get miners safer conditions and a living wage. Doesn’t mean reasonable laws aren’t welcome but – we come up against that word “reasonable”. And I’m betting anyone down Maple Creek Mine can point out instances where they obey the sillier mining safety laws about as well as you obey traffic laws. In other words, not at all.
Bars smoke free by law? Not reasonable. Smoke free because you and your friends boycott them and you are such big spenders? Reasonable.
I could also point out that public companies like coal or steel, in living off government contracts and price supports, are a little different from Joe’s Bar and Grill. Being one of the originals in GASP who helped crush steel around here and knock it for a loop nationally as well, I really could. But us old liberals are about making things better for all of society and you New Agers are something different. So I’ll just leave it at that.
Well there you go. The anti-smoking laws are very reasonable.
Ummmm…no. It’s very much the same. just a bit cleaner.
Ummmm…no, it’s not. Not to the people who specifically want a place where they can smoke, and not to the owners who would prefer to run such an establishment. It is substantially different. I realize this logic pales in comparison to the “but I might stop by that bar some day, and I don’t like smoke” rationale. A reminder, since this may have slipped your mind: (1) you don’t have to go into any bar, and (2) you don’t own the place.
By the way, your response doesn’t even make sense. If it’s substantially the same, why did we have to change anything? The “need” for a law suggests that this is an important and material change to the tyrannical majority who insist that every @#$%ing bar in the world be just the way they’d prefer, other people’s preferences and ownership rights be damned.
BTW, are you now willing to give up all non-essential driving, at my insistence, for the same reasons advanced in this thread? I insist that you not drive to the bar I can’t smoke in. Reasonable, right?
That’s some bizarre parallel universe you live in, where parked cars are committing all those violations.
Reminds me of a Stephen King short story.
American Heart Association | To be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives 25 percent of American men smoke. 20 percent of the women. The 80 % who don’t smoke have been living for generations under the tyranny of the minority. Why would a bar owner want to have smoking? It is an unhealthy habit that forces non smokers to suck it into their lungs. It makes his bar harder to clean and it always will smell like stale smoke. The equipment suffers due to accumulations of tar and nicotine.
Why is it such an imposition to have smokers step outside? Do you not see what an imposition it is on everybody else to suck on your smoke?
Because it may be an increase in traffic to allow it.
Why, if he wants to allow it, should you ahve the right to say he doesn’t?
You really can’t still be asking that question. It is unhealthy for other patrons, employees and does damage to his establishment. Why can’t they just go outside and smoke? Why can’t they quit? Why is the logical option to you, they should be allowed to smoke amongst other people and damage their health. That is the most selfish , dangerous and inconsiderate of all the options.
I certainly can.
The patrons choose to be there, the employees choose to work there, and the establishment is the owners to damage as he/she pleases.
Your strongest argument of these three, frankly, is the worker argument, however this doesn’t hold true in a market with more than a single employer. People can choose where to work, it’s as simple as that. If you weren’t advocating a total ban, but a partial ban (say, as much as XX% of restaurants can allow smoking, and XX% of bars) I’d be more inclined to say that your restrictions are reasonable, but as of right now they’re simply unreasonable and intrusive.
Because outside is a public place, that’s the place they should avoid smoking.
Private Establishment, Private rules. Public Establishment, Public rules.
You can’t drink in public, but you can smoke? How’s that make sense. You can drink in private, and now you can’t smoke? What the hell kind of convoluted logic is this?
Because it’s their personal choice, their freedom. You’re no ones parent (or at least, not mine or most of theirs) and it’s not your place to tell them what they are or are not allowed to do.
Suck it up. This is the real world, not some idealistic world where selfish, dangerous and inconsiderate are magical words that instantly applied to a topic make it bad.
The lack of police ability to instantly search and seize property is dangerous, it allows for people to hide evidence and not be convicted, it’s inconsiderate, because your not wanting your assets to be “endangered” puts others in danger, and selfish because you’re potentially putting others in danger to serve your own purpose.
Does this mean that the right to avoid illegal search and seizure should be waived? That the 4th amendment should be void?
My granddaddy was burnt up over most of his body in a coal mining accident back in the 50’s. That accident done kilt a few of his friends. Now what did the Coal Mine do to thank him for nearly losing his life on the job? Fire him, of course, cause he for sure couldn’t mine coal any more. Now, to your way of thinking, the folks who remained shoulda just waited around for a sufficient number of folks to die til they got scairt enough to strike.
Me? I think that when men are coming out all crispified just going to their work, well, them and their kin oughtn’t have to wait around for a union, especially when they got a high falutin’ State Legislator, elected for the very purpose of passing laws and looking out for us folks, with the power to do something about it. No striking (which, by the by also means no paycheck) needed – same end but half the time!
I love me some Uncle Sugar.
The voters in Michigan have decided what is reasonable to them.
Since I don’t obey traffic laws at all, the magic bubble protecting me from accidents must be working really, really well.
As to your point about workers choosing not to follow safety laws, forget the “sillier” safety laws – hell, I’ll bet there are miners who choose not to wear their filtration masks because they’re bulky and sweaty. I’ll also bet there’s a few Steelworkers who work on skyscrapers without wearing their safety tethers. What exactly is your point?
Oh, you Old Liberals, you really are your own biggest fans. Who knew you’d get so sentimental over polluted air?
When the very nature of the service being offered is proven to be unequivocably harmful to the folks delivering said service, it’s reasonable to ask if the health of the workers supercedes status quo.
I think that that question has been asked, in many states, and answered.
It can be asked, but if the nature of the service is a reasonable one (e.g., providing smokers with a privately-owned establishment where they can light one up), a worker who wants to avoid cigarette smoke should probably look for work elsewhere. To use the example I provided previously, hazardous waste is, well, hazardous. If you want to stay far, far away from it, you probably shouldn’t go into the hazardous waste removal business. It is the very nature of the work, one that provides a certain level of peril to the workers who willingly decide to go into that line of work.
Yes, it has been answered. In my opinion, unreasonably and in an overbearing manner. Such is the nature of our democracy. Any number of idiotic laws may exist at a given moment.
BTW, I notice that in responding to my post you forgot to answer the question I posed. Here it is again, so you don’t have to go back and find it:
Surely a practice that is proven to be unequivocably harmful to others–producing car emissions–ought to be restricted completely where the driving is not essential, right?
BTW, I’ll stop asking if someone just concedes the obvious–most people believe “dangerous” habits should only be curtailed to the extent they don’t personally inconvenience themselves. If it is a practice they enjoy a significant benefit from, the question is simply ignored, as evidenced in this thread.
For the tenth time,your question is not germane and you need to stop trying to hijack the thread with it. Start another thread with your hijack, eh?
Man- what dudes won;t do when they are trying to rationalize their addiction. :rolleyes: