On F
I have far less "freedom of choice" on whether or not to enter a
hospital. But the council didn't see any reason to address smoking there..
riday, August 2, 2013 9:02:21 PM UTC-7, Wes Groleau wrote:
On 08-02-2013 21:03, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2013 4:56:36 PM UTC-7, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 8/2/2013 6:08 PM, Frank wrote:
On 8/2/2013 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Friday, August 2, 2013 7:36:40 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
[...snip....]
I won't even hire a smoker because they're addicted to a very powerful albeit legal drug. Besides I'm very allergic to the smoke as are many employees of my
customers. ^_^
Got a call the other day out of the blue from a friend I had worked with in the non-smokers' rights movement -- must be at least 2 decades ago. What we had to go through, between the all-powerful tobacco lobby and the freaking politicians who were too scared or too venal to vote in the public interest!!!
People today who can breathe freely in restaurants, movies, stores, etc.. don't realize what it was like back then -- threats, insults, sometimes physical violence.
There are STILL problems we hear about all the time from apartment dwellers who are suffering like hell from smoke drifting into their space from another unit or from a balcony. The smokers are indignant that they can't do what they like in their own space. The victims -- perhaps with a medical condition that could be life-threatening if they inhale smoke -- are equally indignant that they have to live with windows closed in all weather, can't go out on their porches/balconies, and even so, smoke finds its way into their space.
Some newer construction is dedicated smoke-free, but that doesn't help people stuck in an unbearable situation in older housing.
How would Solomon render judgment?
I've never smoked, and I HATE the smell. Nevertheless, I believe
government meddles far too much and usually in the wrong places.
Here, we mandated that all restaurants have the smoking section walled
off with separate ventilation. I figure the owner should have the right
to do what he wants with his property and I have the right to choose
whether to enter.
A lot of restaurants chose to close rather than remodel. And after the
rest had spent all that money in compliance, the same council outlawed
smoking completely in restaurants.
****Where is "here"? Which state or locality?
Different states approached this problem with varying ardor.
For a while, restaurants tried "smoking sections", but very few spent the money to provide separate ventilation. Mostly it was a band-aid that did absolutely nothing to keep smoke away from non-smokers' the smoke didn't know it was not supposed to attack them.
Your "freedom of choice" argument that owner of restaurant can do whatever he/she wants is a fallacious one. Restaurants serve a public good. They are regulated as to the food they serve, as to toilet facilities, as to fire alarms/exits even as to parking in some localities.
There have been many tragic cases of people burned to death because of inadequate or inoperative fire systems OR EVEN LOCKED EXITS!
Same with bad food served to YOU and YOUR family, who got sick and maybe died.
It took DECADES to overcome the enormous amounts of money poured into this situation by the tobacco lobby. *You should educate yourself on how vicious and dishonest was the propaganda they put out*. And how openly they paid off national and local legi$lator$ to fight non-smokers' rights movements.
Please rethink your inaccurate comparison to restaurant access with hospital access. (You do, in fact, have the right to refuse to enter a hospital -- if you are conscious and weird enough to want to make that choice.)
But if you cannot enter a restaurant without suffering from tobacco smoke, where is your choice?
HB
[...]