No more smoking in New York State

[starvingeyes]

rob(axtech) and jim,

why do you believe you have the <i>right</i> to go to a restaraunt and not be bothered by smoke? rob, you even said:

I go to a restaurant for dinner. The guy beside me is chain smoking. Should I have to be submitted to this? No. <i>Should I have to leave the restaurant? No.</i>

[emphasis mine]

why shouldn't you have to leave the restaraunt? from what logic do you derive the belief that you have the <i>right</i> to tell that restaraunt owner how to run his business?

and as for the employees - they are only there because they want to be. a person who voluntarily signs up for a job accepts all the risks involved. these are not slaves we are talking about, they are paid volunteers.

furthermore, there are studies that suggest that your body naturally eliminates a certain percentage of the toxins in cigarette smoke, provided they do not exceed a certain threshold. the <i>theory</i> that second hand smoke is as dangerous as smoking is still just a <i>theory</i>.

this is not about smokers vs non smokers or employees vs owners. it is about the property rights of the people who own the building. honestly, why do you think you have the right to tell somebody what they can or cannot permit on their own property?

what if a bar owner came to your house and told you that you were from here on out, prohibited from hanging paintings on your walls or painting them any other colour then blue? would you think that is alright?

[Corey]

What if I'm a business owner, and I steal money from my employees' wallets when they are in my store. They accept the risk of that by working there so its ok right?

[nelison]

I go to a restaurant to eat. Everyone goes to a restaurant to eat, not to smoke, there are thousands of other places to smoke. I don't go there to inhale smoke, and if I'm paying for a meal I don't want it to taste like I'm eating a cigarette. I don't want to leave the restaurant smelling like a chain smoker either.

You see as much as you hate the whole majority concept, 2/3 of people are non-smokers. Essentially the 1/3 who do smoke are harming those of us who don't by forcing us to inhale their cigarette smoke. Does it hurt to have somewhere where people can go and have a smoke-free meal? I don't think so.

Besides couldn't a smoker simply go 30 minutes to maybe an hour without smoking? I mean you would think they would have some consideration for those around them considering the health risks they're giving non-smokers.

Some facts about secondhand (passive) smoke

1. Contains more than 4,000 substances, more than 40 of which are known to cause cancer in humans or animals and many of which are strong irritants.

2.Secondhand smoking is estimated by the EPA to cause approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers each year.

3. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoking is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

4. Asthmatic children are especially at risk. The EPA estimates that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the number of episodes and severity of symptoms in hundreds of thousands of asthmatic children. EPA estimates that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition made worse by exposure to secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoking may also cause thousands of non-asthmatic children to develop the condition each year.

5. Exposure to secondhand smoke causes irritation of the eye, nose, and throat.

6. Passive smoking can also irritate the lungs, leading to coughing, excess phlegm, chest discomfort, and reduced lung function.


If that's not enough evidence as to why smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places than I really don't know what is.

[mosaik]

Jim, i don't want to be rude but it appears that either you don't know how to answer questions or you can't fathom the concept of logical thought.

Chris posed the following question: what right do you have to tell restaraunt/bar owners if they can permit smoking in their establisments or not? what right does your government have? what right does the majority have?

your post didn't answer the question.

[nelison]

fuck you

rob(axtech) and jim,

why do you believe you have the right to go to a restaraunt and not be bothered by smoke?

[Sufjan Stevens]

I'm not a smoker, and I don't like the fact that my brother smokes, but it's his choice to do it. That's besides the point here. Face it, no one has the right to tell a private establishment what it can or cannot do. The government can't come into a bar and say, "We won't let your patrons smoke here anymore, and if we find out they still do, we will ticket them, and maybe ticket you." If I run a bar, I am not letting anyone tell me that people can't smoke because some governmental big-wigs feel it's what they should do. I didn't ask for them to make smoking illegal in my building, therefore, I should be able to have smoking in my building.

I am sure no one would be happy if I came into your house and told you what music you can and cannot listen to, what websites you can go to, and what television you can and cannot watch. I would be invading your privacy, much like what the government is doing now.

[nelison]

So really if you opened up a store where you were allowed to walk in and shoot whoever you felt like shooting, the government would not be able to say it's murder?

[Sufjan Stevens]

Murder is illegal. Cigarettes are not. Last time I checked, those are very legal to smoke and are sold in all convinience stores nationwide. You want to make smoking in my building illegal? Make smoking illegal nationwide, no matter where you're at, and ban the sale of cigarettes, then we'll talk. No one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot permit in my buildings, especially when it's something completely legal to do.

[Narbus]

If that's not enough evidence as to why smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places than I really don't know what is.

Oh, that's fine. Resturants are not public places. They are privately held establishments. The property and building are owned not by the public, but by a private company/individual.

[nelison]

but smoking in any type of establishment is illegal. At least where I live.

[Narbus]

But why? Why does someone else have the right to dictate what a private owner can and cannot do on his property? If I walk into your house and take all the pictures off the wall because I don't like the colors, is that okay?

[mosaik]

fuck you

what a rational reply.

i can see why you couldn't answer the question now. thank for clarifying that for me.

[starvingeyes]

secondhand smoke has been scientifically and empirically proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt to bother people

that is all

murder, theft and the like, on the other hand, have been scientifically and empirically proven to directly harm people

you do not have the <i>right</i> to not be <i>bothered</i> by an activity which is occurring on private property with the permission of the owner. you do have the right not to be harmed.

furthermore, even if it were shown that secondhand cigarette smoke is harmful to your health, do not forget that you <i>choose to be there</i>, there being a place where smoking is permitted. you, as an individual, consider the costs (ie. health problems) vs the benefits of attending a particular venue (ie. fun) and then make your choice.

if you choose to go to a venue where murderers lurk, with the full knowledge that upon arrival, you will be <i>shot and killed</i>, then no, the murderer has not done any wrong. you gave him permission to shoot you.

employees at a bar agree beforehand to work there depsite smoking. they do not agree to be robbed. if they did agree to be robbed, then there would be no problem with them being robbed.

so, i repeat my question to the defenders of the law: from what logic do you derive the belief that you have the <i>right</i> to tell a private business owner what kind of activity he or she can permit on their own property?

i eagerly await your reply. non-sensical emotional pandering is not accepted.

[I AM ME]

this is not about smokers vs non smokers or employees vs owners. it is about the property rights of the people who own the building.

no, that's your oppion of what it's about, don't assume that you know more then all of us. And really is it really that fucking hard to wait an hour? If it is then you have bigger problems. Please don't turn this into another anarchy thread as well, we all know your views, and we could visit any number of other threads to be lectured on Anarchism

[Sufjan Stevens]

This isn't fucking anarchy. No one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do against your will. I will say it again. If I own a store and I permit people to smoke there, then there's no way in hell I am going to let someone else tell me I have to change my rules because that person doesn't like it. You don't want me to allow people to smoke in my building? Get the fuck out. You don't have to be in there. You want to be in a smoke free environment? Then go to a bar that already banned smoking or sit at home. This is my private property and I will do what I want.

If I went in your house and told you where you could sleep and when you could use the bathroom, would you tell me to get out of your house or just lay down and let me take over your life? Yeah, if you'd let me, you're spineless, if you'd make me leave, you're a fucking hypocrite.

Face it, the government protects my rights in the Bill Of Rights. They can't go ahead and take away what they promise me. And they also have no right to enter my private establishment and tell me I can't let people use a legal marcotic. If you don't want people to smoke it in my private establishment, then make tobacco illegal.

[mosaik]

yeah, you all know our completely logical and reasonable views, you all know that "we're wrong" but none of you can figure out why.



he's not making it into an anarchy thread, he's presenting the RATIONAL point of view. it's not his fault if you guys can't/won't listen to reason.

EDIT: Alan is also making some great points about how hypocritical it is for your government to outlaw a legal activity in private establishments.

[ihatethunderbay]

This is basically me thinking out loud, but...

There's all this anti-smoking stuff going on because now people are aware of the harmful effects of smoking, and the majority of people probably don't want lung cancer or asthma or emphysema, eh?

If people were aware of that during the early days of smoking, then wouldn't cigarettes be illegal? I mean, I suppose the real reason cigarettes aren't illegal now is because they've been around so long and make the government a HUGE chunk of cash.

I dunno.. I don't have too much knowledge on the subject... I guess I probably would have been better off not posting...

Oh well.

[I AM ME]

, i also didn't mean you were turning it into a Anarchy thread, i was telling you guys not to start, and really is it a issue even? why does it matter to the owner in the first place, the reason it's universal is so that it's fair to people who wantto go smoke free. If you go smoke free and your competeion doesn't it puts them in a better position. Really, it's just something people need to get used to, nobody gives a damn anymore around here, and it's only been a year, it just takes getting used to. Like i said at one time you could smoe in hospitals, would any of you consider that now? No, because you've never been allowed to

[nelison]

exactly, Clumsyboy.

oh ya mosaik you insulted my intelligence when in fact you were the one who was wrong. That's the reason for my post earlier. I'm tired of the whole "force/pro-anarchy" threads. They've been beaten dead and really no one here cares much about it because it's never going to happen. Again maybe I'm wrong, maybe your pro-anarchy views are cared about by the entire CM population and if that's the case then I apologize to everyone.

For you guys to say that second hand smoke is not harmful is awfully ignorant and if I were mean I would probably hope irony struck you down...

[Sufjan Stevens]

Wow, you bitch about having your intelligence insulted, and you turn around and insult others. Not the best idea if you're trying to prove a point.

I'll say it for the fourth time now, no one has any right to tell people what to do. It's private property, which means that it is not owned by the public or the government. No one else should have any say as to how one chooses to run he private place except the owner(s) of the building.

I wouldn't have any right to go into a bar and tell the owner to stop selling alcohol there because there's a chance one of the people will drive home that night. Sure, I am looking out for other people's safety on the off chance that one person would drive home and get in an accident, but it's no reason for the owner to stop selling alcohol.

If people have a complaint about cigarette smoke, then saying that all these private places can't have people smoke there is not the answer. The real answer would be to bad the sale of cigarettes and make smoking them illegal, just like smoking pot. Sure, it might seem extreme, but that's the only way you'll actually have the problem solved. You would be able to go to bars and restaurants and never have to worry about smoke, because if someone lit a cigarette up, that person would be arrested. But saying that smoking in private places is illegal is asenine. If you think cigarettes are a problem, ban them, not the places they can be smoked at.