The basic argument that pro-smokers make is that their right to smoke is being violated. There is no such thing as a right to smoke. There are rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and in that order. Those are your inalienable rights. Smoking is a luxury, not a necessity. Clean air is a necessity, not a luxury. When one's actions (in this case, smoking) take away from another's right (in this case, to life), that action has to be regulated, and regulated to the extent to which damage is done (in this case, even second-hand smoke is dangerous, and has to be regulated). The dangers of second-hand smoke are well-documented and researched. Tobacco companies did try to disprove the dangers of second-hand smoke at one time, but given the overwhelming evidence that proves the dangers of second-hand smoke, they've since given up and focused their business on developing (and often poorer) countries, hoping to take advantage of less-educated populations.
First of all - that's not relevant to outdoor secondhand smoke. At all. Nobody is raised in a tavern. some people are, they spend most thier lives there. Second of all - show me these studies, who funded them, what their methods and selection techniques were. Why? You can't just FEEL that someone has a RIGHT to something; you have to prove it. All this talk about a right to this and a right to that is what gets us socialism; suddenly everyone has a right to free health care and primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary education. Excuse me? ehem.... EVERY one has a right to clean air! hmmm.... you don't thinkso? No law will accomplish that; legislation only makes this world a darker place. Nothing can be solved by legislation. The secondhand smoke issue is just another convenient excuse that politicians keep around to violate people's rights to their own property, and look good doing it. Hello? Is there anynody home? Its good that SOME politicains care about our health. Because that is what this is about; private property. It's up to businesses and landowners as to who can smoke where. This banning-smoking-everywhere-except-in-your-apartment-under-a-blanket-with-all-the-lights-out stuff is completely tyrannical. Who in the heck would want to smoke under thier blankets? Its best kept outside, away from inside the workplaces, restaraunts and homes. When there's lots of really bad stuff happening, the proper thing to do is not to start with an issue of no consequence. The water's boiling and the phone's ringing, which problem do you deal with first? None of them - YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE I feel the water boiling. So you're an environmentalist? What do you think of the genetically modified foods that kill all the lab animals, create new amino acids, and fry all your organs? (Note: one third of americans have diabetes now, according to a new study, it used to be one in 45 just 50 or 60 years ago; Crohn's disease is way up, cancer is doubling every few years, including weird lung cancers - how many people do you know with breast cancer? how many three year olds with leukemia?) What do you think of the depleted uranium in the atmosphere at over eight times safe levels, with DU being used in over ten proving grounds in the US alone? (lung cancer is way up, and people like - my guess is - you, blame this on second hand smoke, even though smoking in America is at an all-time low, meanwhile it's admitted that you only need to inhale a few thousand DU particles to get lung cancer) What do you think of all kinds of fluoride in the water? What do you think of mercury, live cancer virus, dead bacteria, fungus, DNA fragments, etc, in the vaccine supply?[/quote] I think its awful....all the genetically modified foods. nikdy jsem ti nechtel ublizit....with talking about smoking. :-( To je pravda. Jsem zmateny.... so you think that smoking in public places is ok? Nasleduj sve srdce.... as long as no one else is getting hurt by it. Bye
some people are, they spend most thier lives there. Good thing we have the government nanny state to protect them from themselves and take all our rights away while the border is wide open! Excuse me? ehem.... EVERY one has a right to clean air! hmmm.... you don't thinkso? But you haven't answered my question. Hello? Is there anynody home? Its good that SOME politicains care about our health. Do you realize that the DoD dumps more chemicals than the top five private chemical companies combined? The point isn't intentions, we all know what good intentions pave. Who in the heck would want to smoke under thier blankets? Its best kept outside, away from inside the workplaces, restaraunts and homes. You're addressing my hyperbole, not my point. Do you realize that there are parts of California now that are banning smoking outdoors? I feel the water boiling. What does this mean?
You're twisting, this is all total baloney. Who determines what is necessary beyond a bearskin, a cave, and a source of raw meat? Of course there's a right to smoke - the entire idea of rights is that you can do whatever you want, unless it inflicts on someone else's rights. Therefore, smoking is a right, except where prohibited by the owner of whatever property you're on. (I don't consider cigarette smoke to be one of those environmental issues that transcend an individual's property; anthropogenic global warming claims are preposterous enough without claiming that cigarette smoke is even partially responsible.) Watch the Penn & Teller's "Bullshit!" about secondhand smoke.
Penn and Teller aren't scientists. They aren't even geniuses. They're entertainers. Just like Britney Spears, Madonna, and Tom Cruise. Not leaders, not idols, just entertainers. And I will determine for you what is necesssary. Oxygen is necessary. Most people will die if they're cut off for five minutes. It doesn't get more necessary than that. And people have a right to breathe it without the poisonous chemicals released from cigarette smoke. To think otherwise is backwards and archaic.
Ok, earlier I stated that smoking in a sport’s stadium might infringe on a non-smoker's right since they could not see the team elsewhere. I need to retract that statement. I had forgotten that stadiums are also privately owned. Therefore, it's none of the governments business if smoking is allowed there or not. The only time the government should have the authority to dictate smoking in public is if the public place is owned by the government. If the place is paid for by tax $$, then the government should be able to have some sort of say. Tom & Milewicz, I understand that you are for clean air and hate second hand smoke. But don't you at least agree that if a place is privately owned, the person flipping the bill for it should be the one to decide if there is smoking there or not? I mean, do you really want the government to tell you what you can or cannot do in a building you pay for? Do you really trust the government so much that you want them to have that much control? Wow, what an eye opener! I always just thought liberals were deceived and didn't realize that in their quest for "a better life" they were taking away freedoms. However, my husband always told me that I was naive for believing that. He said there are plenty of liberals who truly understand that they are voting to diminish human rights and make the government ALL POWERFUL! He then went on to state why American (& Canadian) liberals would make excellent communists. I didn’t really believe him though. I figured that since he defected communism, he sees American liberals as communists. However, this new enlightenment makes me feel sad. It’s one thing to have pity for liberals thinking they are just deceived poor souls. But to realize some are not deceived at all and truly want an ALL POWERFUL government is a sad state.
To take your point a little further--movie theatres, stores, and gymnasiums and many other institutions are also privately owned, and smoking has been banned in these places for a while now. The problem is that secondhand smoke contains poisonous and lethal chemicals--carbon monoxide, benzene, etc. And these are chemicals that are already monitored by the government. And it's not done to tell businesses how to operate--which is what some people fear--it's done to protect the citizens who have to work. The overwhelming majority of people simply don't want to have to be exposed to these things while at work. Finally, I don't agree that the person "flipping the bill" should be allowed to do whatever they want without interference. That person is not all-powerful and not all-knowing. That person should have checks and balances in the same way a modern democratic government does.
I understand there are some checks and balances, but we are talking about smoking. You said it is to protect the workers who may not want to work in that atmosphere. However, I don't want to work in an atmosphere with strippers. Should all strip clubs be banned as well. Or should it just be my choice to work there or not work there. I've not checked into this so I'm not going to claim to know the reasoning smoking is banned in some places such as movie theatres. But perhaps it's not allowed there due to a fire hazard, or perhaps it is allowed and most movie theatre owners simply choose to ban it. Perhaps there's a movie theatre somewhere that allows it. I haven't claimed to read the law in these cases or know the smoking laws of all 50 states in America. Like I said before, I'm not a smoker and I would hate it if everytime I went to the grocery store or movie theatre, some guy lit up beside me. However, I hope the reason I can go to a movie theatre or grocery store without a guy lighting up is because the owner of the store/theatre has enough sense to know that most of his customers don't want it so he doens't allow it. (I understand the owner could be a woman, I'm just using "he" as an example.) I would hope that if most of his customers wanted to smoke while shopping, he would have the freedom to allow his customers to do so. That way, the democratic way, my desire wouldn't infringe on the rights of the majority. After all, in this modern democratic country, I could simply choose to grocery shop at a different store.
Speaking of smoking in public.... What do you guys think of Weyco, a Michigan Company, that fired 4 employees for refusing to quit smoking. The company banned smoking all together for it's employees. Employees couldn't even smoke on their own time in their own homes. Check out this article about it... http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0501/27/A01-71823.htm Who has the freedom here? Should the employees be free to do what they want on their own time. Or should the employer have the right to choose the type of behaviors/people he will hire/pay benefits for? After all, it affects his pocket book, if they smoke, he has to pay more for their benefits.
Well, once again, I side with the law. The law prohibits discrimination on accounts of race, ethnicity, religion, age, etc., and, although smoking is awful for your health, I don't think you can legally hire, not hire, or fire someone for being a smoker. I think doing so is discriminatory. Moreover, no company should be able to tell you what you do with your personal time outside of the workplace.
ok....so now I'm curious. Does every pub, bar and public place in the Czech republic allow smoking???? Do alot of Czech people (young and old) smoke and is that why there are not many laws concering smoking? Are there smoking allowed on trains too?
The law sided with the employer, Weyco. Here's a quote from the article... "Michigan, with 1.9 million smokers and one of the highest cigarette taxes in the nation, has no "smoker's rights law" found in 29 other states, so there isn't much that employees can do."
Well, then I agree that there is no "smoker's rights law," however, I think the law wasn't applied correctly. I think it's a case of discrimination, and, I also think that a business doesn't have a right to tell you that you can't be a smoker. I just don't think a business has that right.
