|
UnInspired
|
I just refuseto allow someone like her to think she can push her ideas on everyone and think it's OK. It started with my first post and most others. We tried to stay on topic and she kept bashing it so we fought back and now she doesn't like it. She is very self centered. humored wrote: I read this forum almost daily and have never posted (ever) I find it amazing that you can call someone an idiot and accuse someone else of being immature all in one sentence! I appreciate those that have stuck to the topic as I have learned a lot from the discussions. It is unfortunate that the topic got so off track. <quoted text>
|
|
Sad
|
Exactly wrote: <quoted text>
As a matter of principle I usually prefer non-legislative solutions to legislative ones. I'd much rather see people start non-smoking bars, restaurants, and clubs on their own volition, rather than being forced to do so.
As far as the "right" of business owners to do business as they see fit, do you believe that an owner should be able to exclude customers on the basis of race, age, or creed? What if he wants his employees to work 12-hour shifts? What if he only wants to pay them $1 per day? What if he wants to force his employees to handle dangerous chemicals without the necessary safety precautions? All of these are regulated by Governments, and all of them are intrusions on the ability of a business owner to do as he sees fit. How is smoking any different? Actually I do believe that business owners should be able to cater to the clientele they prefer. As for your other examples, well clearly they are not the same. There is a clear difference between labor laws and the smoking ban. Before you go there, if you do not want to waitress at a smoking establishment, I am sure you can find a job at a non-smoking establishment.
|
|
Exactly
|
Sad wrote: <quoted text>
Actually I do believe that business owners should be able to cater to the clientele they prefer.
As for your other examples, well clearly they are not the same. There is a clear difference between labor laws and the smoking ban. Before you go there, if you do not want to waitress at a smoking establishment, I am sure you can find a job at a non-smoking establishment. I think my examples are pretty much on point, as the smoking ban is effectively a labor law. One of the main and most meritorious justifications for the law is the health and well-being of the workers. One could argue that workers are free to work at non-smoking establishments, but that argument applies just as easily to most of the examples given (save the discrimination one). A worker could choose a job that does involve dangerous chemicals or any other unsavory condition that is regulated by law. That a worker is free to choose a different is an insufficient reason not to regulate a dangerous workplace.
|
|
UnInspired
|
Yes but some of those things are regulated by OSHA or the EPA. Putting this in the vein of a labor law would then open the door for employers not wanting to provide insurance coverage for an unhealthy employee do to poor diet and other lifestyle choices. That is dangerous territory in my opinion considering the impact the uninsured already have on resources. It's hard to correct the "human" factor in these things but the govt' seems to think they are up to the challenge sometimes. Exactly wrote: <quoted text>
I think my examples are pretty much on point, as the smoking ban is effectively a labor law. One of the main and most meritorious justifications for the law is the health and well-being of the workers. One could argue that workers are free to work at non-smoking establishments, but that argument applies just as easily to most of the examples given (save the discrimination one). A worker could choose a job that does involve dangerous chemicals or any other unsavory condition that is regulated by law. That a worker is free to choose a different is an insufficient reason not to regulate a dangerous workplace.
|
|
Sad
|
Exactly wrote: <quoted text>
I think my examples are pretty much on point, as the smoking ban is effectively a labor law. One of the main and most meritorious justifications for the law is the health and well-being of the workers. One could argue that workers are free to work at non-smoking establishments, but that argument applies just as easily to most of the examples given (save the discrimination one). A worker could choose a job that does involve dangerous chemicals or any other unsavory condition that is regulated by law. That a worker is free to choose a different is an insufficient reason not to regulate a dangerous workplace. Hot grease and slippery floors are more likely to kill you than second hand smoke. Lets eliminate those items as well. Let's have everyone test for infectious diseases prior to entering a restaurant as an elderly person or someone with severe asthma who contracts the flu is put at risk of death. Its all about public safety right? We are not talking about vats of acid and heavy machinery. We are talking about second hand smoke. If it is such a public nuisance we should just ban cigarettes entirely, though you and I know that will not happen anytime soon. The choice of employment in the food preparation industry is abundant. It is not the only plant in town that if you don't have a job there you don't have a job. If you are going to work in the restaurant/bar business you know that second hand smoke may be involved. If you go fishing on a crab boat in the bering strait you know that your ship could sink. The point is there are choices. The labor laws were set up to protect employees who had no choices and as such the employer took advantage. This is not the case here. For the record, I am not a smoker and can not stand the smell of it. But this is just another example of government intrusion. There are clear examples where government regulation is necessary for public and workplace safety. This is not one of them.
|
|
Exactly
|
UnInspired wrote: Yes but some of those things are regulated by OSHA or the EPA. Putting this in the vein of a labor law would then open the door for employers not wanting to provide insurance coverage for an unhealthy employee do to poor diet and other lifestyle choices. That is dangerous territory in my opinion considering the impact the uninsured already have on resources. It's hard to correct the "human" factor in these things but the govt' seems to think they are up to the challenge sometimes.
<quoted text> I think that insurance is an entirely different can of worms, and I could go on for a long time about the sorry state of the health industry in this country. For sake of staying on topic, I won't. However, forgetting about OSHA and the EPA for a moment, is there anything different philosophically between regulating workplace safety and the smoking ban? They both infringe upon the ability of the business owner to do as he pleases. Yet we sort of accept one type of regulation while complaining vociferously about the other.
|
|
Sad
|
PS.
I appreciate your thoughtful inciteful argument. It has been rare in this particular forum.
|
|
Exactly
|
Sad wrote: <quoted text>
Hot grease and slippery floors are more likely to kill you than second hand smoke. Lets eliminate those items as well. Let's have everyone test for infectious diseases prior to entering a restaurant as an elderly person or someone with severe asthma who contracts the flu is put at risk of death. Its all about public safety right?
We are not talking about vats of acid and heavy machinery. We are talking about second hand smoke. If it is such a public nuisance we should just ban cigarettes entirely, though you and I know that will not happen anytime soon.
The choice of employment in the food preparation industry is abundant. It is not the only plant in town that if you don't have a job there you don't have a job. If you are going to work in the restaurant/bar business you know that second hand smoke may be involved. If you go fishing on a crab boat in the bering strait you know that your ship could sink. The point is there are choices. The labor laws were set up to protect employees who had no choices and as such the employer took advantage. This is not the case here.
For the record, I am not a smoker and can not stand the smell of it. But this is just another example of government intrusion. There are clear examples where government regulation is necessary for public and workplace safety. This is not one of them. Certainly those are all valid points. While I agree with you that much of our labor laws date from a time where the typical unskilled worker had no practical choice, I'd argue that those days are behind us. The typical unskilled worker is no longer forced to work at one particular factory under deplorable conditions. However, that fact doesn't call into question the validity of those labor laws. Similarly, I'd argue that, even though the circumstances are different today and second-hand smoke may be one of many hazards that has been arbitrarily singled out, the law is still beneficial. As to professions such as deep-sea fishing, I'd argue that those professions are inherently dangerous, and little could be done to mitigate this danger, whereas the danger of restaurant work comes not from anything inherent, but from something the owner happens to allow. Nevertheless, I suppose the real solution to the harm of second-hand smoke is the ban cigarettes. Tons of other drugs are illegal, and many of them are not as bad for you as tobacco. However, that is not going to happen anytime soon. And to clear the record, I'm a smoker.
|
|
|
|
Opus
|
What about fires, are we allowed to have fires?
|
|
Penny
|
I am far from self centered why don't you admit I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours but to lower yourself and call someone self centered and you know nothing about that person. I would give my life for another person and the clothes off my back so that person would not go without. Maybe get to know someone before you throw childish accusations out against them. Yes you think I have a bad opionion but its MY OPIONION so get over it. UnInspired wrote: I just refuseto allow someone like her to think she can push her ideas on everyone and think it's OK. It started with my first post and most others. We tried to stay on topic and she kept bashing it so we fought back and now she doesn't like it. She is very self centered.
<quoted text>
|
|
M Jones
|
I'm happy to see PA has established a no-smoking law. It will now be easier to go to places without the second-hand smoke. NY passed a similar law earlier and it has not brought any undue hardship on eateries.
|
|
UnInspired
|
I may not have done the best job of stating that but that is my pointwe will except one form on infringment but not the other. Public health is just one disguise that gets used by public officials to regulate personal choice and morailty. Exactly wrote: <quoted text>
I think that insurance is an entirely different can of worms, and I could go on for a long time about the sorry state of the health industry in this country. For sake of staying on topic, I won't. However, forgetting about OSHA and the EPA for a moment, is there anything different philosophically between regulating workplace safety and the smoking ban? They both infringe upon the ability of the business owner to do as he pleases. Yet we sort of accept one type of regulation while complaining vociferously about the other.
|
|
UnInspired
|
Penny. I tried to make that point to you weeks ago that I am entitiled to my opinion and you to yours. You used that as an opportunity to question my integrity and credibility. Those pieces of my character are deeply important to me so I had no choice but to defend them. When you want to go in the direction of calling people names, say they are immature and childish what is it that you expect in response? Gee your right? I based my self centered comment on your actions (responses to others comments) Nothing more then that. This is what happens when you post in a forum. Words when used in the form of speak can be 3 dimensional, meaning they can heal, hurt, encourage, etc. Sometimes we forget that words in the form of print can be 2 dimensional, meaning that they don't always have the passion, or emotion behind them. Yet when others read them they feel that emotion. It's all about interpretation. I'm will to forgive if you are? Penny wrote: I am far from self centered why don't you admit I have the right to my opinion and you have the right to yours but to lower yourself and call someone self centered and you know nothing about that person. I would give my life for another person and the clothes off my back so that person would not go without. Maybe get to know someone before you throw childish accusations out against them. Yes you think I have a bad opionion but its MY OPIONION so get over it.
<quoted text>
|
|
Sad
|
Exactly wrote: <quoted text>
Certainly those are all valid points. While I agree with you that much of our labor laws date from a time where the typical unskilled worker had no practical choice, I'd argue that those days are behind us. The typical unskilled worker is no longer forced to work at one particular factory under deplorable conditions. However, that fact doesn't call into question the validity of those labor laws. Similarly, I'd argue that, even though the circumstances are different today and second-hand smoke may be one of many hazards that has been arbitrarily singled out, the law is still beneficial. As to professions such as deep-sea fishing, I'd argue that those professions are inherently dangerous, and little could be done to mitigate this danger, whereas the danger of restaurant work comes not from anything inherent, but from something the owner happens to allow.
Nevertheless, I suppose the real solution to the harm of second-hand smoke is the ban cigarettes. Tons of other drugs are illegal, and many of them are not as bad for you as tobacco. However, that is not going to happen anytime soon.
And to clear the record, I'm a smoker. I suppose I would be more in agreement with the similarities between the labor laws you are referring to and the smoking ban if I didn't see restaurant workers smoking. My point being that smoking in itself is a choice. Going to a restaurant that allows smoking is a choice. Working at a restaurant that allows smoking is a choice. To compare smoking with working with hazardous materials without gloves is just apples and oranges. Again, I believe the spirit of the labor laws were to curb oppression/abuse of workers by employers. I think we can agree that this is not a case of oppression. It is probably quite the opposite as there seems to always be help wanted in the restaraunt/bar business. You make very valid points, I just think that anytime we legislate we need to be extremely mindful of the individual liberties (notice I did not say rights, I did that just for you) of business owners and people in general. I guess this is a situation that I feel is best left to the marketplace. Trust me, I prefer the world to be smoke free but I am willing to put up with it because sometimes freedom is about tolerating things you do not like.
|
|
KMc
|
I have recently visited Massachusetts and the UK. Both have an extensive smoking ban. In both places business in classic smoke filled sights such as taverns was brisk. The people I talked with had either quit smoking or just took their smokes outside. (Many UK taverns installed outdoor heaters for their comfort) They really weren't too bothered. One non-smoker in MA told me that there had been a debate about freedoms being stepped on but even the smoker nearby said you could say non-smokers freedoms where being infringed on by smokers who can puff wherever and whenever. I said that non-smokers have the freedom not to frequent places where there is usually smoking. The reply was smokers also have the freedom not to frequent places that do not allow it. Each side has a point. The debate continues...
|
|
Exactly
|
Sad wrote: <quoted text>
I suppose I would be more in agreement with the similarities between the labor laws you are referring to and the smoking ban if I didn't see restaurant workers smoking. My point being that smoking in itself is a choice. Going to a restaurant that allows smoking is a choice. Working at a restaurant that allows smoking is a choice. To compare smoking with working with hazardous materials without gloves is just apples and oranges. Again, I believe the spirit of the labor laws were to curb oppression/abuse of workers by employers. I think we can agree that this is not a case of oppression. It is probably quite the opposite as there seems to always be help wanted in the restaraunt/bar business.
You make very valid points, I just think that anytime we legislate we need to be extremely mindful of the individual liberties (notice I did not say rights, I did that just for you) of business owners and people in general. I guess this is a situation that I feel is best left to the marketplace.
Trust me, I prefer the world to be smoke free but I am willing to put up with it because sometimes freedom is about tolerating things you do not like. I guess we're in a certain amount of agreement. I'd much rather prefer the marketplace handle this stuff too. I just don't view the state's action here to be a huge deal. There are many other instances of state and federal intervention that are much more egregious (and actually unconstitutional).
|
|
Sad
|
Exactly wrote: <quoted text>
There are many other instances of state and federal intervention that are much more egregious (and actually unconstitutional). AGREED!!!! I am in the group that worries anytime we get another edict down from the kings.
|
|
Penny
|
You took me all wrong. I am very passionate about my faith and I will be till the day I die and some thing i said on here were twisted and taken wrong I am not some mean spirited person. I am one that believes in the bible from genesis to revelation and I do not back down now as far as am i wiling to forgive yes of course I am. I am a christian and we are to forgive each other want to make a truce? UnInspired wrote: Penny. I tried to make that point to you weeks ago that I am entitiled to my opinion and you to yours. You used that as an opportunity to question my integrity and credibility. Those pieces of my character are deeply important to me so I had no choice but to defend them. When you want to go in the direction of calling people names, say they are immature and childish what is it that you expect in response? Gee your right? I based my self centered comment on your actions (responses to others comments) Nothing more then that. This is what happens when you post in a forum. Words when used in the form of speak can be 3 dimensional, meaning they can heal, hurt, encourage, etc. Sometimes we forget that words in the form of print can be 2 dimensional, meaning that they don't always have the passion, or emotion behind them. Yet when others read them they feel that emotion. It's all about interpretation. I'm will to forgive if you are? <quoted text>
|
|
UnInspired
|
Truce! Penny wrote: You took me all wrong. I am very passionate about my faith and I will be till the day I die and some thing i said on here were twisted and taken wrong I am not some mean spirited person. I am one that believes in the bible from genesis to revelation and I do not back down now as far as am i wiling to forgive yes of course I am. I am a christian and we are to forgive each other want to make a truce?
<quoted text>
|
|
SMB
|
Ok, so I stumbled upon this site (looking for something else) when I saw all these horrifying comments and I have to say it seems like everyone here really loves cursing and insulting others! I am a woman, not trying to attack anyone, but do you realize you all are putting so much time and energy into some fight that is very silly! Didn't the bill already pass? I mean Penny, don't waste you're time with these people that obviously have nothing better to do. And everyone else, what are you trying to prove by insulting someone? It’s plan silliness!
Let's all be educated and though we have different opinions, respect each other.
|
Judge it!
Pisces
Most Popular