But people work in that building and have the right to breathe clean air.
Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.
These smoking bans are just another example of a situation where the government shouldn't have to step in, but because people are too inconsiderate to not smoke where others are present, it has to.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.
So, then every company can do this? Any company that has a dangerous product (working with lead, chromium, paint spraying, etc.) they can all just not provide their employees any protection and say 'Go elsewhere to work if you don't like it'?
So, then every company can do this? Any company that has a dangerous product (working with lead, chromium, paint spraying, etc.) they can all just not provide their employees any protection and say 'Go elsewhere to work if you don't like it'?
Slippery slope my friend.
Slippery slope, Huh? What about allowing government getting involved like this? Isn't the smoking ban a slippery slope? Everybody wants to use the excuse of smokers have no rights because it puts my health at risk. What about New York banning trans fat? If I want to eat trans fats, how does that effect you? It doesn't. But the government once again decided to step in a tell people what they can and cannot do.
I just think forcing people to make their bars, restaurants... smoke free isn't a very good solution. It would be better, in my opinion, to reward the ones who make their establishments smoke free instead of punishing the ones who don't mind smoking in their establishments without forcing anybody.
Slippery slope, Huh? What about allowing government getting involved like this? Isn't the smoking ban a slippery slope? Everybody wants to use the excuse of smokers have no rights because it puts my health at risk. What about New York banning trans fat? If I want to eat trans fats, how does that effect you? It doesn't. But the government once again decided to step in a tell people what they can and cannot do.
I agree. If I want to open a restaurant that serves chicken tenders triple-fried in lard, served up with a cigar, then hey, it's my restaurant. You don't have to come to it.
I just think forcing people to make their bars, restaurants... smoke free isn't a very good solution. It would be better, in my opinion, to reward the ones who make their establishments smoke free instead of punishing the ones who don't mind smoking in their establishments without forcing anybody.
I agree...forcing them to be non-smoking is a terrible thing.
However, establishing safe air requirements associated with cigarrette smoke...requiring a certain level of ventilation etc is what should happen in it;s place.
I agree. If I want to open a restaurant that serves chicken tenders triple-fried in lard, served up with a cigar, then hey, it's my restaurant. You don't have to come to it.
That's true, but then again, someone eating that crap doesn't negatively effect the health of the employee that is serving them.
Since the law is in effect here, the number of smokers have drop by a large number. Which is great in a universal healthcare system...
edit to add an article:
New restrictions reduce smoking in Quebec
Last Updated: Monday, January 22, 2007 | 11:47 AM ET
CBC News
A Quebec ban on smoking in most public indoor locations has spurred hundreds of thousands of people to quit smoking, according to a new provincewide study.
Nearly 700,000 Quebecers have attempted to quit since the province's tough anti-smoking legislation took effect in May 2006, according to the Quebec Health and Finance Department, which conducted the study.
Among those trying to quit, about 230,000 managed to beat their nicotine addiction in the six months following the law's adoption. That success rate has trimmed the smoking rate in the province from 24 to 20 per cent of the general population.
Anti-smoking advocates were cautiously optimistic about the smoking reduction, but warned a problem remains with teen smoking.
"We are still the province where we have the highest rate of smoking with teenagers," said Mario Bujold, executive director of Quebec's Council on Tobacco and Health. Overall, teen smoking rates in Quebec hover around 19 per cent, which is still too high, Bujold said.
He suggested adults who quit and stay smoke-free should set an example for younger smokers by sharing their experience.
Teen smoking rates are expected to plunge in the next year when the second phase of the anti-tobacco legislation takes effect later in 2007. In that phase tobacco advertising will be made illegal where cigarettes are sold.
But see, this is what I am talking about. The government is getting too involved. The banning of smoking is just the beginning of a slippery slope.
So you never answered me...
Companies that make products and use some toxic chemicals...can they choose not to protect their employees from these hazards?
As I said, I'm against the gov't being able to ban smoking from a private business...however I am for gov't being able to enact an air quality standard that requires these businesses to provide a healthy workplace for their employees...just as other industries must.
Slippery slope, Huh? What about allowing government getting involved like this? Isn't the smoking ban a slippery slope? Everybody wants to use the excuse of smokers have no rights because it puts my health at risk. What about New York banning trans fat? If I want to eat trans fats, how does that effect you? It doesn't. But the government once again decided to step in a tell people what they can and cannot do.
Once you are on medicare when you are older, more tax dollars will go to the medical care required as a result of the trans fats.
And before you mention the futire medical expenses for cigarette and Alcohol users, the govt levies huge excise taxes on them.
Perhaps an excise tax on trans-fats is a good idea...let the trans-fat consumer pay for his/her futire medical care.
If people didn't partake in activities that will cause them to require extra govt services later in life, the govt wouldn't have to step-in now!
That may be true, but their survivors will need care.
With the advances in medicine, there are more cures available, so they may live longer on the government's dime!
So will you support government mandated diets? Forced exercise? Where are you willing to draw the line or can the nanny do no wrong, as long as its for the "public health"?
So will you support government mandated diets? Forced exercise? Where are you willing to draw the line or can the nanny do no wrong, as long as its for the "public health"?
Good question.
There will always be people who suck on the medicare teet more then others. Mandating a diet would be extreme, but substituting one fat for another is obviously less extreme, as the differences are not very noticable.
Making someone eat carrots instead of french fries is unreasonable, but changing fats would be ok.....your thoughts?
It would be like substituting Folgers Crystals for the more expensive coffee!
There will always be people who suck on the medicare teet more then others. Mandating a diet would be extreme, but substituting one fat for another is obviously less extreme, as the differences are not very noticable.
Making someone eat carrots instead of french fries is unreasonable, but changing fats would be ok.....your thoughts?
It would be like substituting Folgers Crystals for the more expensive coffee!
I would allow people the choice of eating whatever they want. As long as they are informed about the contents/ingredients, I dont care what someone else eats. I also am not interested in forcing them to conform to my own idea of a proper diet.
I would allow people the choice of eating whatever they want. As long as they are informed about the contents/ingredients, I dont care what someone else eats. I also am not interested in forcing them to conform to my own idea of a proper diet.
If everyone in this country was responsible and a good citizen, I would agree with you, but they are not, so the govt must spend billions of dollars on police and prisons.
People don't seem to care about being well-informed, so the govt sometimes has to be the parent and lay down the law.
What percent of people do you think wouldread a pamphlet and then change their eating habits on their own?
I try to be an idealistic person, but the reality is, in a country as large as ours, there will always be ignorant people who need a bit of govt guidance.
I would allow people the choice of eating whatever they want. As long as they are informed about the contents/ingredients, I dont care what someone else eats. I also am not interested in forcing them to conform to my own idea of a proper diet.
No one is talking about forcing them to adhere to a proper diet...you are going to extremes.
Comments
Huh? Are they being held in that building against their will? If so, I agree, we need to liberate them! But if they accepted employment in an building where there is smoking, they have the option of seeking employment elsewhere.
I agree with this.
naděje umírá poslední
kinakamot ang aking puwit...
me rascando pompis...
krap mijn reet...
boku no ketsuoana o kizu...
bahrosh teezy...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So, then every company can do this? Any company that has a dangerous product (working with lead, chromium, paint spraying, etc.) they can all just not provide their employees any protection and say 'Go elsewhere to work if you don't like it'?
Slippery slope my friend.
I don't think you've thought it through.
Slippery slope, Huh? What about allowing government getting involved like this? Isn't the smoking ban a slippery slope? Everybody wants to use the excuse of smokers have no rights because it puts my health at risk. What about New York banning trans fat? If I want to eat trans fats, how does that effect you? It doesn't. But the government once again decided to step in a tell people what they can and cannot do.
You're probably right:)
I just think forcing people to make their bars, restaurants... smoke free isn't a very good solution. It would be better, in my opinion, to reward the ones who make their establishments smoke free instead of punishing the ones who don't mind smoking in their establishments without forcing anybody.
naděje umírá poslední
I agree. If I want to open a restaurant that serves chicken tenders triple-fried in lard, served up with a cigar, then hey, it's my restaurant. You don't have to come to it.
I agree...forcing them to be non-smoking is a terrible thing.
However, establishing safe air requirements associated with cigarrette smoke...requiring a certain level of ventilation etc is what should happen in it;s place.
That's true, but then again, someone eating that crap doesn't negatively effect the health of the employee that is serving them.
edit to add an article:
New restrictions reduce smoking in Quebec
Last Updated: Monday, January 22, 2007 | 11:47 AM ET
CBC News
A Quebec ban on smoking in most public indoor locations has spurred hundreds of thousands of people to quit smoking, according to a new provincewide study.
Nearly 700,000 Quebecers have attempted to quit since the province's tough anti-smoking legislation took effect in May 2006, according to the Quebec Health and Finance Department, which conducted the study.
Among those trying to quit, about 230,000 managed to beat their nicotine addiction in the six months following the law's adoption. That success rate has trimmed the smoking rate in the province from 24 to 20 per cent of the general population.
Anti-smoking advocates were cautiously optimistic about the smoking reduction, but warned a problem remains with teen smoking.
"We are still the province where we have the highest rate of smoking with teenagers," said Mario Bujold, executive director of Quebec's Council on Tobacco and Health. Overall, teen smoking rates in Quebec hover around 19 per cent, which is still too high, Bujold said.
He suggested adults who quit and stay smoke-free should set an example for younger smokers by sharing their experience.
Teen smoking rates are expected to plunge in the next year when the second phase of the anti-tobacco legislation takes effect later in 2007. In that phase tobacco advertising will be made illegal where cigarettes are sold.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/01/22/qc-smokingstudy20070122.html
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
But see, this is what I am talking about. The government is getting too involved. The banning of smoking is just the beginning of a slippery slope.
So you never answered me...
Companies that make products and use some toxic chemicals...can they choose not to protect their employees from these hazards?
As I said, I'm against the gov't being able to ban smoking from a private business...however I am for gov't being able to enact an air quality standard that requires these businesses to provide a healthy workplace for their employees...just as other industries must.
Once you are on medicare when you are older, more tax dollars will go to the medical care required as a result of the trans fats.
And before you mention the futire medical expenses for cigarette and Alcohol users, the govt levies huge excise taxes on them.
Perhaps an excise tax on trans-fats is a good idea...let the trans-fat consumer pay for his/her futire medical care.
If people didn't partake in activities that will cause them to require extra govt services later in life, the govt wouldn't have to step-in now!
That may be true, but their survivors will need care.
With the advances in medicine, there are more cures available, so they may live longer on the government's dime!
Good question.
There will always be people who suck on the medicare teet more then others. Mandating a diet would be extreme, but substituting one fat for another is obviously less extreme, as the differences are not very noticable.
Making someone eat carrots instead of french fries is unreasonable, but changing fats would be ok.....your thoughts?
It would be like substituting Folgers Crystals for the more expensive coffee!
If everyone in this country was responsible and a good citizen, I would agree with you, but they are not, so the govt must spend billions of dollars on police and prisons.
People don't seem to care about being well-informed, so the govt sometimes has to be the parent and lay down the law.
What percent of people do you think wouldread a pamphlet and then change their eating habits on their own?
I try to be an idealistic person, but the reality is, in a country as large as ours, there will always be ignorant people who need a bit of govt guidance.
No one is talking about forcing them to adhere to a proper diet...you are going to extremes.
Banning trans-fats is a middle ground.