Smoking, same rights as free speech?

See my comment above, written while you were writing this... Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Edited when I saw it.

Alt, isn't your new avatar a little late? Didn't roundball end in March or early April. Try soccer...

. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Actually Thursday night...congrats to my Lakers and their 1st lady the multi-talented Ms. Buss (pictured above)

In theory, there shouldn't be any loss in productivity. Even is states where you have a right to go take a smoke break, if you aren't carrying your share of the workload, expect to be fired whether the reason is basic incompetence of time off for a smoke break.
Originally Posted by pjorourke

Agree "in theory" -- in practice, well probably not so much

In my experience (talking about knowledge-based, not assembly line jobs), it isn't that smokers are bad performers to the point of incompetence, you just wonder how much more effective they would be if they didn't spend 200-300 hours a year outside smoking. BTW that's what it works out to: consider 4 15 minute breaks (one every 2 hours) a day X 5 days/week X 50 weeks a year = 250 hours a year....

But productivity losses aren't limited to smokers. Consider the partygirl that comes in on time but is hungover 3 times a week and isn't worth a shit until after lunch or "super coach" that spends half the day during the season organizing his kid's little league team.

There are risks is almost everything we do. People reduce those risks by putting safety measures in place, such as seat belts in cars, limits on blood alcohol levels when driving and safety regulations for industrial work sites. No one would support banning cars or alcohol or industrial work places as a way of controlling risks. So why do we ban smoking?

There are ways to put controls in place that would allow smoking without affecting non-smokers. An example is separate smoking/non-smoking areas, which has worked effectively for years. Another example is ventilation systems. There are systems available to pull smoke up and away from the smoker and employees. So there are ways to protect both the customers and employees without an outright ban.

In summary I am in favor of limited regulation but I am opposed to bans except in extreme cases.

Public places are for everyone. Everyone pays taxes. Smokers pay extra taxes.

Hey, let's have prohibition. That'll work. Make smoking, drinking and sex illegal.

btw, I've never paid for sex. But I hear that some ladies offer condom testing for a fee.

Oh, even better idea regarding second-hand smoke. Let's have a regulation REQUIRING non-smokers to wear respirators since they won't do it volutarily. Children under 8 yo and less than 80lbs must wear gas masks and full haz-mat suits.

btw, I've never paid for sex. But I hear that some ladies offer condom testing for a fee. Originally Posted by am-a-pleaser

No, they don't. All you pay for is time. At least that's what all the ads say.

TTH I agree this is different than speech, but what part of the regulation baning smoking is constitutional? Originally Posted by atlcomedy

More to the point, what provision of the Constitution do you think would be violated? It would be within the police power of the state, just as the state can ban smoking marijuana or taking prescription drugs without prescription.

If you think the Gov't really cares about your health, you've been brain washed. Its about the MONEY! Originally Posted by needer

How does the state make money banning smoking? Other than by not incurring the medical bills associated with second hand smoke?

If Tudor's Steakhouse allows smoking & I don't want to be subjected to the smoke I can walk down the street to PJ's Steakhouse, which has a no smoking policy. As an informed adult, I am able to make a choice. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

That was the system we tried and it failed. There were not "non smoking" steakhouses. Just ones with lousy no smoking sections sitting next to smoking sections where you still had non-smokers exposed to carcinogens and asthmatics and kids exposed to allergens. It failed.

Wow, very interesting and well thought out discussions here. I was living in Austin at the time the smoking ban came into effect there and listened to all of the controversy surrounding it. I still agree with the informed decision and let the small businesses make the rules. Post a sign outside of the door that states, "This is a smoking friendly business. This means you may be exposed to second hand smoke which has been proven to cause (insert the illnesses here). If you continue to walk into this establishment, know that you are assuming the risk and consequences of your actions." Or some shit like that. Personally, yes I like a cigarette or two, three when I drink beer. I don't like to force my way on others, so yea.. I'll go outside the bar, smoke, and come back in.

It's not about individual rights IMO. It's about the general consensus of the public's rights. That's why we vote. It's why smoking in public is illegal, it's why prostitution is illegal. It's not the act, it's what COULD happen. The public COULD be harmed by second hand smoke when exposed to it. The public COULD be susceptible to STD's and criminal activity if prostitution were legal. (NO I don't believe it, I'm saying what the majority of the public voters feel in regards to that).

Where does it stop though? When do we as the individuals start or learn to take responsibility for our own actions. I have been educated on the dangers of smoking, the dangers of unprotected sex, the dangers of drinking and driving. I know I can get sick going into a smoking bar, I know I can get a disease from unprotected sex, and I know that I could kill someone (myself or others) if I drink and drive and be sent to prison for vehicular manslaughter. If I still choose to do these things knowing the risk, I have no one to blame but myself and should take full responsibility for my actions.

I don't know if anyone remembers this or not, but at the time I first mentioned in Austin there was a comic that showed two people eating desert in a restaurant and the SWAT team came in and ordered them to put down the chocolate and eat the broccoli. Is it going to come to this? Seems ridiculous I know but I think the problem of obesity may be next. Restaurants will no longer be able to serve normal desserts, they will all have to be fat free. Baked potato chips with your Happy Meal Soy Burger anyone? Or God forbid, only organic vegetables will be served everywhere (without the salt and butter).

I don't know if anyone remembers this or not, but at the time I first mentioned in Austin there was a comic that showed two people eating desert in a restaurant and the SWAT team came in and ordered them to put down the chocolate and eat the broccoli. Originally Posted by TxBrandy

If you're eating chocolate at the next table, you don't increase my odds of getting lung cancer or aggravate my asthma. If you're smoking, you do both. A huge difference. I don't give a shit if you kill yourself. Just one less smoker to live to reproduce and pass a nasty habit on to their offspring. On the other hand, I care greatly if you harm me.

And honestly I do agree with you. I'm just joining in the discussion because I love a good debate. Devils advocate if you will.

You have the right not to enter a business that allows smoking and therefore not be subjected to anyone who is smoking at the next table. I have no problem with that. Require signs on the doors that say smoking allowed or smoking not allowed. Would you still enter after seeing the sign that said people smoke there? or would you just go to the next place that offered a smoke free environment? Thus allowing you (and those who smoke) a choice.

Seriously though, in reality it doesn't bother me to go outside a building (away from the doors) and enjoy a cig outside. I certainly don't want to infringe on your right to clean air or your children. What is the saying? Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as long as it doesn't infringe on MY right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That was the system we tried and it failed. There were not "non smoking" steakhouses. Just ones with lousy no smoking sections sitting next to smoking sections where you still had non-smokers exposed to carcinogens and asthmatics and kids exposed to allergens. It failed. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

That's not an accurate presentation of the situation....but even if that was the case....

If you're eating chocolate at the next table, you don't increase my odds of getting lung cancer or aggravate my asthma. If you're smoking, you do both. A huge difference. I don't give a shit if you kill yourself. Just one less smoker to live to reproduce and pass a nasty habit on to their offspring. On the other hand, I care greatly if you harm me. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

...do you really think you have some kind of divine protected right to enjoy Tudor's fine cuisine in a smoke-free environment?

...shouldn't Tudor have the right, as an individual operator of a private business on private property, to tell you and your asthma to go to hell...if you don't like the smoke don't eat there...or get takeout

Well. There have been legislative discussions around banning certain foods. Actually, some legislation has been passed in the name of health concerns and medical costs. But, let an airline try to charge a passenger for 2 seats, because that passenger's size takes two seats, and suddenly discrimination is screamed. But it's called regulation when the government dictates something similar.

Some people have peanut allergies. Are peanuts banned because somone might die as a result of their allergy? What happens if a certain perfume is nearby, or potpourri induces a severe allergy attack? Or maybe some other allergins. Does that need to be banned?

I'm allergic to grass, some trees, some flowers. Let's ban all grass, trees and foliage from public parks. I have a right to enjoy the parks, too.

Regulation can go too far in the name of the public good.

Where does it stop though? When do we as the individuals start or learn to take responsibility for our own actions. I have been educated on the dangers of smoking, the dangers of unprotected sex, the dangers of drinking and driving. I know I can get sick going into a smoking bar, I know I can get a disease from unprotected sex, and I know that I could kill someone (myself or others) if I drink and drive and be sent to prison for vehicular manslaughter. If I still choose to do these things knowing the risk, I have no one to blame but myself and should take full responsibility for my actions. Originally Posted by TxBrandy

I agree that everyone should be responsible for their own actions. But being sent to prison for vehicular manslaughter isn't the end-all of responsibility. What about that 5-year-old girl you killed? How do you make amends for that? I'm sure her parents won't be satisfied with your prison term, no matter how long or short. However, regulations that prevent drinking and driving may save her life, and your life in prison.

altcomedy, there were no smoke free restaurants when we let the market decide. None! There were just no smoking sections which were ineffective.

Do you want the Navy to have 40 percent smoking submarines and 60 percent non-smoking?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us...er=rss&emc=rss

And yes, I think people should have the right to patronize any public business without increasing their risk of death or running the risk of having respiratory diseases activated. That's not a radical notion.

And let's turn the question around? Do you think that these same public restaurants should be able to post a sign on the door and say "No Blacks," and let the market decide?

I personally can't stand shrieking kids in a restaurant -- the high pitched sounds damage my eardrums. Maybe we should have shrieking and non-shreiking restaurants.

altcomedy, there were no smoke free restaurants when we let the market decide. None! There were just no smoking sections which were ineffective.

Do you want the Navy to have 40 percent smoking submarines and 60 percent non-smoking?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/us...er=rss&emc=rss

And yes, I think people should have the right to patronize any public business without increasing their risk of death or running the risk of having respiratory diseases activated. That's not a radical notion.

And let's turn the question around? Do you think that these same public restaurants should be able to post a sign on the door and say "No Blacks," and let the market decide? Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You are just plain wrong about there not being any non-smoking establishments.

How do you define "public business?"

And yes I do believe a private business should have the right to discriminate with regard to its clientele on any basis it wants to. I don't think discriminating on the basis of race is right or good business & I would never do it, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness doesn't mean, for example, a gay man is entitled to representation at TTH's law firm. I think you should be able to take on what ever clients you want.

Let me ask you this: since you want to make this about race instead of smoker's rights, have you ever refused to represent a minority of any type at your firm?