Bak Posted December 6, 2007 Report Posted December 6, 2007 If the owner of the pub wants it to be a smoking establishment, however, they should be able to make it so. how is a bar providing a dangerous work environment (filled with cigarette smoke), where if someone works there full time for a dozen years they have a 1% chance of dying of cancer different from a construction company not using safety equipment, where if someone works there full time for a dozen years they have a 1% chance of dying from an accident?
LearJett+ Posted December 6, 2007 Report Posted December 6, 2007 If you don't like the risks, don't work there. That's what you're paid for. The landlord decided thing would undo the ban's benefits. Landlord A says "smoke in my pub" all the smokers go their and their friends follow. All the other pubs to regain business allow smoking and suddenly everywhere is full of smoke again. It goes both ways. That way you all are depicting it is that the general public doesn't like smoke. The smoking bars turn away people who don't like smoke, who go to the non-smoking bars. Let the consumer decide.
Bak Posted December 7, 2007 Report Posted December 7, 2007 If you don't like the risks, don't work there. That's what you're paid for. So you're saying we shouldn't force a construction company to use safety equipment because workers will flood away from that company?
Dav Posted December 7, 2007 Report Posted December 7, 2007 to say do not go because you don't want to take the risk would mean that the smoker can do whatever he wants whereas the non smoker is very limited in their choice of venue. And in terms of work the non smoker is even more limited. I would hardly say this is a fair situation.
candygirl Posted December 7, 2007 Author Report Posted December 7, 2007 They need to do more "to get you to stop smoking" Showing people in there 70 dieing of Cancer is not going to do it. Show Cancer Wards on TV.
Incomplete Posted December 7, 2007 Report Posted December 7, 2007 2nd hand smoke is just as dangerous as smoking yourself. I am all for the ban, I wish they would ban all forms of smoking everywhere. Stop selling them, people stop buying them, people would be more healthy etc... I hate it when I go down the pub and come back smelling like smoke, its awful and what about the people who have asthma? Do they have to stay indoors all the time because there are other people smoking? In a way you could say smoking is selfish, they put other peoples health at risk and don't even begin to consider their own health. What is another pain in the !@#$%^&* is when your walking down a busy street and the person infront of you is smoking, that really pisses me off, very often i walk infront of them and fart hoping for revenge. One problem with the ban for me is now people smoke outside the buildings so when you walk past you get choked in all the horrible smoke. As for the ban of smoking while you're driving - The government is saying that the reason why there is a ban while you're driving is because it distracts you from paying attention on the road. Just like mobile phones do. I agree that it's an invasion of privacy. It's YOUR car, YOU bought it, YOU pay the bills for it so why is the government allowed to say whats wrong or right in your own car? I can understand about drinking or doing drugs as they affect your reaction to certain things. I can understand why they ban Marijuana, it can create unstable minds which is why some people go some massacres and go mental, it would happen alot more if everyone smoked it.
Bak Posted December 7, 2007 Report Posted December 7, 2007 I can understand why they ban Marijuana, it can create unstable minds which is why some people go some massacres and go mental, it would happen alot more if everyone smoked it. liar (what is this the 1920s?) also with smoking in cars... it's not nearly as distracting as a cell phone. I'd say it probably even prevents road rage as people are more relaxed when they smoke.
LearJett+ Posted December 7, 2007 Report Posted December 7, 2007 So you're saying we shouldn't force a construction company to use safety equipment because workers will flood away from that company? it's not a construction company, it's a !@#$%^&*ing bar. the owner should have the right to make it whatever kind of establishment he or she wants. civil liberties, man. in states without the ban, some bars aren't smoking and some are. people go to them accordingly.
Falcoknight Posted December 8, 2007 Report Posted December 8, 2007 I've got no problem with bans on smoking. 1. I've got asthma, and I find immense joy watching smokers choke on their !@#$%^&* in the little smoking rooms at airports.2. I don't want to have to pay higher taxes because you make incredibly !@#$%^&*ty decisions when it comes to your health. Same goes for drinkers and fat people, but to a lesser extent as someone's love handles don't effect my breathing or make me smell like cigarettes do.
Bak Posted December 8, 2007 Report Posted December 8, 2007 it's not a construction company, it's a !@#$%^&*ing bar. so we should protect construction workers but not workers at a bar? what's the difference?
LearJett+ Posted December 8, 2007 Report Posted December 8, 2007 bak, you comparing it to a construction company is like me comparing it to the government authoritarianism -- the government is interfering with a poor, innocent bar owner's way of conducting his business. i'm not going there, why are you?
AstroProdigy Posted December 8, 2007 Report Posted December 8, 2007 What I don't understand is why Congress doesn't create a bill to ban certain chemicals in the cigarettes (other than tobacco) that are added by tobacco companies to make the cigarettes more addictive/more toxic. It'd be relatively easy to enforce since all these chemicals are added by a smaller number of large corporations and you can just sue them if they don't follow the rules. It'd also make quitting cigarettes easier and reduce the negative affects of those cigarettes on smokers who are basically being financially sacrificed for the sake of deterring future smokers in our system. Seems like a no brainer to me.
Bak Posted December 8, 2007 Report Posted December 8, 2007 bak, you comparing it to a construction company is like me comparing it to the government authoritarianism -- the government is interfering with a poor, innocent bar owner's way of conducting his business. i'm not going there, why are you? you're !@#$%^&* right the government is interfering with the bar owner's business. he should provide a safe environment for his workers. you're basically saying we shouldn't interfere with the bar owner's way of running his business but we should interfere with the construction owner's way of conducting business. What businesses should the government interfere in? who decides? the government should either make all businesses provide safe environments for workers or don't regulate safety for any businesses.
ThunderJam Posted December 9, 2007 Report Posted December 9, 2007 What I don't understand is why Congress doesn't create a bill to ban certain chemicals in the cigarettes (other than tobacco) that are added by tobacco companies to make the cigarettes more addictive/more toxic. It'd be relatively easy to enforce since all these chemicals are added by a smaller number of large corporations and you can just sue them if they don't follow the rules. It'd also make quitting cigarettes easier and reduce the negative affects of those cigarettes on smokers who are basically being financially sacrificed for the sake of deterring future smokers in our system. Seems like a no brainer to me.Agreed, altho if your one of the people saying they want us buying them for tax reasons, then i guess you could argue that leaving those chemicals in keeps people giving them more money. Still doing that is pretty low....
LearJett+ Posted December 12, 2007 Report Posted December 12, 2007 you're !@#$%^&* right the government is interfering with the bar owner's business. he should provide a safe environment for his workers. you're basically saying we shouldn't interfere with the bar owner's way of running his business but we should interfere with the construction owner's way of conducting business. What businesses should the government interfere in? who decides? the government should either make all businesses provide safe environments for workers or don't regulate safety for any businesses.letting customers smoke is part of the service. what service is the construction company providing by not making its workers wear helmets? we fundamentally disagree and no debate will fix that. a government should respect the rights of a business owner to produce a service to its patrons if it so wants.
Recommended Posts