Posted on 01/09/2006 8:19:48 AM PST by billorites
I do not want the public to be subjected to smoke without its consent but don't want smoking to be banned. Most of the more ridiculous intrusions have been stopped like smoking on airplanes, busses, anywhere you want in eating places, workplaces etc. Hard to believe that when I started working people even smoked cigars at their desks. I would walk into my boss's office and a layer of cigarette smoke hung about two feet above his head. Trips would leave me smelling like cigar or cigarette smoke.
Why on earth did you continue working there if it was so
difficult for you?
Even if this is the majority view, a republic exists to ensure that minorities are protected. There was once a notion that 'the (white) public' should not be subjected to the same drinking fountains that 'they' use.
"Most of the more ridiculous intrusions have been stopped like smoking on airplanes, busses, anywhere you want in eating places, workplaces etc."
Personally, I think these are examples of the onset of ridiculous intrusions. Why the owners of airlines, busses, restaurants, workplaces, etc. can be told how and what can be done on their private property, we have moved in the direction of fascism. It may just be the first step on a journey of a thousand miles, but between you and I, I see any movement in that direction as a bad thing. The restaurant example is especially evocative of Jim Crowism..."No smokers allowed," "Smoking in the rear," etc.Once you have dictated this, you've really set a bad precedent for the legislation of private activity on private property. What's next? No Bible reading at tables?
"Hard to believe that when I started working people even smoked cigars at their desks. I would walk into my boss's office and a layer of cigarette smoke hung about two feet above his head. Trips would leave me smelling like cigar or cigarette smoke."
I'm sure you've been greatly heartened then, by the recent announcement by some employers that will fire all employees who continue to smoke (they've been given a year to quit) and others who will no longer employ persons who smoke (even if not on the job and just at home.) You may be surprised, but I fully agree with and support the business owners right to do so. Likewise, If an employer wants to allow smoking at desks, in offices, cubicles, etc., they should be allowed to do so; however, governments at all levels have decided they know what's best for everybody in these cases.
That was pretty much the way it was everywhere. I never said it was difficult for me merely something I did not care for. You know of some perfect job somewhere?
Don't get silly on me now. Racism and anti-smoking attitudes are not comparable on any serious level. Smokers can change their status while those subject to racism cannot. How do you come up with the idea that you have any right to smoke anywhere just because it was common in the past? Or that non-smokers should be subjected to smoke if they don't want it? Nudists cannot run around in public nude, is that "fascism" too?
I do not approve of mandatory firing of smokers even though it is within the employers rights to do so. While employing smokers might affect the bottom line through health insurance costs there are other ways to handle this problem without depriving people of their livelihood.
Smoke is clearly something which can be a detrimental condition covered under OSHA rules and is as subject to regulation as other threats to workers.
This is simply a false assumption. Many in the anti-smoking movement, much like many racists, will base their entire opinion on, and dealings with an individual based entirely on a single characteristic. Refuse to rent out your apartment to an individual who smokes or charge them an additional deposit and you're fine. Refuse to do so because of somebody's skin color and see what happens. Charge smokers an additional premium on their life insurance and nobody bats an eye. Try to do the same based on race, EVEN IF IT CAN BE DOCUMENTED AND STATISTICALLY SUPPORTED that there is every bit as discernible a difference in life expectancy based on race as there is between smokers and non-smokers, and you'll have your head handed to you on a platter in court.
"Smokers can change their status while those subject to racism cannot."
In a sense they can, because they can always move to areas where racism is far less prevalent, but then again, I guess our nation went through that whole desegregation thing a few decades back in an effort to make that sort of thing unnecessary. I'm sure there are those on the anti- side that wouldn't mind hauling smokers off to camps of our own, if they had the ability to do so. Likewise, consider this....While those subject to racism cannot change the characteristic that subjects them to racism, just suppose, hypothetically, that they could...suppose that a black man had the ability to change into a caucasian for a few hours at a time, even though it made him mildly uncomfortable, and given his preference, he would rather remain black. It is 1952 in Pascagoula, MS. Is it right for the government to tell a restaurant owner that he can not admit blacks to his establishment, using the argument that if they want to go in, they have the ability to change. Is it right for the government to mandate to the restaurateur that if he is going to admit blacks as blacks, he must corral them in the back of the restaurant? Something about this does just not feel right, yet nobody gives second thought to the fact that a smoker must transform himself into a "non-smoker," for admission to most public venues in order to keep the majority happy.
In a sense, I suppose You are right; comparing racism with anti-smoking attitudes is not a good comparison since citizens discriminated against on the basis of race have any number of protections from the government, whereas government initiates and perpetuates most of the discrimination against smokers.
"How do you come up with the idea that you have any right to smoke anywhere just because it was common in the past?"
I have made no such assumption. I have stated, and will continue to assert that, a property owner, be that property a house, an airliner, a cafe, a mall or a stadium, should have the right to assert how that property may be used (for legal activities, of course) to include whether or not people may smoke there, where they may smoke, and what they may smoke (i.e., some restaurants specifically prohibit pipes and cigars, but allow cigarettes.) Once a government begins to intervene, that property becomes less and less private. No matter how you approach it, the philosophical underpinnings of freedom revolve around property ownership (beginning most seminally with one's ownership of self) and any infringement on that is an effort that, although perhaps not intended to, weakens that basic underpinning.
"Or that non-smokers should be subjected to smoke if they don't want it? Nudists cannot run around in public nude, is that "fascism" too?
Ah....the nonsmoker who doesn't want to be bothered...perhaps the proponent of our entire discussion. I believe that the non-smoker who doesn't want to be bothered should have the freedom to seek a venue where like minded people congregate, and they do. The burr under my saddle is that many have decided they want to congregate in places smokers also wanted to congregate, only they didn't want to have to bother with the smoke there, so they initiated legal maneuvers and in many places have passed legislation where others have had to change or modify their lifestyles to accommodate the non-smokers. A Catholic Church or a Synagogue are presumably places where people with like beliefs choose to congregate to participate in a shared behavior. If enough atheists decided they wanted to hang out there because of all the neat artwork and peaceful surroundings, should they be able to legislate against people reading their bibles or Torahs aloud because they might offend the atheists...pollute their minds and their children's minds to complete the parallel?
To take this 'logic' to its extreme, occasional exposure to the offending odor of tobacco smoke (and the arguable health effects of second hand smoke) is by far less dangerous than influenza (look up the death statistics if you don't believe me.) Should we enforce mandatory quarantines of those afflicted by the flu...If I have the flu and am coughing, or even merely breathing, there is a much higher likelihood that the child sitting at the table next to me in the restaurant will contract influenza and die as a result than there is that the child will ever develop lung cancer or emphysema as a result of smoke from my cigarette. The antis are persons that use weak, marginal science backed by strong emotional pleas to legislate their desires on a minority population...plain and simple. Smokers are to them an inconvenience more than a health threat, and they would generally rather run slipshod over the smoker's and property owners' rights than tolerate those who have a different habit than they may have. I will close with two personal anecdotes for your consideration and to illustrate the hypocritical, self-centered attitude of the typical anti.
I have worked with (and physically adjacent to) a rabid anti-smoker who could not bather herself in enough perfume in the morning (and apparently at lunch and breaks through the course of the day.) I found the odor offensive, distracting, and invasive. You might argue that it did not endanger my health, but I would submit that anything that creates a sensation of nausea and light-headedness is most likely to one degree or another toxic. You know what I did? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I had the option of resigning, but I did not. I made a choice to shut my mouth and tolerate it, because the job was more important than the mild level of discomfort I had to put with. I did not expect special accommodation because of the choice I made. Thankfully, she was terminated over performance issues and I no longer have to deal with it.
Recently, here in my Parish, the city fathers enacted an ordinance placing all kinds of limitations on smoking in local businesses. The State of Louisiana has a law that bars local governments from placing any kind of restrictions on smoking in bars and casinos. One of our local councilman was infuriated and made a blistering speech, raging against the audacity of the state, questioning how the state legislature could dare to limit the 'freedom' of a local government to do what it saw best within its municipal jurisdiction. The irony was completely lost that the councilman was making this argument in the interest of limiting a property owner's ability to what he or she saw fit to be best for their business!
I suppose I should address your nudism remark. I really believe it ought to be a community standards issue...in the public domain, on the city streets, in the city park, in public schools etc. On private property, it should be the property owner's call, provided visibility from public areas were strictly controlled. I personally have thought about attempting to start a nude laundromat...not for the excitation of prurient interests mind you, but for strictly pragmatic reasons. When you go to a traditional (clothing required) laundromat, regardless of how much laundry you do, the clothes you wear to and from the laundry will be dirty by the time you get home; in other words, as long as clothing is required in the laundromat, you can never get 100% of your clothes clean. If you strike the requirement for clothing in the wash-a-teria, you allow the individual to completely wash all of their clothes.
The only reason I've not started one is I have not yet figured out where people would carry all their quarters without pockets. Or their cigarettes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.