"I undestand what you are saying. My point was that, as a smoker, I had no problem with the banning of smoke in public places.
I DO however have a problem with employer's firing me if I choose to smoke at home on my own time.
This is NOT a contradiction. One affects other's right not to have to breathe my smoke ... the other is my right to do any legal thing I want on my OWN time without being fired."
Welcome to FR grasshoper. You have much to learn.
Now, in advance I will ask forgiveness for such a long post, but here ya go.
First off, no one is forced into a private establishment. And yes, until the government starts to compensate private business owners for the use (or lack of use) of their private property, then that property is still private. It is not a matter of harm to the smoker or to the non-smoker. In fact, the studies that are bantered about are not conclusive to any harm caused by ETS, but that is another part of the discussion.
Read this article: Harm's a Two Way Street by WW
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031119.shtml The bottom line is that the private property owner must be the decision maker regarding this subject. If a non-smoker does not like to enter that private property, they have the option of not entering. If they find after entering the property, then they can leave. If enough people leave and do not return, the market will cause the property owner to change his policy. In fact, the non-smoker that is not satisfied with the offerings of the market is free to risk his personal capitol and time to start a non-smoking establishment. If the market exists, it will thrive, if not his risk will not be rewarded.
What is happening today? Well, the government has specifically stated the market is no longer valid at driving risk takers into satisfying the market. Instead of the non-smoker (gnatzie) having the strength to go out and take the risk, they have turned to the government guns to force private property owners to cater to their desires. Keep in mind, this is based on their preferences and desire not to be offended by a smell.
Now, you may think the term "government guns" is an extreme statement. Well, let's look at the simple act of receiving a speeding ticket. If you fail to pay that ticket, then a warrant is issued for your arrest. If you refuse arrest and run from the police, they will then take you into custody by the barrell of a gun. The government has no way to enforce their laws without the barrell of a gun.
Therefore, smoking bans are nothing but a gnatzie's use of the government guns to ensure they are not forced to smell oders they find offensive. Regardless of the owner's smell preferences. As a result, the gnatzie's are effectively legislating private behaviour on private property against the wishes of the private property owner and his customers. A private agreement (contract) is no longer valid to enter into.
Now, let's take a look at the employer/employee relationship. You, as an employee, agree to work for a specified amount and you agree to receive that amount in real time. Every time you receive a paycheck your contract is completed and you chose to begin a new contract period. (unless you sign a long term contract, such as athletes)
If I want to hire only smokers, then I should be free to offer a private contract between consenting adults that reflects this. If a smoking employee decides to quit smoking, as an employer I should be able to fire them. In the same manner, if my employee wants to quit he is free to do so.
What will generally happen when the employer starts trying to control to much of your personal activity is that the cost he will need to pay for labor will rise. What will end up occuring is that for an employee to be willing to subject themselves to his requirements, their demand for benefits and compensation will go up, therefore the business owner will make himself less competitive in the market.
As a result, the business owner (fascist) is making choices that will kill his business and he will be forced to sell his property (business) to a more efficient employer.
If the opposit happens, and he finds employees willing to work for the same, or lower, wages than the rest in the market, well, he will become successful and a new business model will be born.
So, as you can see, the market is the best method to judge these business owner's choices. Not the government, not the gnatzies, not the smokers. The only decision maker should be the property owner and the only judge should be the market. Otherwise, we have given up our Republic.
I'll apologize for the length of this post and if it sounds disconnected. I am in a cc and I'm getting distracted every now and then......