If you think this is not about government, you are clueless. Where do you think that the lawsuits against tobacco companies were pursued? In state and federal courts, that's where. Where do you think the business-killing antismoking regulations come from? From city councils and state legislators. Who do you think is collecting taxes like mad on cigarettes? Taxes that are up to 10 or more times the cost of the manufacture of the product? Governments, that's who! Who is enforcing the collection of those taxes? Private citizens?
You're clueless, you have nothing to contribute to this discussion except a disgusting analogy and I have nothing more to say to you. Maybe some of the other freedom warriors around here will deign to notice you. I'm done.
Give me a break. You're the clueless one. The article was clearly about a private employer setting standards for their employees. If you want tot talk about government, lawsuits, regulations, etc, etc, then go find one of the threads in FR related to the NYC ban on smoking and post there. I've already done so and you will see that my posts VEHEMENTLY defend a private business's RIGHT to have a business that allows smoking. Also you apparently failed to read my other posts where I said that tobacco products are unfairly taxed and regulated. There was a study done, I don't recall the source, but it cited that the high taxes on smoking actually are causing smokers to subsidize the health care industry. In short, they put in more money than they take out. Yes, I have a problem with that!
But again, you, a drug addict, see a "no smoking" sign somewhere and your emotional, knee-jerk Jesse Jackson like response is to cry out that you are being oppressed and that your rights are being trampled on.
To summarize: A private employer should be able to set guidelines for their employees. An employee also should be able to go find another job if he/she does not like the guidelines set down by the employer.
I think you are trying to make it about the government. Do you object to private property owners making their own rules for their facilities?
Why is it that when it comes to taverns that the smoke advocates loudly scream PROPERTY RIGHTS? Then when it’s about a private property choosing to exercise their rights the argument shifts?
The answer seems to be that it's more about addiction than property rights...