Posted on 02/10/2008 6:00:34 AM PST by justkillingtime
A woman in her late teens died from an acute asthma attack triggered by secondhand cigarette smoke shortly after arriving at her job as a waitress in a bar in Michigan, researchers reported on Friday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I think the best form of compromise would be to just let the market resolve this issue. Let some businesses be "smoker friendly", where smokers don't have to worry about going outside. Let other businesses be "nonsmoker friendly", where there's no smoking at all and no one has to be exposed to the slightest amount of tobacco. And let some businesses be "group friendly", where smokers are allowed in but have to go to designated areas when they light up. It would be up to each business owner to choose what kind of place he would like to run, or to choose some new setup that I can't imagine.
That seems like a fair compromise to me. And since we don't have to empower the government or restrict any rights, it will satisfy cranky ideologues like myself, too.
but in order for smokers not to harm anyone else, why cant they extend the courtesy of stepping outside for a smoke?
I tend to focus on the political side of the debate, so I'm usually not concerned about who should yield in the interests of politeness. I don't smoke, but then again smoke usually doesn't bother me, so I've never really had to deal with this problem.
I will say that regardless of how rude some smokers may be, that doesn't justify placing unneeded restrictions on property owners. It may explain it- after all, it's easier to drum up support when you can target an unpopular group- but it doesn't justify it.
I will also say that I can understand the smokers' desire to have a few places of their own. As far as I know, no Freeper expects every venue to allow them to light up. All they are asking for is to let the business owner decide, so there might be a few places where they can smoke in peace.
I would liken it to the "Crybaby Matinee" sponsored by some of the movie theaters in my area. The idea is to set aside one weekday afternoon where moms can come to see a movie with their young children and not have to worry about trying to keep the kids quiet. It's a nice way to get moms out of the house without making them stress out over Junior's antics.
I could complain to my city council that having loud children in a movie theater is a distraction and should never be allowed, but I think it's better to let the theaters choose their own policy. After all, I can always go to another theater, so why would I want to butt in and inject the government between the theater owners and the grateful moms?
in places like NYC where i am, it's tough because, as you can imagine, space is at a premium.
i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?
I agree. My sixteen-year old son has asthma and he would never work in a place where he would be exposed to cigarette smoke. It sounds like this young woman made a foolish choice.
You are completely missing the point. The issue is not one of my right to smoke, or your right to not be around smokers. It is a right of the property owner to cater to the segment of the population that they desire to have as customers. The fact that you miss this important point is what makes you more dangerous than the looney leftist property grabbers.
At least they are honest in their private property destruction. I suppose you are as ambivilent about the Kelo decision too.
“in real life, people who work hard get what’s coming to them.”
Unless of course those people are the folks that invest their time and their own capital to open a restaurant. In that case you find it acceptable to dictate their customer base at the point of government guns.
“tell me how this restricts property rights. i’m just asking.”
It is truly frightening that someone so obtuse carries the government’s guns!
“...but it is YOU who is negatively impacting it by not staying. if you truly cared about the bar owners well-being,...”
Ahh, collectivism at its finest. I see that the public schools have achieved success. No wonder McLame is going to be the GOP nominee.
Since you are now defending the bans, would you also defend a ban of shellfish? Many people have deathly reactions when exposed to shellfish and yet they may want to go to seafood restaurants. We should use the force of government to eliminate this potential threat to their lives!
New York may make allowances like that, but many other jurisdictions do not. While NY's ban may be better than the draconian ones in places like Ohio or Michigan, I still think it's unnecessary. In the absence of the law, bars and restaurants could still construct self-contained smoking areas. I imagine that many would, simply because it would allow them to cater to both smokers and nonsmokers who go to bars in mixed groups. But why force a bar owner to adopt that arrangement if he doesn't want to?
...i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?
I disagree that there is a health issue involved. At least not a PUBLIC health issue, as that concept is properly understood.
That's not to say second-hand smoke does not pose health risks. It might or it might not...I still don't believe the evidence is conclusive in either direction. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that second-hand smoke does pose some health risk.
That's not the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Just because something is unhealthy doesn't automatically justify government intervention. Obviously there are a number of things in life that are unhealthy but that do not call for government regulation. Take fatty foods for instance. We all know that a cheeseburger a day is bad for the arteries. But no one would suggest that the government should institute restrictions on the consumption or sale of cheeseburgers (unless they are a nanny-state liberal). We recognize that people are responsible enough to handle that risk on their own.
So what about second hand smoke? What it is that makes it so uniquely dangerous that the government has to step in and protect us, even on private property? It's not contagious like E. Coli. It's not undetectable like asbestos in the walls. And it's not instantly fatal like cyanide.
In short, why is it that people can't avoid the danger of second-hand smoke by simply going to smoke-free bars and restaurants? Are they incapable of doing so? Should they have the right not only to visit any bar or restaurant they want, but also to demand that the owner comply with their every wish?
Given that government bans are not needed to protect people from second hand smoke, what other conservative justification is there? I don't know of any. And if there isn't a justification for restricting rights and empowering the government, as conservatives we should stand against it.
Don't forget loud music. That can cause damage to a person's hearing. Or country music, which can lead to depression. Or rock music, which can lead to violent outbursts or sexual promiscuity. To keep things simple, let's just prohibit everything but muzak played at a conversational volume.
And while we're at it, let's go ahead and get rid of low lighting in bars and restaurants. Anyone trying to read a menu could get eye strain, and the staff working there could suffer long-term vision damage. And any flashing lights, since that could cause seizures. Only bright, even fluorescent lighting allowed.
As for food...my God, where to begin. Let's just restrict restaurants to serving to cold tomato soup with a glass of water. But in small glasses...we don't want anyone drowning.
So, anybody up for a night of dining and drinking?
“what other conservative justification is there?”
That my clothes don’t stink, silly!
Seriesly, thanks for your reasoned responses.
That truly is how things progress. The sad thing is that the folks that don’t see the progression are the same folks that are being hammerred with their own tools to get their agendas overridden. That is why I say they are more dangerous than the socialists, at least the socialists are honest about their intentions.
They also outnumber the socialists.
Very few people would consciously choose to chip away at property rights or the market system. Most don't even realize they are doing so when they sign on to appealing, pleasant-sounding policies that are actually rooted in socialism. And advancing socialism is what they usually end up doing.
It's happened in other areas before. What many people don't realize is that the Kelo decision didn't just pop out of the ether. It followed from a series of earlier decisions that had been gradually chipping away at property rights and expanding the government's eminent domain powers. Some of those earlier cases didn't seem all that offensive at the time and didn't get nearly as much attention. But the end result was the monstrosity known as Kelo.
People might scoff at the idea of the hyper-regulated restaurant you and I joke about. And who knows, maybe it will never come to pass. But the principles behind it are already being accepted by the public.
And you know, if you went back 50 or 100 years ago, I bet most people would scoff at the idea of the government seizing property from a citizen and giving it to a private business. But we know better.
Years of smokers shoving it non-smoker’s faces are coming to an end. A lot of us non-smokers feel no sympathy for those that laughed at us when we asked them to put out their cigs because it was tough for us to breathe.——————————————————
“Do you think revenge for uncivil behavior is a valid reason to restrict property rights?”———————————————————————
It’s not a case of revenge. It’s a case of the majority finally getting what they want instead of having smoke jammed down their throats by the minority.
Property rights is always an interesting discussion when it comes down to specifics.
Should the owner of a restaurant have the right to bar entrance to blacks or Jews?
I don't see how how nonsmokers could have smoke "jammed down their throats" if they are voluntarily entering places that allow smoking. No one is forcing them to spend time in smoky bars and restaurants.
In any case, why can't the majority pursue their interests through the market? Why do they need to get the government involved? Smokers may have been rude in the past, but it's not as if they were passing laws FORCING businesses to cater to their preferences. So why should you pass laws that force businesses to cater to your preferences?
Property rights is always an interesting discussion when it comes down to specifics. Should the owner of a restaurant have the right to bar entrance to blacks or Jews?
I'd rather stick to the issue, which is smoking bans. But since you attempted to answer my question I will try to return the favor.
Personally, I think a restaurant owner should have the right to bar any customer for any reason. I believe racial discrimination is immoral. I also think it's a really stupid thing for a business owner to do. But I also don't believe we should use government force to make people be nice or to force businessmen to make smart decisions. Even though the intentions are noble, I don't believe in restricting the freedom of association in this way. No one should be forced to do business against their will.
It's the same reason I support the right of landlords not to rent to unmarried couples, the right of pharmacists not to sell contraceptives, and the right of Christian photographers to refuse to work at a homosexual wedding. Even if I disagree with their ideals, I believe they have the right to live by them so long as they do not violate anyone's rights.
i am not in favor of the ban. i am not against the ban. oh, what s the use? you evidently need to post 6 times in a row to get your point across.
We understand, the smell of smoke is icky and yucky to you. I understand why you would be glad they banned it.
Just as long as you understand that they didn’t do it because you or anyone else was annoyed. There’s a lot more to it than that.
ahhh...good work!
So...she had trouble breathing before work, but still didn’t track down her inhaler.
This is tragic - but hardly the result of secondhand smoke.
Biased reporting.
With her medical history and the stated facts in the incident report, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Rosenman arrived at his stated “theory” unless he was only pushing a personal agenda and/or utilizing this “study” to justify and support his CDC grant, and to further future grant applications. How he can be called a scientist is beyond me.
To be honest I wonder if they still teach the difference between fact and theory in school. So many theories are published in peer review journals, then picked up by journalists and legislators with political agendas and reported as factual to the public.
The average reader who does not reasearch articles such as this one would never have known that this was not a recent incident. Could you tell by reading the article?
“The average reader who does not reasearch articles such as this one would never have known that this was not a recent incident. Could you tell by reading the article?”
No, I couldn’t.
And the average reader isn’t going to take the time to look into the matter and dig up more info.
We are a society of sound bites, and those with an agenda know it.
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.