Posted on 04/19/2008 9:49:08 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
He he. You do crack me up at times! The only reason this is really tickling my funny bone today is that I was on a flight to Greece not too long ago and this poor soul and I were talking while waiting for the restroom and she was having a FIT since she couldn’t sleep on the plane - she was next to a L-A-R-G-E woman and the woman literally overlapped into this gal’s seat by a mile.
I don’t know about a law but my idea for a solution is that the airlines should have a couple of “premium” seats and when you buy your tickets you can supersize your ticket for a small fee (hey, they charge for overweight bags, why don’t they charge for overweight people?) and these people could be seated in some roomier seats.
Let’s face it, the population in the U.S. is growing increasingly large (and tall too), so I’m sure the airlines wouldn’t have a problem selling these seats. If I were large, I’d pay the extra fee to be comfy, esp. on an overseas flight, of which I have taken many.
If you really see smoking as a moral issue, then there is not much I can say to you to try to change your mind. Morality is a tricky thing, and I've found that I'm not very good at getting people to change their moral beliefs.
I will ask that, in the future, you defend smoking bans on moral grounds. Since potential customers or workers can easily tell where smoking is allowed, advocates of smoking bans (like yourself) should not rely on safety arguments when supporting smoking bans. If you are honest, you should support smoking bans as a moral issue, just as pornorgraphy regulations or anti-discrimination regulations are presented as moral issues. If voters agree that smoking is an immoral activiety, then so be it...we'll appoach the issue accordingly. All I ask is that you do not piggyback off other illegitimate arguments when trying to defend smoking bans.
As for smoking in bars and restaurants, I believe the workers’ health is important and the oft-used argument that the workers could get a job in another place isn’t really fair since in days past, everywhere allowed smoking and servers don’t always have skills that they can translate into other jobs. Think of the single-mom waitress (putting herself through school) and maybe the only job she can get that will give her the flexibility to go to school and pay a decent enough wage so she can support her family IS a server or a hostess. Why should they not be protected?
As a conservative, I believe no one has a "right" to a job, so justifying smoking bans as a means of protecting workers carries little weight with me.
If a smoker-friendly employer decided to close down his business, and consequently deny a number of nonsmoker's a decent job, few conservatives would suggest government intervention. But if that same employer wants to choose smoker-friendly policies, which also deny nonsmoker's a decent job, then some people *will* call for government intervention. I don't understand this inconsistency.
So... we continue to disagree.
Indeed we do. But perhaps we can agree that however bad smoking may be, it is not a problem that calls for a government solution?
Then you think wrongly until the substance itself is banned.
I guess I have an irresistible urge to feed the trolls until they cave and admit their agenda.
Do you believe you have a right to smoke on another person's property, against their wishes?
If so, then I believe you are the one who is mistaken.
Of course not.
The problem is that the concept of private property has been seriously diminished by the smoking bans.
On that we agree 100%.
Yet you seem to support the smoking bans.
Why is that?
Where do you get the idea that I support smoking bans? I think I've clearly argued *against* them on this thread. In pretty much every case I've heard of, the smoking ban was completely unnecessary and represented an illegitimate exercise of government power.
We're on the same side.
Regarding your last sentence, unfortunately, because the smokers were so militant and controlling for years, it finally came to a government solution; much like any ongoing disagreement where the two sides just can't see eye to eye. Thus, any loss of alleged rights by smokers was foisted upon themselves by, well, themselves.
“Health stream participants in the 2020 summit also discussed increasing public education about how death can be a “positive experience” to avoid patients panicking when they reach hospital emergency departments. “
WHAT!!!! These people are insane. The only deaths that WOULD be a positive experience is THEIR deaths. The human race would be healthier if they did not exist.
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.