Bill Aims to Ban Workplace Smoking

Newsday | 9/17/02 | J. Palmer

[sushiman]

Man , how I wish the Japanese would do something to curb smoking in public places . Here the bozos smoke IN the hospitals , and blow smoke in your $ 40 sushi when you are eating dinner in a restaurant . I could go on ...

[Illbay]

You have no "right" to smoke in public, any more than you have a "right" to urinate in public.

Strangely, urination is at least beneficial to the one urinating--even if not for everyone else.

Smoking benefits no one.

[Mr. Bird]

Is there a money-making opportunity here for someone? Can an establishment "privatize", and allow smoking?

What I envision is a bar/restaurant suddenly becoming a members-only establishment. For a nominal fee ($5 a year?), a person could become a member. The membership agreement would include the fact that smoking would be allowed. Seems to me that such a place would do huge business.

Would a "cigar bar" need to go out of business under this new law?

[Mr. Bird]

You have no "right" to smoke in public, any more than you have a "right" to urinate in public

I think that is a very poor analogy. Despite what the smoke-nazis aver, there is no evidence that second hand smoke is anything other than a nuisance to people. That being the case, can you outlaw body odor, or offensive looking people?

You are correct that there is no inherent "right" to smoke in public. However, nothing I have read gives the government the power to restrict it.

[Illbay]

...there is no evidence that second hand smoke is anything other than a nuisance to people.

There is no evidence that playing loud music all night long is anything other than a nuisance, either.

But if I tried it tonight, the sheriff's deputy would be at my door right enough.

What most people fail to get in this argument is that we restrict and prohibit all SORTS of things just because they are "nuisances." You can't "read" anywhere that the government (that is, "the people") have the right to restrict them either, but we do it all the time.

[Mr. Bird]

I suppose you are right. So what do you think of my "privatization" idea?

[RISU]

We desperately need to fire those who get elected and then "group up" to deprive others of basic rights.

No matter their intentions for good, let's get rid of these politicians who preside over the "tryranny of the majority" efforts to undo the Bill of Rights, and freedom.

[RISU]

You are an idiot.

I don't give a damn wehat you think. You can't just decided on your own to take rights away from others. You can't even get a majority an "vote" other people's rights away.

Let's get rid of Public Restrooms too, right. I mean it's messy, and no one has a right to stink up the space.

[Illbay]

I'm afraid I didn't understand it. Would you explain?

[Illbay]

You can't just decided on your own to take rights away from others.

But YOU can decide on your own to foul the air and make it d*mned inconventient for others to breathe.

How do YOU spell S-E-L-F-I-S-H?

[Puppage]

I agree. Perhaps, we should ban gravity, too? After all,if it saves just ONE tree climbing child.............

[Gabz]

Suffolk Legis. Fred Towle (R-Shirley) said the ban is too intrusive and takes away people's ability to make decisions. "There comes a point when government has gone too far," he said.

Finally someone who sees the WHOLE picture.

As far as tis is concerned, the rights of the private property owners superceeds the rights of anti-smokers to be smokefree and the rights of smokers to smoke on private proerty.

[Mulder]

Smoking benefits no one.

There's more to life than "benefits". "Enjoyment" is just as important, if not moreso.

And quite a few people smoke simple because the enjoy it.

That's their Right, and I oppose any effort to infringe upon it.

[robertpaulsen]

"Second-hand smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans each year and injures the health of tens of thousands more as well"

Shouldn't this be headline news? Or is he just making this up to justify his position?

[ohioman]

If I am ever around you, I will make sure to light one up.

[Just another Joe]

Smoking benefits no one.

Tell that to the lawyers that worked on the Master Settlement Agreement for the tobacco companys.

[Protagoras]

You have no "right" to smoke in public,

Define "public".

Smoking benefits no one.

Incorrect, and irrelevant. But it's not surprising that you come down on the side of intrusive government thugs and against American citizens.

[Centurion2000]

You have no "right" to smoke in public, any more than you have a "right" to urinate in public.
Strangely, urination is at least beneficial to the one urinating--even if not for everyone else.
Smoking benefits no one.

Your fascist tendencies are showing. Guess the ninth amendment just doesn't mean anything these days.

If you don't like my smoking, don't breathe near me. Your car exhaust is a lot more deadly than my cigarette smoke.

[Protagoras]

You are correct that there is no inherent "right" to smoke in public.

Define "public". Private businesses have property rights. He is incorrect, as usual.

[metesky]

"Second-hand smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans each year and injures the health of tens of thousands more as well," said Foley

Wait 'til SheLion reads this!