Replies

This was a financial decission and they were knowingly stopping smokers from quitting.

I think its a bit of a stretch to say they were "stopping smokers from quitting". Holding them down and forcing cigarette smoke into their lungs? Yeah, THAT would be "stopping them from quitting".

In a fair world the CEO's and others that decided to addict more somkers and thus kill them would be sentenced to death for murder.

In a "fair" world, people would not be able to make others responsible for their own poor choices. Furthermore, in case you hadn't noticed, a lot of smokers live to be quite old (my grandmother smoked from the age of 13 right up until her death at 87. My father smoked from the age of 15 to his late fifties, and is now a very robust and healthy 75-year old man), so I think it would be difficult to classify making cigarettes more addictive as "murder".

But isn't making cigarettes more addictive depriving you of at least some of that freedom?

Again, you are missing the point. It is the person who CHOOSES to smoke who is responsible. I don't care if they make cigarettes as addictive as crack, the bottom line is that you have a PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions. It is people like you with reasoning like yours that has led to the ridiculous notion that fast food restaurants are responsible for people becoming big bloated bags of fat. No, it is those individuals' responsibility, it is their own lack of discernment and self-control that is reponsible. The same is true of tobacco. My father smoked for decades, until the guy he bought his house from died of lung cancer. My father said, "You know, if I don't quit that's going to be me." Whereupon he quit, cold turkey, never had another cigarette. THAT is personal responsibility, THAT is self-control. And THAT, my friend, is the key to freedom.

Your father was one of the few lucky ones. My Fatehr-in-law quit smoking at age 55 and died at age 56 seven months later.

You seem to argue that your Fater is the average smoker far from it. He is very lucky to still be alive.

My main point is a person should not be forced to smoke just to get a job, not even second hand smoke, unless the sole purpose of the establishment is selling smokes. Also bars are a common place for after work parties. Employees should not have to attend parties around smokers. Yet not attending is often a good way to get fired. Does that employee really have a choice?

A Cigar Shop can and should allow smoking as long as it's main business is selling Tobacco. That is the single exception although a tobacco plant could argue for the same right. I once refused a job for R J Renolds because they allowed employees to somke. In fact the cigarettes were often provided free or very cheep. I shouldn't have to refuse a job elsewhere for that reason though.