Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

County ERF Bans Smoking; Some Smokers Fume
Oswego Daily News ^ | May 29, 2002 | Heidi Rauch-Webb

Posted on 05/30/2002 7:07:00 AM PDT by Just another Joe

County ERF Bans Smoking; Some Smokers Fume
By Heidi Rauch-Webb /Oswego Daily News

The Oswego County Energy Recovery Facility has gone the way of airlines, hospitals and most shopping malls in the country: no smoking in their facility.

Deputy Superintendent Frank Visser said that though only about 10 out of 30 employees at the ERF are smokers, the issue was a serious one.

"Our lunch room was also our smoking room and it's very small," he explained. "People who don't smoke couldn't get away from the smoke."

Visser said that there had been some complaints to the health department and a few weeks ago Michael Rosen, Deputy Health Commissioner, and an assistant visited the facility and came to the conclusion that controlling the smokers was not feasible so they designated the building as non-smoking.

"The new policy is that people who want to smoke must do so 20 feet from the building," Visser said.

There were some disgruntled employees but Visser told the assembled County Department of Public Works committee last week that some of the smokers have no one to blame but themselves.

"Some smokers were smoking in non-designated areas," he said. "I told them that it takes only one person to ruin it for the rest of the employees."

Visser said the decision is final after the recommendation went to the county Legislature's Health committee.

"It's a done deal," he told DPW committee members as they offered suggestions on how to correct the problem. "As a smoker, you have no rights. If I smoked, I guess I'd just quit."



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; US: New York; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: butts; niconazi; pufflist; rights; smoking; smokingban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-498 next last
To: VRWC_minion
I don't demonize smokers

I . . . feel it should be allowable to shoot them on sight.

41 posted on 05/30/2002 9:18:22 AM PDT by Flyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
It's not an insult; it's an observation. For all I know, you're really an OK person, but your FR persona holds that "my rights are absolute; everyone else has none."
42 posted on 05/30/2002 9:18:43 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
sigh...words simply fail me. This little twit needs an adjustment or two, I think.
43 posted on 05/30/2002 9:20:49 AM PDT by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
but your FR persona holds that "my rights are absolute; everyone else has none."

If I have given you that impression, I apologise.
I have never said that, implied that (that I know of), or believed that.
My whole point on THIS thread is the fact that a government employee stated , "As a smoker, you have no rights. If I smoked, I guess I'd just quit.", and that THIS is the kind of thinking that the nico-nazis WANT to foster in everyone, especially in people holding positions of authority.
I have stated other things on this thread but nothing that I believe would give you that type of an image of me.

44 posted on 05/30/2002 9:25:53 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
In summary you think its ok if the town banned smoking in this building arbitraily but not ok if he had a reason.
45 posted on 05/30/2002 9:29:57 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Yup. As a smoker, you have no rights.

American citizens have rights as indicated in the Bill of Rights. Rights not specified are left to the states and the people; the government here is simply asserting its Tenth Amendment authority.

Parties to a contract have rights as specified in the contract.

Producers of intellectual property have certain rights as defined under copyright law.

Smokers do not have an absolute right to smoke whenever and wherever they choose, without adverse repercussion to themselves.

46 posted on 05/30/2002 9:33:05 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
In summary you think its ok if the town banned smoking in this building arbitraily but not ok if he had a reason.

In summary I think that the town, or county, or state doesn't NEED a reason to ban smoking from a building that the town, or county, or state owns.
If it bans it for a BAD reason I don't like it but still have to admit that the town, or county, or state can ban it from the building.

I DON'T THINK that Mr. Visser had any brains working when he made the statement, "As a smoker, you have no rights. If I smoked, I guess I'd just quit."
THAT'S what I take exception to.

47 posted on 05/30/2002 9:37:39 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Smokers do not have an absolute right to smoke whenever and wherever they choose, without adverse repercussion to themselves.

I have NEVER said that and do not believe that.
If you can find any statement of mine on any thread on FR that relays that thought, I will personally send you a check for twenty dollars. All you have to do is find the statement and freepmail me an address to send it to.

48 posted on 05/30/2002 9:40:22 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
It's the logical conclusion of your argument.

You have rights as a citizen, not based solely on being a smoker.

49 posted on 05/30/2002 9:42:01 AM PDT by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
As a smoker, you have no rights.

I think that lewislynn said it better, much as I hate to admit it, "As a smoker, you have no special rights."
I do have the same rights as a smoker that someone has as a nonsmoker.

50 posted on 05/30/2002 9:43:24 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
See post #50. We agree.
51 posted on 05/30/2002 9:45:00 AM PDT by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator

To: purereason
Get of load of the Smoking Nazis on this thread!!
53 posted on 05/30/2002 10:16:23 AM PDT by evilsmoker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
I think those no longer allowed to smoke, ought to drive this manager nuts with complaints. Start with perfume/shaving lotion. As the principle used to disallow smoking covers many other things, they could go on and on...
54 posted on 05/30/2002 10:32:11 AM PDT by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: evilsmoker
"Deputy Health Commissioner, and an assistant visited the facility and came to the conclusion that controlling the smokers was not feasible so they designated the building as non-smoking."

What a bunch of krap.We can't enforce one rule so we'll make another.

Same sort of pinko, commie, socialist,"the end justifies the means" sort of mentality that is permeating this media from certain quarters.

They are infiltrating our very souls, you ought to be used to it by now.

55 posted on 05/30/2002 10:49:59 AM PDT by purereason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench
"I think those no longer allowed to smoke, ought to drive this manager"over a cliff

When are you smokers going to learn, you can't reason with unreasonable people. If wer're gonna get this monkey off our backs, we need to use a hammer.

56 posted on 05/30/2002 11:10:37 AM PDT by purereason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Visser appears to be the perfect dictionary illustration for the term "NICONAZI".
He should forward a recent photo to Websters immediately.
57 posted on 05/30/2002 11:17:01 AM PDT by TheGrimReaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe;christie
In Los Gatos, CA, an upscale neighborhood, they passed an ordinance banning smoking in public, period. The council was all dems.
58 posted on 05/30/2002 11:21:06 AM PDT by Angelique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
I don't know you but I sure hate your smoke. But what does hate have to do with the right of a town to set smoking policy for its employees ?

Tell me about yourself. I am sure you have some habits that "I" would hate. But that's none of my business. You are you and I am me.

Setting "fair smoking policys" are fine. But when there is a policy BANNING smoking, that is not fine.

Having a smoking section and non-smoking sections are the way to go. And if a business bans smoking inside the building, that's the way it is today. Let them run outside the door to grab a cigarette. But when one policy is put into place against smoking, then others follow.

There is NO justification in making a person go 50 feet from the building to have a cigarette. Unless it's to save face for the boss about what he has done to his workers who choose to smoke.

59 posted on 05/30/2002 11:35:01 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: evilsmoker
Get of load of the Smoking Nazis on this thread!!

The smoking nazis in Free Republic are Situation Conservatives.

60 posted on 05/30/2002 11:36:29 AM PDT by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-498 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson