🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3jbii1$4dl@agate.berkeley.edu> Tommy the Tourist (Anon User) <nobody@csua.berkeley.edu> writes:

>I somehow doubt that an employer would give an employee an hour 
>off (with pay) because a customer demanded the "right" to smoke, 
>though.  So you're saying that the so-called "right" to smoke by 
>a customer, who COULD refrain for an hour or so, supersedes that 
>of an employee to either breathe smoke-free air and/or keep his/ 
>her job? 

It does indeed when the owner decides to accomodate the customer
in an otherwise legal activity.  Cigarette smoking with a meal
is a common practive that the business owner should be able to
allow on his property.

>(A customer CAN refrain from smoking for an hour, an 
>employee with asthma or chronic bronchitis CAN'T refrain from 
>breathing for EIGHT HOURS ... EVERY DAY.)  Incredible...

That employee can easily find a job where cigarette smoking is
not allowed.  There are many resturaunts in CA where smoking is
banned, as well as other service industry positions.

>Are you really serious in your contention that ANYTHING GOES, as 
>long as you put up a "warning sign" first?  If I were a business 
>owner and I put up a sign in my parking lot warning customers 
>that the possibility of rape, robbery, or murder exists in that 
>parking lot, would those activities therefore become permissible, 
>on the theory that, having been warned, anyone who ventures forth 
>anyway was "asking for it"?

First, those actions are illegal everywhere.

Second, have you never seen signs in a locker room or parking lot
for exmaple, that say "The management is not responsible for theft,
please keep your valuables with you."  They are doing so to avoid
liability.

>Does the KNOWLEDGE that something 
>exists imply any CONSENT?  If a business owner puts a sign on his 
>door that said, "Warning!  I might rip you off", should that 
>provide him immunity from any possible civil and criminal action?

Not if they violate the law.  The act of smoking _during a meal_
does not, in and of itself, violate the law.

>> You, and innocent bystanders (employees, children in cars, 
>> pedestrians walking past, etc...), are also exposed to an 
>> inordinate amount of toxic chemicals when you pump your gas.
>> 
>> Why should gas stations be legal and not smoking?
>
>Maybe this thought never occurred to you, but driving a car 
>serves a USEFUL purpose (transportation), cigarette smoking does 
>not!  The production of pollutants is but a mere BY-PRODUCT of 
>driving a car, and we as car owners have been forced to spend 
>BILLIONS of dollars to reduce that pollution, as have the gas 
>stations.  OTOH, the production of toxic gases is the ONLY REASON 
>for lighting up a cigarette.  (Any other "benefits" could be 
>achieved by sucking on an UNLIT cigarette.)

Toxic fumes are also created merely by the act of transferring
gasoline during a sale.  Why should the employees be subjected
to that?

Driving a car isn't the only way to get around.  It is one of
the most wasteful, and there are alternatives.  Do you support
the state mandate of those alternatives despite the fact
they may be inconvenient?  Battery powered cars are available,
albeit at a higher price and lower power, but that is merely
an inconvenience, like not smoking during a meal.

Driving a gasoline powered car is a choice (especially a high
performance/low mileage model), as is smoking.  The smoker
should decide what they are getting out of it, as should the
driver.

Life is full of being annoyed and even infringed upon by other
people's legal activities that you don't want any part of.
You can't legislate them all away or no one would have any
freedom left.

>Those of us who are concerned about the effects of second-hand 
>smoke back up that concern by NOT SMOKING.  If you're as 
>concerned as you claim to be about auto-caused air pollution, do 
>you back it up by NOT DRIVING?

Again, you twist the argument.  I compared toxic gas fumes to
toxic smoke fumes in order to show that in life you are exposed
to bad things.  I am on the side of freedom for both driving
and smoking.  You are on the side of banning, and to be con-
sistent you must advocate the banning of both.
 
>> Disclaimer for Tommy, etc all:
>> 
>> I don't smoke.  I think the tobacco companies lie.
>> 
>> I just believe in freedom.
>
>Freedom for whom, though?  "Freedom" for the smoking MINORITY to 
>annoy and/or endanger the MAJORITY of those who do not choose to 
>smoke? 

If that majority chooses to go where the minority have said they
will be engaging in a legal activity they deserve whatever befalls
them.

Instead of this the majority merely outlaws the minority.  That is
frightening.

Our country was founded on protecting the minority from the
majority.  At some point you are going to find yourself in the
minority and the idea of majority rule isn't going to look so
great anymore.

>Your side could not prevail, in a well-publicised 
>election, in convincing the vast majority of California voters to 
>vote for the bogus Prop. 185, despite spending millions of 
>dollars, so why beat a dead horse here?  The law we're discussing 
>exists because:
>
>    a.) our elected legislature enacted it, and;
>
>    b.) a well financed campaign by the tobacco interests failed to 
>        overturn it.

I was disappointed in the bill and in the advertising.  The
tobacco companies lied and paid the price for it, because their
lies were so transparent.  The bill had a multitude of problems
including trying to mandate policy for an entire state, which
no one liked.

This debate is not about the proposition.  It is about the idea
behind the various laws enacted by local governments that take
another step forward in eradicating the rights of American
citizens.

>As for your oft-repeated claim that you don't smoke, it reminds 
>me of the person who said, "I don't use cocaine, I just like the 
>way it smells". <g>  The fact is, "smokers" don't "smoke", the 
>cigarette does that.  They just SUCK in the smoke.  And if you're 
>around them, you do too -- whether you like it or not.

I don't like to be around smokers either.  I am just smart enough
to go where they aren't.

I initially thought banning smoking was a good idea.  I dislike
the tobacco companies and the lies and death they live on.

Then I began to think about freedom and what this country was
founded on.  We can't go around banning something just because
most of us don't like it or are afraid of it, when we can so
easily avoid it instead.

The smokers that I know aren't demanding to smoke at their jobs.
They don't demand to smoke in my home.  Nowadays, they will
extinguish their cigarettes at the slightest suggestion.  All
they are asking for is that some resturaunts be allowed to
cater to smokers.  Non-smokers don't have to go near the place.

Newsgroups trimmed.
-- 
------------------------------+ The 1990s mark the entry of the average
 Chris Fodor                  | man into the internet community; soon
 cfodor@megatek.com           | followed by the below average man; and
------------------------------+ then, finally, the idiot man.