Sigh, more ****ing big government interference.
Sigh, more ****ing big government interference.
Big gov't does get it right sometimes. Banning indoor smoking has resulted in lower cancer rates in the states where it was passed. The war against drug abuse cannot be won but it has to be fought to at least contain the problem. The DEA is right in fighting it at all levels.
Your rights end when you infringe on others rights. If smoking only affected those who smoked then it would not be an issue. The smoke never stayed in the smoking section. The drug abuse epidemic has a great impact on our entire society. You benefit indirectly from the war on drug abuse.
Youre missing the point, nobody forced the people to go into a smoking establishment in the first place, they voluntarily made that decision.
I think freedom to go to gov't or private establishments trumps freedom to give others cancer and asthma exacerbations. Are you guys really healthcare professionals or did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Smoke free of course.
Youre missing the point, nobody forced the people to go into a smoking establishment in the first place, they voluntarily made that decision.
I assure you that I am more of a health care professional that you.
Doctors can believe in the constitution .
Let me simplify this. Freedom to breathe clean air trumps freedom to give others cancer. Your freedom ends when you swing your fist around and it hits someone else's nose. If you are performing a "freedom" which raises the overall cost of healthcare greatly and thus raises my insurance premiums then I think you should be sin taxed, pay higher insurance premiums and be coerced into quitting said activity. You are still free to smoke in your own home if you so choose. I can't tell you how many patients I have had walk into my pharmacy tired of the cost of cigarettes, the new restrictions and the higher premiums they have paid and decided to quit with the assistance of Chantix and Nicoderm CQ. This is a net positive for everyone.
Well Steve I don't know if you haven't been paying attention but we are not actually "great"anymore. I think we are meerly good. Examples of countries outperforming us would be Brazil, India and Germany. The Chinese are more capitalist than we are but their human rights record is atrocious. We are sort of like the Roman Empire in the late stages. We have a debt which we will not be able to pay down. Politicians who are only interested in being reelected. Default ala South America in the 70's is likely which wouldn't be the end of the world. A major contributor to our problem is healthcare costs. We have an aging population and an unhealthy one. Obesity here is of epidemic proportions. Is this a side effect of rampant capitalism? I don't know. We can check with China in 50 years. Fact is these countries are younger and healthier than we are. I would like to be part of the solution by promoting healthy living. I'm sure most other providers entered the field for the same reason. If this means less pharmacists in the future I'm sure I will be able to find something else to do. I will do it knowing I did my small part to help our country stay competitive in the future.
The honest truth is I hope they do away with the drug altogether. Bad press, bad outcomes, bad everything....
Speaking of smoking, I'm hate how all the hospitals are making you walk all the way off hospital campus if you wanna smoke. Really makes it hard to take a cigarette/hookah break. (I found a minature/handheld hookah that I can take with me anywhere. Pretty much fits in my pocket.)
NYC is getting annoying with the smoking regulations. There are some legislators that wanna put an end to hookah lounges. Hookah lounges also have food, but people go there to smoke. If you want Persian food but don't like hookah, then go to a Persian restaurant without hookah.
I assure you that I am more of a health care professional that you.
Doctors can believe in the constitution too. The notion that the government can tell us whether or not we can smoke in a private establishment/building is absolutely ridiculous.
The smoke-free restaurant thing is wonderful. I was young enough when the law happened that I really take it for granted, and it's pretty disgusting when you go on vacation and people are puffing away while you eat. Sure there's a choice not to go to those restaurants, but pretty much every restaurant allowed it (with the exception of like McDonalds, BK, Wendy's). If you're a business owner, you're going to allow it since the alternative cuts down on your potential patrons. It's in the best interest of your area to choose independently owned establishments over chains and franchises, not to mention better food, so you really have no "choice" to go elsewhere. It's kind of like saying "I don't like paying all these taxes" "Well move to another country then!" It's just not a reasonable choice to make, given the minor inconvenience, so you suck it up (figuratively, but in the case of smoke, literally). You can't eat at a fast food chain for every meal out, so eventually you'll go to a restaurant where smoke is being blown in your face.
That doesn't take into account all the data about children who are exposed to smoking are more likely to smoke. Growing up seeing people smoking around you all the time certainly normalizes it for you, and that has obvious public health concerns.
The smoke-free restaurant thing is wonderful. I was young enough when the law happened that I really take it for granted, and it's pretty disgusting when you go on vacation and people are puffing away while you eat. Sure there's a choice not to go to those restaurants, but pretty much every restaurant allowed it (with the exception of like McDonalds, BK, Wendy's). If you're a business owner, you're going to allow it since the alternative cuts down on your potential patrons. It's in the best interest of your area to choose independently owned establishments over chains and franchises, not to mention better food, so you really have no "choice" to go elsewhere. It's kind of like saying "I don't like paying all these taxes" "Well move to another country then!" It's just not a reasonable choice to make, given the minor inconvenience, so you suck it up (figuratively, but in the case of smoke, literally). You can't eat at a fast food chain for every meal out, so eventually you'll go to a restaurant where smoke is being blown in your face.
That doesn't take into account all the data about children who are exposed to smoking are more likely to smoke. Growing up seeing people smoking around you all the time certainly normalizes it for you, and that has obvious public health concerns.
last time I checked there was nothing in the Constitution about policing what people of their own volition choose to ingest (in their own bodies for crying out loud!
Steve how about those people working in those environments? Should they just go and find another place to work? I believe they have rights also. Hell let's just roll everything back to the 1930's where workers were exposed to all sorts of chemicals at work and died as a result of it. Let's allow smoking on airplanes because you don't have to fly you could've drove. Those $100 tickets you bought to that sporting event you can't enjoy because you can't breathe? Too bad you didn't have to go. The more education you have the less likely you are to smoke. Smoking is unintelligent. Obviously property rights are not as important or all of these laws wouldn't have been passed in multiple states. The Constitution is not being trampled as you suggest.
Yes I know supply and possession are completely different areas but what you are trying to say is, if you don't supply and are not in possession but take an oxy offered to you this is OK? Utter rubbish. It may not be in the constitution but it is certainly against the law to ingest a material such as this, so you are not really free to carry out this practice as you suggest.
Don't go out to eat then if you can't find a suitable place -- no one puts a gun to your head and forces you to eat out. You can't ignore the property rights of the business owner and disregard the Constitution just because you don't like smoke. You can hardly equate that to the taxation issue -- sure the US is overtaxed from the left and their welfare state and the right and their warfare state, but some level of tax no matter how you apply it is necessary to keep the government running at even a minimal capacity...
I will concede the children issue to you as a valid argument (the direct exposure for 18 years and 9 months, not necessarily the normalizing effect as that would negate the freedom of the child to choose when they become an adult). Smoking around children and while pregnant is very close to a form of child abuse as far as I'm concerned... you see those poor little kids on multiple inhalers b/c their parents are useless pieces of **** with no self control (and usually sucking the welfare nip too, big surprise there)... ****ing pisses me off.
Being a shut in for the sake of safety makes no sense. Laws are there to protect us. What if it was okay to shoot guns nonstop in public? If you don't want to get hit by stray bullets, just stay home! No, laws protect citizens and allow them to enjoy life while minimizing fear of ill effects.Steve how about those people working in those environments? Should they just go and find another place to work? I believe they have rights also. Hell let's just roll everything back to the 1930's where workers were exposed to all sorts of chemicals at work and died as a result of it. Let's allow smoking on airplanes because you don't have to fly you could've drove. Those $100 tickets you bought to that sporting event you can't enjoy because you can't breathe? Too bad you didn't have to go. The more education you have the less likely you are to smoke. Smoking is unintelligent. Obviously property rights are not as important or all of these laws wouldn't have been passed in multiple states. The Constitution is not being trampled as you suggest.
Being a shut in for the sake of safety makes no sense. Laws are there to protect us. What if it was okay to shoot guns nonstop in public? If you don't want to get hit by stray bullets, just stay home! No, laws protect citizens and allow them to enjoy life while minimizing fear of ill effects.
The "owner's discretion" argument, as I previously stated, is a major disadvantage to the business. 20% of Americans smoke, so you immediately turn away 20% of your business. We all know how difficult it is to "make it" as a restaurant, so that 20% could be a big difference. Of course when it's mandated that you can't smoke, the smokers will eat there, but if they had a choice, they would go to somewhere that they could. The non-smoking establishment would certainly have hostile situations too, since the smokers assume they can smoke because "everywhere else lets me" and then you have employees confronting them and making them stop.
1. Are you suggesting that NO establishments, airlines, sporting events, places to work, etc. would provide smoke-free environments at the discretion of the owner? I find that verify difficult to believe, this whole notion that the market would not provide for other alternatives without the ever-intrusive government overstepping their boundaries. If smokers wanted to sue an airline or a restaurant for not letting them smoke, I would again side with the business in that it is their discretion what to allow or not allow in their place of business. There are only two positions you can have on freedom and liberty in this case -- it is just like the two positions you can have on freedom of speech. You are either for it or you are against it -- whether you agree with the actual merits of the specific case in question or not. Yeah, smoking is dumb as hell, but neither you nor I have absolutely any right whatsoever to push that belief onto a smoker or an owner of a business -- their body, their place of business, NOT yours.
2. You suggest that property rights and the Constitution are not important anymore. This comes a few posts after you claim the United States is "not actually great anymore." Hmm, oh how I wonder if the two could be tied together at all?
False dichotomy, bro. There's middle ground you seem to be ignoring. I am for free speech, however, you can't say bomb on a plane or fire in a crowded theatre. It can incite panic and harm people. No one will argue that banning that behavior is a violation of free speech. Same thing with smoking.
You seem to be making this a property rights issue. It's not. It's a workers rights issue. The workers have the right to not be exposed to carcinogen all day if preventable.
They also have the right to seek employment elsewhere at say... a non-smoking establishment. Somehow you try to come up with the silly notion that workers rights should completely negate property rights in this case. Wrong -- still a property rights issue, bro.
And the free speech I clearly was referring to was within the context of displaying expression, no matter how reprehensible, etc. which is still far from universally practiced. Thanks though for pointing out the obvious limits that have probably never been debated in the course of modern history and really don't come to mind when you discuss the framing of that debate -- of course you can't directly and intentionally incite panic or directly threaten people's lives and whatnot under the guise free speech. It's like pointing out the middle ground on carrying a firearm because you can't "carry" it down the street while pointing it at random people.
Irregardless, trying to make the argument that property rights should be utterly disregarded in the restaurant industry, which is possibly one of the most splintered industries with regards to market share, is completely well-intentioned but misguided at best.
Steve, your property rights argument is so 2006. It's over man. You're losing the battle. The founders could not have anticipated issues that would've come about hundreds of years down the road. Example gay marriage. Their wording would not allow us entirely accurate meaning by interpretation. Overall it is a very sensible law. I think we are all open to sensible solutions to our very advanced problems in our country. This is why it has passed in 35 states and counting. You will look back in 10 years and agree with me.
Way to backpedal, I'm pretty said you're either for or against it when in fact there are shades of gray.
At what point do worker's rights take precedence? Employers can present whatever dangerous situation they want, and your argument is "just get another job"?
My arguments:
smoking is bad
Always ask your patients if they've thought about quitting
Since laws have passed banning smoking, the number of active smokers has declined
Treating complications from smoking is costly
Second hand smoke can induce asthma attacks in sensitive people
Drinking out on the street is prohibited except for select cities..why not do the same for smoking?
Throwing your beer in someones face would be the equivalent of secondhand smoke
If companies want smoke free campuses, they should provide free smoking cessation programs to their employees. It's only fair.
I love the "where does it all stop?" argument. Next you'll say something like "They're gonna come take all our guns" in a southern accent. Politicians love to play this card to stir up the base even though they know it is never going to happen.
[
You mean they could take away my Big Macs? They are the reason I came to America. They outlawed them in my home country of Krakosia. I want to be an obese consumer capitalist. I am creating jobs for Drs, pharmacists, hamburger flippers and eventually surgeons. Post coming from Steve shortly with long words ending in "ly".