To put it bluntly, breathing someone's second-hand smoke SUCKS!
It's not comfortable and it causes physiological damage.

Smokers (thankfully, not all of them) can be so selfish about this issue.
Those who are addicted to the nicotine-ridden, toxic pollutant
known as the cigarette ought to think about this: They are slaves
not only to their addiction, but also to the cigarette companies themselves.

The tobacco industry has reeled smokers in, like fish on a hook.
And they're laughing all the way to the bank.

Smoking is a slow-death, and that is exactly how the cigarette
manufacturers have planned it.

Smoking should be banned in many more places than it already is.

As long as driving remains a legal practice, private establishments do have the right to establish their own driving policies.

As long as firing firearms remains a legal practice, private establishments do have the right to establish their own firearms policies.

As long as drinking remains a legal practice, private establishments do have the right to establish their own drinking policies.

So in light of those statements which mirror your own, any business with a large parking lot should be able to have people drive at high speeds or open fire on targets in public, right? Hey, why not get drunk, drive your car at high speed and fire off automatic weapons? It's the right of the private establishment, right?

Sorry, but both of those activities are regulated and a private establishment does *NOT* have a right to establish their own policies on those legal activities. In all four cases, it's a health and public safety issue that you pointedly IGNORE.

Hmmm, I think it should be left to the owner of the establishment to write his own rules. If all he wants are smokers in his restaurant then so be it. If not, he can ban smoking.

being a non-smoker, personally I think it stinks and kissing someone with cigarette breath...UGH, I won't go into any public place where i know smoking is allowed.

If I'm going to die from gas emissions I would rather not die from 2nd hand smoke TOO

There are regulations relating to the above, but the ability of private businesses to establish their own policies regarding driving, firearms and drinking are not generally prohibited by government.

NASCAR and numerous theme parks are more than capable of establishing driving policies for modified automobiles, bumpercars and go-karts (bumping or no bumping). With the proper warnings and waivers issued I could convert a few acres of land into an arena for motorbikes if I like. I could establish the speed limits at 5 mph or allow the riders to operate their vehicles at their own discretion provided each signed some form of waiver to protect me from liability.

If I wish to establish a firing range within a building I own, I am not prohibited from establishing my own firearm policies within state and federal regulations and laws regarding the misuse of a firearm.

*Private establishments do have the right to establish their own drinking policies within state and federal regulations. If I own a restaurant I could refuse to serve alchohol to anyone who has had one, two or twenty drinks. I could also choose whether or not I even wish to serve alchohol in my establishment. Regulations are a far cry from prohibition.

*Note: Statements on drinking policies exclude "dry counties," which I may address in a separate topic suited to discussing tyranny of the majority as it pertains to such counties. Further discussion of such counties should remain for such a separate topic rather than distracting from the current issue of such bans on smoking.

Sorry, but no. Walmart can't decide to turn its parking lot into a racetrack. Joe's Bar can't decide to serve alcohol to minors. McDonalds can't simply choose to serve beer without an alcohol license. You can't open a porn shop across the street from an elementary school. All of these are perfectly legal for adults, but state, local and federal government has placed restrictions on how and where you can do them and under what conditions.

You act like smoking is the only thing that is banned, but there are dozens of legal products whose use is restricted or banned in privately owned businesses or in public places. Why do you have such a burr about smoking?

I never suggested a Walmart would or should turn a parking lot into a race track, or that any establishment serving alchohol should automatically have the right to serve minors. I dealt with both the driving policy and the drinking policy very specifically in my previous post no matter how you may ignore and spin it to suit your argument.

I summed up my previous post very simply, though you seem to have missed it, seeing as how you are still comparing regulated legal goods and practices to prohibiting the legal practice of smoking tobacco products:

The original question was on constitutionality.

The Constitution is the document that specifies the powers of the federal government. The 10th amendment says that anything not specified as a power of the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.

There is nothing unconstitutional about a local or even state smoking ban.

They are horrible ideas, but not unconstitutional.

Can someone who says they are make a case that's actually based on the Constitution?

[quote=Abs like Jesus,Oct 9 2003, 08:14 PM] I summed up my previous post very simply, though you seem to have missed it, seeing as how you are still comparing regulated legal goods and practices to prohibiting the legal practice of smoking tobacco products:[QUOTE=Abs like Jesus @ Oct 6 2003, 11:50 AM]Regulations are a far cry from prohibition.
[/quote]
Since when was smoking outlawed anywhere? Please show me where, in any state in America, smoking has been made illegal.

Just as you cannot sell porn across the street from a school, you cannot smoke in an enclosed space. That doesn't mean you can't smoke at all, you just can't smoke *HERE*, just like you can't sell porn *HERE*. I'm not sure why you have such a problem comprehending that.

PrismPaul writes:
[quote]There is nothing unconstitutional about a local or even state smoking ban.
[/quote]

That's absolutely true because there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically grants the right to smoke. It's a complete non-issue. While smoking is currently legal, with the passage of a couple laws, it can just as easily be made illegal. There simply is not now, nor has there ever been, a Constitutional right to smoke.

From Lochner v. People of State of New York 198 U.S. 45



States do not have unlimited powers over the individual. States can no longer enslave a percentage of their populace. No the right to smoke is not in the constitution, nor is the right to chew gum or stand on your head. The constitution does protect private property rights and individual liberty. No smoking bans are an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the individual property owner's personal liberty.

Hugo, I want to start by saying that I agree with your bottom line conclusion that smoking bans are a bad use of law. But I struggle with the constitutional aspect.

If the test of constitutionality basically comes down to the Lochner opinion you quote:



then we are in big trouble.

I think advocates of smoking bans could pretty easily make a case for these laws being fair (they apply equally to all), reasonable (they are based on a public health rationale) and appropriate (they directly target the problem they are trying to solve).

The Lochner quote basically says that it is okay to interfere with the right of an individual to his personal liberty if you can make a case for fairness, reasonableness, and appropriateness. Now that's a slippery slope if ever there was one.

I think the best way to argue against the smoking ban is not to argue constitutionality, but to argue the importance to our society of recognizing and respecting property rights. People need to be understand how much better off we would be as a society if we limit government to the role of restraining people from violating other people's property rights. People need to see issues like the smoking ban as a violation of individual's property rights, and recognize that if the majority is able to violate the property rights of bar owners, restaurant owners, etc, then this same power can be turned against themselves and their own property in other contexts.

In other words, unless we draw a fundamental, principled line on the proper reach of government (and I think property rights is the best way to establish that line), then the line will constantly move toward more government and less freedom.

Relying on the wishy-washy, ambiguous 14th amendment and tests on "reasonableness, fairness, and appropriateness", on the other hand, just sets up endless arguments on interpretation, with no clear basis for evaluation.

Actually, I agree with you that addressing the constitutionality is not the best way to address this issue. Sadly, many citizens of this country have lost respect for the private property of others. However, when it comes to protecting individual liberties, I prefer to battle on all fronts. No smoking bans are unreasonable, particularly with no smoking area alternatives and the lack of evidence that ambient smoke is a substantial health problem. Smoke in public places can, like crying babies, be an annoyance. To claim that it is a health problem, worth infringing on the rights of the property owner, and that banning smoking in private businesses is a legitimate action is definitely an attack on individual liberties that the constitution is designed to protect.

The tyranny of the majority will continue until the courts begin to realize that the purpose of the Constitution was to protect the individual from government including a government imposed by a majority on an unwilling minority. What inalienable rights does the individual have if he cannot allow smoking in his own private establishment?

Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.


Edited to remove gratuitous use of color - Jaime

Actually, it is an interesting analogy. Sure, a pool owner has the right to have a section of the pool where people may relieve themselves, but if this is a public pool, the board of health would shut it down. The board of health would condemn such an establishment. Because it endangers the health of the general public.

Okay, I am willing to accept not being able to smoke in an establishment BUT, I don't like unruly children; and, they add to my high blood pressure so let's ban them too.

While we are at it...people that talk with their mouth's full disrupt my digestive process. People that talk to loud are damaging my ear drums. And, why should we even have to have a sneeze guard at the buffet....those people shouldn't even be allowed in public.

Now, to the non-smokers...I don't like your car fumes either. Are you ready to walk?

In a few words this is nonsense...where your rights start and mine stop or the other way around. The real issue is does the government have the right to make the choice. If they do...I really hope they outlaw bratty kids in public next!

You must be one of those smokers that rides his bike everywhere??
You don't use an automobile, right??

Unruly children (though somewhat annoying) do not cause physiological
damage when they are around......People who talk with their mouths
full are not causing others bodily harm......people who talk loud, cmon
.........the sneeze guard should be there because it protects the food,
that YOU are going to eat, from germs that could be potentially
unhealthy for you as well as other patrons....

SO, here's your first grade lesson for the day, shaggy:

If it causes physical harm to another, and it is not a necessary function
of society (like automobiles ARE) then it SHOULD BE BANNED
in public areas, as much as possible.

The government has to do it, or it will not get done....

The next time you light up, go stand in front of the mirror and
look at how silly you look puffing away........it's a ridiculous
habit, and one that causes major health problems down the line....

Smoke if you must, but don't blow it in my face!

Just a quick comment, at one point I supported bans in bars, I have been turned around completely.

The "Tobacco Free" groups look more like prohibitionists then worried about the "health and safety" of the public, and are willing to lie to achieve their ultimate goal.

I was asked to a meeting when I was supporting the cause, and I was completely made to feel like a jerk when I asked this question during the meeting:

"I understand that 53,000 ETS related deaths occured in 1988, but since then public buildings have gone from 10% to 80% of the total. Doesn't this mean that in 2002 (when the meeting happened), that the death toll is only less then 10,600 now?.

I was then told that if they, this group, used that number, then Drunk Driving deaths would become the greatest risk to the public by more then 6,000, and that was totally unacceptable, so they don't use the current data.

Sorry, I cannot support people who would look at compelling ecidence and just walk away from it.

I am now working to stop the local government from implimenting this ban.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts?


Your time could be put to better use elsewhere. Whether the group you
were attending meetings with was altering the real statistics doesn't change
the fact that second-hand smoke is harmful to people. Why would you
change sides so easily?

Are you a smoker? If so, why would you be supporting a ban in
the first place?

And, if you are not a smoker, why would you be fighting for the
rights of smokers?

It doesn't make sense to me - please clarify.

I think the smoking ban is relevent to how people feel about smoking.I myself ,as a non-smoker, personally hate to be around smoke.Although i feel this way,others may not.If i don't like the person next to me smoking,I get up and move.Just because one person doesn't like smoking when 50 do,they shouldn't give up their right to smoke for that one person.They have smoking and non-smoking sections for a reason.I mean c'mon,STOP BEING SO CAUGHT UP ABOUT SMOKEING AND FOCUS ON THE REAL ISSUES. We were on the verge of getting nuked about 2 months ago,or so they said, and now we're worrying about "oh my gosh,that man or woman next to me is violating my right to smoke by telling me stop smoking or get out"or vise versa.


thanks,
fenderman

I hate to sound smug, but if you're resisting this legislation then you are quite clearly caught up in the issue as well.

What I am is less important then how I think. I registered on this board as an independent, and that is what I am.

I may be a white male, but that does not mean that I won't fight for womens rights. I may drink, but that does not mean I don't work to fight drunk driving.

I am an independent because I simply hate people who think in mutually exclusive patterns.

Why I am against that bans now, when I originally were for them, is the dishonesty of the Proponents debate.

Example, These bans save lives. On base that would seem correct, in every day practice they appear, using the proponents own logic, to fail, or even increase the death toll.

Look:

The death toll from ETS, is due to the consumption of Tobacco, no one can deny this. However, the proponents of these bans state that these bans will increase business in restaurants and bars by 10 to 20%. No denying these statements because they appear on their webpages. On face it appears harmless enough until you research some facts, and apply their own logic.

ETS is caused by the consumption of Tobacco as Obesity is caused by the consumption of Food and Drunk Driving is caused by the consumption of alcohol.

In this City, the Health Director claims that eliminating ETS in these facilities will save 17 lives. It was this statement that made me initially back the measure.

But, if you "run the numbers" and the advocates of this ban are correct, and even a 10% gain is realized, 25 people will die from the increase in obesity and drunk driving. We do not even have to factor in either the additional cost of police enforcement, the increase in broken homes or the additional "health & safety" concerns that a city would have if alcohol use rose 10%, to see a net loss of life of 8 per year.

It is the proponents of this ban that use this logic, so it is the logic that they MUST stand by.

When you use their own logic, and that logic actually works against them, you can usually tell it is not in the publics best interest. That's what happens when you think independently.

In my opinion, this ban, using the proponents own logic is that 8 people should die so that they can enjoy their Prime Rib and Vodka Martinis in a healthier environment.

If, that single proponent of this ordinance had never said what he did, I most likely would have stayed put. It is true what they say. careful what you ask for, you just might get it!

Sorry if this offends anyone, but it is my thought process.

[QUOTE]You might say car fumes hurt people as well, and this is true, but why justify something else while adding onto our problems as well?

Umm, you might want to think that one through again. See, people smoked LONG before people drove cars powered by the Internal Combustion Engine, otherwise known as the deadliest consumer priduct EVER put on the market......

I find it difficult to believe that anyone has ever had a gun put to their head to force them to be a bartender. Or to go to a bar at all. Or to eat at a place that permits smoking. If you don't like being around smoke, STAY OUT. Work elsewhere. Simple. If I don't like being in a place where I can't smoke, I won't go there. Why oh why can't more people have this train of thought? Why does the government have to tell private business owners that they cannot allow smoking? I am sick of being protected from myself. Soon it will be illegal to slap myself on the forehead (it does kill brain cells after all). This really does anger me to no end. IT'S A PRIVATE BUSINESS! And we are not talking about a hospital here, we're talking bars and restaurants. People have a CHOICE to be there. Nobody has ever died from not going to a bar. The more social issues I look at, the more I realize the sad truth: certain people are just miserable when somebody else is happy. Non-smoking sections? NOT ENOUGH!!! Non-smoking establishments? NOT ENOUGH!!! They have to ban it everywhere. Yet another loss for the freedom choice.

Okay;

It's time for a post first grade lesson...it is called sarcasm. I am very sorry that you didn't get my point, which is that the government has no right to control a private business.

My real problem is with the governments that choose to ban smoking in certain places; but, at the same time continue to receive funds from taxing the product. Many of the states that have banned smoking in public have also sued the tobacco companies under the guise of health care cost...however, if you follow the money it generally goes into the general budget (i.e. building that bridge in the Senator's home town) it doesn't get spent on health care (although the bridge might get you to the hospital faster).

The reason they can get away with this is the use of statistical data. Most of ya'll believe it! I can prove almost anything using statistics, the secret is simply to include only the information that supports your view and ignore the rest. I will admit that I don't know how the non-smoking groups handle their statistics. I do know that MADD will use a driver that has had one beer sitting at a red light and gets hit by another driver as an alcohol related accident (it's very slick, or haven't you noticed...they don't say caused by...they say related). I'm gonna make a huge leap and assume the non-smoking group does the same type of fudging (someone else posted about this).

With occupational health and safety laws, if a person spills a drink on a floor in a restaurant and someone slips on the puddle and is injured, as far as I know, the restaurant is liable to be sued for damages. Even if an employee trips on carpet, he can be compensated.

Businesses are obligated to protect their customers. If smoking has been proven to damage health, shouldn't the government be able to institute a ban to prevent the adverse effects of tobacco being forced on other people? Wouldn't allowing something like that free rein in a public place be negligent?

Don't like smelly clothes? Then don't go to BBQ joints? Whats the problem. The Constitution affords you that right, doesn't it?

If we expect our government to protect us against smelly clothes, then we are going down the road to those existing Governments, such as Syria and Iran that are fanatical in nature and away from what our founding fathers established.

Self determination is EVERYBODIES right. Excersize it and visit only establishments that are pleasing to you.

Just a thought.

300,000 die each year from obesity and more then 17,000 die in alcohol related crashes each year. If the logic of banning ETS is used for both food and drink, the net gain in deaths from these "sins" are far greater then the gain from ETS.

In my town alone 8 more people would die, then would be saved. This is simply using the anti-smoking crowds logic. Doesn't seem very logical to me.

Shaggy,

I'm very familiar with sarcasm.....and I realize now that the first grade lesson
I was trying to teach you didn't sink in, so let's bring it down a notch,
to the Kindergarten level...

Government DOES have the right to impose laws that will protect the
people. Second-hand smoke is very dangerous. It floats out of non-
smoking sections, and into the lungs of innocent people. That's not fair.
I'm not saying we should BAN smoking from every establishment.


It's fine with me if you want to smoke, but don't do it in a public
place where non-smokers will be adversely affected.

As far as proving points with statistical data: you must consider the
source always. But DEATH STATISTICS don't lie. People die
from smoking, and second-hand smoke. It is an insidiously
slow demise which makes it one of our countrie's most dangerous
addictions.

The government should ban smoking according to what
will benefit the public. Smokers will have to accept that the world
does not revolve around their need to inhale harmful carcinogenics.

I think there are three kinds of lies... I have seen no convincing evidence that second-hand smoke, particularly if it is coming from a distinct smoking area and entering a smoking area, is dangerous. The state has no compelling interest to infringe on the private property rights of individuals in this matter.

As to doomed planets question:


And if you were not a Jew, in Nazi Germany, why would you fight for the rights of the Jews?

The answer to both questions is the same, respect for individual rights. In the case we are debating it is also respect for the Constitution.In the case of the smoking ban it is not the smoker who's rights I am defending. It is the private property owner. If he chooses to ban smoking you will get no beef from me. The constitutional question here does not concern the smoker. It concerns the owner of private property.

Of course certain individuals think they have the right to eat and drink anywhere they wish and be able to impose their values on the owner of private property when they are on his property.

Hey Admin:

Sorry about the above!

"ETS is caused by the consumption of Tobacco as Obesity is caused by the consumption of Food and Drunk Driving is caused by the consumption of alcohol. "

Where does the Government start and stop. The equal protection law IS intended to protect equally. Saying that Tobacco, in a Bar constitutes a public health risk, while alcohol does not makes the "play" that non-smokers, in a bar, requires a greater amount of protection, then the child riding his bicycle that is at risk of being hit by a car (please don't say that this is rare. My nephew WAS that child, yet I know of no one who have died from ETS).

Somebody said "death statistics don't lie". Well, that indeed may be true, but when used, and never updated, they are unreliable.

Case in point, "Statistically, 53000 Americans will die prematurely each year". This statement was first made in 1988 when almost zero buildings were "smoke free". This figure came with a conclusion, that being that with every % of new smoke free area, an equal % of lives would be saved.

The same statement, using 53,000 deaths is used in todays arguments, yet 80% of all buildings are "smoke free".

Using the statistic, but not updating the number with what we know may not be a lie, but it is frivolous and constitutes "a feeling" and not fact.

This then would bring into question the Constitutionality of the "ban" as the high court has said that the government must use actual data, and not "feeling" to create a legal need.

Just some thoughts on the above comments. Again, I hope I do not offend, I offer these only for continued comment.

It is a fact that second-hand smoke kills, a fact. And of course the gov't has the right to protect it's people! Without it's people there is no gov't. So the basic question here is should the gov't do it's job...yep. Smokers would be inconvenienced, who cares. What they are doing is a public health hazard, so if they so choose to continue it, it should be in a way, and in a place where it is no longer a public health matter.

CP

It is a fact that drinking excessively, too much fat intake, and driving kill. Let's eliminate all fat from restaurant food, alcoholic beverages, and only allow public transportation. The government needs to do its job. Cars could still be driven on designated tracks, alcohol consummed in the home, and steaks prepared and consummed in the house as well. Anything less would be irresponsible on the government's part.

Edited to add: Oh, yes, I almost forgot the sun! Much more deadly risk from unprotected exposure than second-hand smoke. Mandatory sunscreen is a must, obviously.

"It is a fact that second hand smoke kills"

Really? a fact?, it would appear that neither the CDC, the American Cancer Society or any other reputable anti smoking organization can or will make that absolute statement.

Listen to what they say: They use words that "qualify" the statement as in "related to", "associated with" etc., etc.

Facts come with absolute statments like:

Alcohol killed 17,144 in car crashes in 2002.

This is a fact, which has data that backs it up, death certificates, police reports, etc.

Without "absolutes" then it is a guess, thus most likely a failure under the 14th Amendment to provide more then "feelings"

Here, however, is a fact:

in 1988 it was reported that ETS kills 53,000. Since then 80% of non-residential buildings went "smoke free", yet these same groups report 53,000 deaths to ETS last year.

53,000 minus 53,000 = ZERO.

Think the anti-ban groups have a reason to question the data. After all, either ETS kills or it doesn't. Zero is after all zero

In order to not violate the 14th amendment, you need a bit more then this.

Under OH & S laws, businesses have a duty to maintain a healthy and safe workplace.



OH & S only applies to employees, but I'm sure they also have a duty to provide a healthy and safe environment for clients/customers. Knowing this, I don't see why an exception should be made for smokers who poison the air around them. If fireworks can be banned from being set alight inside a building, I don't see why it would be unconstitutional (I can't believe I wrote that) to ban something that constitutes a hazard in a place of business.



But drinking excessively and driving both have limits and rules. And no one is forcing other people to drive, drink or eat fatty foods. You could argue that the ban would be forcing smokers out of public places, or inconveniencing them, but one thing people have failed to mention is that the ban is on smoking, not smokers. A smoker could just as easily take nicotine gum, nicotine patches, or snuff. Indeed, the risks of taking snuff are significantly less, and it may even be cheaper.

Who exactly is being forced to sit in a smoke-filled room?

No one. But when a non-smoker can either stay at home and breathe clean air, or go out and breathe in tobacco fumes, it doesn't offer much of a choice. Regardless, businesses still have to furnish a safe and healthy environment.

I think this whole smoke ban is a great idea. It IS a public health risk, being that it affects everyone around it.

Drinking should not even be brought up in this debate being a completely different case on its own. You cannot mention drunk driving as an argument being that drunk driving is illegal. And if you were to compare that two, it would be smoking is to drunk driving as to second hand smoke is to hitting everyone on the way home...

[/QUOTE](a) Each employer --

(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
[QUOTE]

I'll get this quote thing right yet!!!! LOL

OK, so are they required to insure against Peanuts, a known killer, or fatty lunch meats, a known killer?

Besides, the argument is just that ETS Might kill, it becomes a presumption, and therefor a "felling", and a failure under the rules that would violate the 14th amendment.

You can't bring up the "second hand effect" of alcohol? (ten yard penalty on me.....LOL)

Not seperate aat all, both are presumed to be toxic, both addictive, yet alcohol kills more then just those in it's consumption area, it's effects travel for many, many miles from where it may have been consumed. (Funny how defensive people get when you bring up alcohol).

Yes, drunk driving is illegal, that makes banning it MORE needed, not LESS. Current strict laws can't even restrain it's "deadly second had effect".

Just my opinion

If the peanuts and fatty lunch meats are on the ground, then they become a part of the "work environment" and a recognised hazard. Yes, they do insure against them.

Edit: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_279546.html

Sorry,

Australian civil law has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.

Peanuts, and peanut residue, such as it's dust has been known to kill from more then 50ft away.

In our contry there are "appeals courts"!

Huh?



And? In our country there are also "appeal courts". The link was meant to illustrate the danger of passive smoke for workers. (And before someone asks, it doesn't matter that they chose to work there, the responsibility is still on the business.)

Alergic reaction to peanut dust KILLS people....

Still, court decisions in Autralia have ZERO implication in American Courts(America' debate after all).

If we protect one poor itty bitty person from what they find offensive or harmfull, then we must protect all.

We can, if we want, create one awfull boring world!

Smoking has already been banned in government buildings and public transportation. Restaurants offer a designated smoking areas. This debate has nothing to do with non-smokers ability to enjoy a smoke-free environment. That choice is readily available almost anywhere you go.
There is a risk of skin cancer from sun exposure. Is outdoor dining failure on the part of the business to provide a healthy environment? The risk of an hour of sun exposure is probably greater than an hour of second-hand smoke inhalation. Both are completely voluntary.
I don't think anyone is comparing drunk driving to second hand smoke inhalation (unless I've missed reading a post). Drinking, however, is bad for your health. Offering alcohol, like fatty food, is providing an unhealthy service to the consumer. Why should the government allow it?

Not comparing the second hand effects of drinking?

Oh, yes, I am indeed. I think it's a very rational comparable.

Both are "claimed" to be dangerous. The biggest difference, I suppose, is that those who may die from ETS, volunteers to be the victim, most who die from alcohol's deadly "second hand" effect, do not.

Which is deadlier, the one that comes with a warning "smoking in designated areas only" or one that does not (boom, you're dead)?

I think, if a ban is to be placed into effect in restaurants and Bars (who came up with the Idea that a bar should be a healthy place in the first place. seems a bit weird to me), then the comparison is indeed a good one. The second hand effect of one is only available within the building, the second hand effects of the other range for miles and miles beyond the building in which it may have been consumed.

Which is the greater danger to the unwitting public?

Unless there's something very wrong with America, there are limitations on the amount you can drink that prevent that, Redliner.



You're comparing an allergic reaction, that has the potential to harm very few, to smoking, which does harm to all. Only the smokers have accepted the risks. The non-smokers haven't.



You're right, drinking shouldn't even be brought up. OSH law regards the place of business, not the service conducted. But the government can allow it, because when you pay for the privilege of drinking or eating, you aren't getting other people drunk or fat at the same time. Smoking is the equivalent of walking into a room and then punching everyone in the throat.



Actually, it does. It's already been mentioned that smoke does not obey rules, and does end up wafting into other areas, no matter what areas you designate as smoking or non-smoking.



If we are talking about OH & S law, then yes, if business is conducted in the sun, the employer has a responsibility to provide some protection from it for the employees. at least.



I have no idea if there's a law in America about sustained exposure to the sun and protecting clients.



Evidence? If you're naked, maybe. Really, second-hand smoke is something that your OH & S law should have already been researched, according to your OSH act. If they haven't already, it's still negligence on the part of the government.



If it's found that second-hand smoke is a serious hazard, there's no real reason that it can't be banned. If it is found to be hazardous, it doesn't even need to be banned; businesses are bound by duty to prevent people from smoking in their establishments. Then you can take snuff instead.

If it isn't a serious hazard, there's no need to prohibit it, and smokers can celebrate.

Prevent what????? Drunk Driving. Oh, there are limits .08 is the limit. This is why a ban on alcohol MUST be created. Even with ALL the CRIMINAL laws created and enforced, this little "second hand" problem is on the rise, not falling like ETS. Funny ETS falls with voluntary efforts, and Alcohol deaths RISE with governmental penalties, and we want Smoking banned. A little common sense is in order here.



Unless you haven't been listening, many of the ETS deaths are attribited to asthma and allergic reactions to it, Yes, the comparison stands....



Yet we ARE NOT speaking about Australia.



Which is perfectly acceptable IF YOU CHOOSE to be punched in the throat. It's called "self determination". The same right that allows boxers to be assaulted without the police arresting them both!!!!!



And alcohol does. aren't they both deadly (my deadly habit can beat up your deadly habit......)

The problem is, to meet the criteria of not violating the 14th amendment you need to provide facts (United States Facts please). You've not met that duty to withstand a Constitutional Challenge......

Actually, I haven't used one Australian source, unless you count the article I linked to. I'm using American OSH.

There's one thing I've noticed about smokers - they take their addictions
very seriously! Better not try to convince them that second-hand smoke
is bad - they don't care, anyway. If they cared they would not be lighting
up in the first place.

As for Mrs. P's comparing second-hand smoke with over-eating???
I have never had someone shove their food down my throat when I went to
a restaurant. That would have to be a commonplace occurrence for you to compare it
to second-hand smoke, because that is what is happening when you light up
your cigarette near me. The smoke streaming from the end of that
death-stick comes into my breathing space, and into my lungs!


Oh, but it's the smoker's right because he/she is so bloody hooked on that
nicotine they cannot contemplate the idea of not being able to light up
anywhere and everywhere.

If smoking cigarettes with a filter causes lung cancer (PROVEN FACT),
Would it not be logical and reasonable to acknowledge that second-hand
smoke (the unfiltered kind) would also harm someone's lungs. DUH!

SMOKERS: How about caring enough about yourself and others to give up
the horrible habit? Then the government will not need to impose smoking BANS!!!
How's that for a solution?

There ARE laws against driving drunk. If someone does it he is committing a crime.
The sun is not something we can totally avoid. Smoking can be done
so in places that do not put others at risk.

Smoking is a very selfish, non-productive habit, that should be done in confined areas
(i.e. back alleys, basements, mental hospitals) away from the folks who value their lives!

P.S. I know when a debater is getting desperate - he starts talking about peanuts!!

Maybe you should petition to have the alcohol limit lowered (or would that be raised?)?



Unless you haven't been listening, this also effects employees, who have to work every day in these conditions. OSH should cover this.



A resounding "what?".



Okay.



I cannot walk into a restaurant or club or bar and set off some fireworks, or walk into a bar with a gun in America. Or so my American friend states. Is that a violation of the 14th, redliner? Really, it's my liberty.