"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Gail Schlentz
Piscis Babelis est parvus, flavus, et hiridicus, et est probabiliter insolitissima raritas in toto mundo.
Originally posted by Elaine Micheals:
Seems like it should be a law at the state level, at least, huh?
Matthew Phillips
Gail Schlentz
Instead of legislating property rights away, why not let people choose? When a person owns a business, it is that person's property to do with as the owner thinks.
Originally posted by Elaine Micheals:
I recently went into a store in a strip mall that was right next to a cigar shop. The store I was in reeked of cigar smoke. Sure, that store owner could choose to move, but then you get into an argument of "whose rights are more important". It's not like there is some benefit to smoking... (ok - other than to the tobacco farmers) How far does it go?
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
What about the freedom of choice for the owner? Can he not decide for himself whether or not his establishment will allow smoking? Can a person not choose for himself whether or not he will go into that resturant due to the ammount of smoke?
Any thing similar happening in your area?
Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I couldn't agree more. If I am a restaurant owner, I should have the right to set its policy.
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Cleaning up after smokers and maintaining ashtrays in restaurants and theaters is a problem that owners don't need. I'm sure that the majority of them are very happy that business becomes a lot easier when smoking isn't permitted.
Seems like it should be a law at the state level, at least, huh?
For instance - I am not allowed to have any farm animals on my land except horses. It is a restriction placed by other land owners around me to keep the property values up. Just because I disagree will not keep me out of trouble if I break the rules.
Apply a few more restrictions, and you end up with a dictatorship and a totalitarian state where the good of society is above the individual freedom.
In Arizona the folks WANTED those rules.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
The name of the game is "second hand smoke". In NY, it was an employee health issue. Employees have the right to a safe workplace and a workplace filled with smoke is unsafe (if you believe second hand smoke is a carcinogen). Your employer does not have the right to make your workplace unsafe and then tell you if you don't want to work there then quit.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
The goal of a good conservative should be to have less federal government intervention in local affairs and not more! I can just see the justice department getting involved in every petty dispute between a locality and some business.Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Understood. And my proposed amendment to the US constitution is that the good people of Arizona or its government should have no say in how I run my own business in respect to its admittance policies.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
Incorrect. Many businesses in Tempe have taken quite a hit in customers (especially bars since this happens to be a college town) because the customers aren't allowed to smoke in bars. Some have even had to close. Not only is this bad for the business owners, but now all that tax revenue that Tempe wants, is down the street in Scottsdale. What about the waiters/waitresses/hostesses that now no longer have a job because the resturant/bar couldn't get any customers to come to tempe, because they wanted to smoke?
Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
Wouldn't it be more simplistic for the customer that doesn't want to be in a smokey resturant to just stay home?
Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
I am sure if an entrepenur saw a great demand for a completely non-smoking bar, there would be TONS... where are they then?
Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
Call me crazy, but it is only a matter of time before the system gets even more rediculous.
Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
Besides, wasn't something similar tried with liquor before? Must not have been that great of an idea since it is no longer in existence.
Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
November 7 - the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution
Homework assignment for you guys: "Why is the Great October Socialist Revolution celebrated in November?".
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Matthew Phillips
Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
As to the health concerns of workers, you do not have a right to a job. If an employer feels that the most productive work force is a smoking work force (as far fetched as that sounds), then why shouldn't the employer be allowed to do that? If you don't smoke and don't want to work in that environment, then quit the job and find one better suited to you.
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
[QBshould these laws exist, and if yes, to what extend they should interfere with the right of the business owner to run his business?[/QB]
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Ok, let's take a case of McDonalds, and extend your case of protection of workers to protection of customers.
Only if customers were required to eat McDonald's hamburgers. For example, supoose your local sewage company decided that they could save a lot of money just by pumping the sewage back into the fresh water supply. Should the company be protected from government regulation that might try to stop them?Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Ok, let's take a case of McDonalds, and extend your case of protection of workers to protection of customers.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. - Ernst F. Schumacher
Originally posted by Michael Morris:
I have never seen any study that indicates that second-hand smoke results in the sort of health issue that that would cause.
In 1992, the EPA completed its risk assessment on The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders and concluded that the widespread exposure to ETS in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. More specifically, EPA concluded that ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. Furthermore, infants and young children are especially sensitive to ETS. In children, ETS exposure is causally associated with: 1) an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. (EPA estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to ETS.), 2) an increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and 3) additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. (EPA estimates that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.) ETS exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.
If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar he should be allowed to do so. You don't have to work there.
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;
(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. - Ernst F. Schumacher
Let there be light.
doco
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction. - Ernst F. Schumacher
Does this mean I have to say yes sir and no sir when addressing you doco?
Let there be light.
doco
Matthew Phillips