right to be good

[Melvin Menezes]

Short story:
Joe used to go to office by the same bus everyday. Usually, he would find a seat but it used to get crowded with every stop. An old lady who could barely walk used to get in at the third stop. Sometimes the lady found a seat, sometimes she didn't. Joe had the right to sit because he got in first and the lady had no right to ask him for the seat. But Joe, not exercizing his rights, used to offer his place anyways and had a feeling of happiness within. He would get praises and blessing form the lady and sometimes a pat on the back. Thinking he was being good, he used to take pride in his actions.
Sometimes later, he moved to another place and so he stopped going by that bus. There were not many people in the bus like Joe. From that day onwards, the old lady wouldn't get a seat that often. A few more old people started going by that same bus and got angry at the youngsters for not being courteous. It had to happen one day that the bus driver hit the brakes hard to avoid an accident. The accident was avoided, but the old people in the bus got flung and had a few injuries. There were news and demonstrations against the bus service not being good and that there should be reserved seats for the old people.
The bus service was run by a privately owned company and had no obligations to listen to those demands. But they had to for political reasons and the fear of losing customers.
A year later, Joe moved back to his old place and started boarding the same old bus. This time he couldn't find a seat because the only ones that were unoccupied were 'reserved' for the old people. He sat there anyways because they were unoccupied. With the passage of a couple of stops, a few old people got into the bus. Joe, as usual, had no problems in giving away the seat. But this time, the environment was different. It was not about being courteous, it was not that of friendliness. It was about the law and the rights. The right to a seat. Joe got up immediately and offered his seat to others without a moment's hesitation. But he was a changed person, he did not have the feeling of happiness within anymore.
He felt he had lost his most fundamental of rights- the right to be a good person, the right to take pride in good actions. He had been reduced to being just another law abiding citizen.

[Thomas Paul]

We live in discourteous times so courtesy must be enacted by law. The NYC subway has seats reserved for the handicapped. Why? Because people wouldn't give up their seat when a hnadicapped person got on.

[Gail Schlentz]

If the world had more Joes it would need fewer rules.

[R K Singh]

Joe still has a "right to be a good person" and take blessings of old people.
He can be good person, when he is sitting on seat which is not reserved for Senior Citizens.
And now when one old lady comes, he can offer his seat
We want to do charity to the poor. We will never say him to do work and not to take charity.
Because if he starts working then where I will do charity.
We feel happiness when we do help. We do not want to have a solution like reservation for Senior citizens.
We want others to come and again come to us for help. We dont want to look for permanant solution. Because then HE will become free from my charity.
IMHO its selfishness of being good or to pat own back.
And by giving that right, one does not lose the right to be good human.
He can always offer his seat. He need not to sit on reserved seat to offer a seat to old man.

[Melvin Menezes]

Thank you for your replies.
Story continues:
Joe used to go to a local restaurant everyday during lunch time. Usually, he would even smoke in the crowded place and no one would complain. An old lady who could not take much care of her health used to come at around the same time. Sometimes the lady found a seat, at the far corner of the restauarnt, where she was not bothered by Joe's smoke, but sometimes she got a table next to his. Joe had the right to smoke because the restaurant allowed it and the lady had no right to ask him to stop smoking. But Joe, not exercising his rights, used to avoid smoking at the table (he would go out of the restaurant for a few minutes) when she is nearby realizing she was uncomfortable. He had a feeling of happiness within. He would get praises and smiles form the lady and sometimes a pat on the back. Thinking he was being good, he used to take pride in his actions.
Sometimes later, more smokers started comming to the restaurant and and not all of them were considerate like Joe. The old lady would have to bear the smoke often. A few more old people started going to that same restaurant and got angry at the youngsters for not being thoughtful of others. Many oldies had trouble and couldn't breath. There were complaints against the restaurant not being good and that smoking should be banned.
The restaurant was run by a private owner and had no obligations to listen to those demands. But he had to for political reasons and the fear of losing customers.
Joe, as usual, had no problems in not smoking at the table. But sometimes, the restaurant was not crowded at all. There was lot of room for a handful of patrons that could sit far away from each other. But Joe could not smoke. It was not about being thoughtful, it was not that of friendliness. It was about the law and the restrictions. Smoking not allowed. Joe was a changed person, he did not have the feeling of happiness within anymore. "How many more restrictions will I have to face?", he thought.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Thank you for your replies....he thought.

Thats why when you are reserving seat for Senior Citizens, you should/must keep seats also for normal young people, because they cant stand all over journey.
And thats why instead of going for "No Smoking" board, one should go for "No Smoking" ZONE.
Its all about right and freedom.

[Jason Menard]

Well unfortunately some laws become necessary in a world that lacks common courtesy and often common sense. For example, smoking while other people are eating is just plain discourteous, whether or not it is allowed by law.
Laws are no replacement for courtesy and mutual respect. Societies evolve and what is considered discourteous or disrespectful may change over time. But most of this is common sense. What if you went into a say a movie theater and sat in front of somebody who kept sneezing on you and everyone around you (without any attempt to cover his mouth) for the whole time you are there. You ask him to stop, he tells you "hey it's my right to sneeze, I don't see any no-sneezing signs, so if you don't like it move." Common sense tells us that the guy is being discourteous whether or not there is a law and regardless of what he feels are his personal rights. We would all like to think that the guy would have the common courtesy not to sneeze all over people and that the mere fact that such public behavior is discourteous shouldn't even be up for discussion. If that's behavior he wants to engage in at home, that's fine, but there is no reason that others should have to be subjected to his discourteous behavior and disgusting habits, and it shouldn't take a law for that to sink in.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes - but now slightly modified:
Story continues:
Joe used to go to a local swimming pool everyday during lunch time. Usually, he would even pee in one end of the the crowded place and no one would complain. An old lady who could not take much care of her health used to come at around the same time. Sometimes the lady found a place to sit on the stairs, at the far corner of the pool, where she was not bothered by Joe's pee, but sometimes she had to float next to him. Joe had the right to pee because there was no rule against it and the lady had no right to ask him to stop peeing. But Joe, not exercising his rights, used to avoid peeing near her (he would go out of the restaurant for a few minutes) when she is nearby realizing she was uncomfortable. He had a feeling of happiness within. He would get praises and smiles form the lady and sometimes a pat on the back. Thinking he was being good, he used to take pride in his actions.
Sometimes later, more pee-ers started comming to the pool and and not all of them were considerate like Joe. The old lady would have to bear the pee often. A few more old people started going to that same restaurant and got angry at the youngsters for not being thoughtful of others. Many oldies had trouble and couldn't breath. There were complaints against the pool not being good and that peeing should be banned.
The pool was run by a private owner and had no obligations to listen to those demands. But he had to for political reasons and the fear of losing customers.
Joe, as usual, had no problems in not peeing in the pool. But sometimes, the pool was not crowded at all. There was lots of room for a handful of patrons that could swim far away from each other. But Joe could not pee. It was not about being thoughtful, it was not that of friendliness. It was about the law and the restrictions. Peeing not allowed. Joe was a changed person, he did not have the feeling of happiness within anymore. "How many more restrictions will I have to face?", he thought.

[Melvin Menezes]

Thoughtful person: ...
I had expected something like this. But I thought it would come from Eugene
Anyways, here's somthing about Joe's past:
When Joe had turned 16 years, his uncle had given him a small beautifully carved handgun. He liked it so much that he used to carry it on him wherever he went. Boy! he was a some shooter; would show off his skills to his friends. At 21 he left his remote old town and went to a big city to earn his fortune. The city was known for being always busy, crowded, and full of visitors and tourists. The downtown didn't really have a bad history in terms of crime.
But as the more and more people poured in, the economy grew at jet speed and so did the crime rate. Mugging and shooting became rampant. Local hoods grew into mafia and inter-gang fights were commonplace. Parents were afraid to send kids to school, tourism reduced, and businesses started thinking of moving headquarters to other places. Things went out of control so much that there were several cases of shooting at the police officers.
The city's administration had no choice but to call upon all the good old citizens, ask their opinion and suggestions, about making the jobs of the cops easier. They reach a conclusion- unwilling and not really very happy about it, but they did finally agree to something that was unthinkable a few years back. They agreed to ban carrying concealed guns in the city. That helped reduced the risks of cops getting shot at.
Our Joe, a very good law abiding citizen, respectfully stopped carrying his handgun on him. He knew it was for the good of the police and for good of the other citizens, but somewhere inside he felt that he was forced to follow the ban even though he had always been responsible. "Do they think I am I that irresponsible? that I don't know when and where to use my own gun?" He felt the people of the city had been robbed of their right to be called as responsible adults.

[John Smith]

I had expected something like this. But I thought it would come from Eugene
From me? My opinion is actually the opposite of < Thoughtful person > opinion.
The Bus Situation: The company that runs the buses should simply put more of them, so that there are enough seats for everyone. If they are not willing to do so, the city should fire them and hire another company.
The pool situation: The pool owner should simply kick the pissers out. But he also has a right not to kick the pissers. In that case, he will simply go out of business, as the old ladies stop coming.
The smoking situation: The old lady should go to the House Of Pancakes, but let me have fun in my place where the owner allows smoking and the government doesn't interfere.
The gun situation: I should have the right to own AK-47, and you have the right to either protect yourself with M-16, or rely on the police.
Any other questionable situations?

[Matthew Phillips]

Melvin, I think you have seen the heart of my political philosophy. I truly believe that there would be more Joes in the world if we weren't obligated by law to behave like Joe. More and more our society is expecting government to do things for us. We expect it to take care of us when we can't or won't take care of ourselves. We expect it to enforce courtesy upon us so that we no longer have to do so. We expect it to tell us how much an employer has to pay us or how our business should be run. It is quickly becoming the government's responsibility to provide our healthcare.
That was a truly great post, Melvin. Thank you.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Poor Joe's case seems small to me in comparison to the real world.
FBI to Fire Whistle Blower

[Melvin Menezes]

I appreciate your inputs. Thank you all.
Another little episode:
When Jane gave birth to their first baby, Joe couldn't keep his feet on the earth. He was flying in the seventh heaven. Like he was born again, like he was going to live through his childhood a second time. He made sure he could spend as much time at home as possible, with his newly grown family, away from office. Toys, sweets, books, and bykes. You name it and he has it. Little did he know that the world around him was changing. Changing at the speed of light. Before he could sit back and blink an eye, John was already 16.
John had his own friends, his own likes and dislikes, his own taste, ... and his own set of rights, ...or so he thought. He had the right to watch TV, a right to date whomever he liked, a right to go places without prior parental consent, and a right to experiment with pot. A right to freedom and liberty and not be dictated by a couple of old-generation people. "I have always been good. I always got an A or atleast a B in school. Now all I ask is to choose my way of doing things. After all I am already 16 which is not at all far from being legally adult. What do they know about the latest trends? They are just too much. Not to do this, not to go there... This is kind of a child abuse!"
Joe sometimes had a tough time confronting his son. "When we were your age, we used to go and play in the woods. We would run and climb and fall and hurt ourselves. Watching TV was a sunday family activity and computer games were unheard of, much less having a separate e-mail account with secret passwords. And you don't like us because we are being rude to you? When I was your age, your grandfather would give me a tight slap on my face if I misbehaved. And even today I would not argue back if he were to shout at me. It is all my fault. I should not have raised you here in the city. Your grandma was right. We should have moved back to our pleasant ville. Talking about rights? What the hell do you know about what OUR GENERATIONS went through so that your generation is enjoying your freakin' rights?"
Joe always thought that he kind of owned his family and had the right to take decisions on their behalf, always!. Suddenly he realized, he will lose all the rights over his own son in only a period of two more years. "How will it be different when he turns 18? Will he cease being my son? Who decided that the age of 18 makes him a separate adult? There goes my another right down the drain. The right to lead my own child in the right direction."

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
We expect it to enforce courtesy upon us so that we no longer have to do so.

Actually you have it backwards. We expect the government to enforce courtesy because everyone is discourteous. Do you think that we would have all these anti-smoking laws if smokers weren't so rude? First they smoked in the workplace and if you complained they told you too bad. Then when they were kicked out they hung around the door so that you had to hold your breath to get in every building.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Who decided that the age of 18 makes him a separate adult? There goes my another right down the drain. The right to lead my own child in the right direction."

Now you have confused me. Poor Joe should be glad that the government does intervene and give him until the kid is 18 or his 16 year old kid could just walk out on him. The law is the only thing that is giving poor Joe any authority over his son in the first place.

[Melvin Menezes]

Even though Jack used to have lots of arguments with him, Joe kindof used to respect his old friend in that he always provided him with different views. Here's one such incident:
Joe: Whaat? what do you mean i can't talk.
Jack: well, you can't talk, means, you can't talk. you can't talk on a cell phone while you are driving. That's dangerous and against the law. You can get distracted and cause accidents.
Joe: What non-sense!. People do listen to the radio all the time while driving. do they get distracted?
Jack: but that are only listening. they are not talking.
Joe: oh yeah? don't you ever talk to the person sitting in the passenger seat while you are driving?
Jack: hey hey, chill down dude, you can talk if you use the hands-free kit. That way your hands are free to drive.
Joe: But you do use your hands sometimes to eat a burger or drink coffee while you are driving! What are they gonna do? ban eating in the car? I have been driving since ages!
Jack: well, all i m saying is that when you are holding the phone with one hand and driving with the other and your mind is occupied in the conversation, your can be risking lives
Joe: So you can order a hamburger and a large coke from a drive-through chain, have your breakfast with one hand while you are driving with another, in the early morning rush hour traffic and at the same time listen to the tensed arguments on the radio and even talk on the phone and that is all okay as far as you use a hands-free kit?
Jack: (sigh!) Look, rant as much as you want but there have been cases of accidents. There have been many nut-cases who aren't all that responsible after all. That's all I am saying. And btw, there are laws about not eating and drinking while driving in some cities or... actually you have to use both hands to drive, something like that.
Joe: Yeah whatever. You know what makes me mad? When I see ladies holding their make-up kit on the left hand and busy beautifying their face using the right hand at every second stop-light without fail and all these while they are busy with their HANDSFREE phone and coffee. Go ahead, ban listening to radio and ban all the drive-through McDonadls, dunkin' donuts, and Pizza Huts, unless they come up with a HANDSFREE FEEDING DEVICE and HANDSFREE MAKUP DEVICE.
Jack: (smiles back)

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
I appreciate your inputs. Thank you all.
Another little episode:
When Jane gave birth to their first baby, Joe couldn't keep his feet on the earth. He was flying in the seventh heaven. Like he was born again, like he was going to live through his childhood a second time. He made sure he could spend as much time at home as possible, with his newly grown family, away from office. Toys, sweets, books, and bykes. You name it and he has it. Little did he know that the world around him was changing. Changing at the speed of light. Before he could sit back and blink an eye, John was already 16.
John had his own friends, his own likes and dislikes, his own taste, ... and his own set of rights, ...or so he thought. He had the right to watch TV, a right to date whomever he liked, a right to go places without prior parental consent, and a right to experiment with pot. A right to freedom and liberty and not be dictated by a couple of old-generation people. "I have always been good. I always got an A or atleast a B in school. Now all I ask is to choose my way of doing things. After all I am already 16 which is not at all far from being legally adult. What do they know about the latest trends? They are just too much. Not to do this, not to go there... This is kind of a child abuse!"
Joe sometimes had a tough time confronting his son. "When we were your age, we used to go and play in the woods. We would run and climb and fall and hurt ourselves. Watching TV was a sunday family activity and computer games were unheard of, much less having a separate e-mail account with secret passwords. And you don't like us because we are being rude to you? When I was your age, your grandfather would give me a tight slap on my face if I misbehaved. And even today I would not argue back if he were to shout at me. It is all my fault. I should not have raised you here in the city. Your grandma was right. We should have moved back to our pleasant ville. Talking about rights? What the hell do you know about what OUR GENERATIONS went through so that your generation is enjoying your freakin' rights?"
Joe always thought that he kind of owned his family and had the right to take decisions on their behalf, always!. Suddenly he realized, he will lose all the rights over his own son in only a period of two more years. "How will it be different when he turns 18? Will he cease being my son? Who decided that the age of 18 makes him a separate adult? There goes my another right down the drain. The right to lead my own child in the right direction."

You lost me on this one. I don't think that I would call leading a child in the right direction a right. That is a responsibility that goes along with having a child.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Actually you have it backwards. We expect the government to enforce courtesy because everyone is discourteous. Do you think that we would have all these anti-smoking laws if smokers weren't so rude? First they smoked in the workplace and if you complained they told you too bad. Then when they were kicked out they hung around the door so that you had to hold your breath to get in every building.

The expectation from government was already there, otherwise no one would have turned to government for the solution. In the case of smoking in the workplace, why not go to your boss? Isn't that the appropriate place to start with complaints about the office. Then your boss has to make a choice between a non-smoking worker who, based on statistics, is probably more productive than the smoking worker. Life really can be that simple.

[Jason Menard]

If we can simplify things a little bit... Should non-smokers have to put up with others who voluntarily emit dangerous carcinogens in their vicinity?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
The expectation from government was already there, otherwise no one would have turned to government for the solution. In the case of smoking in the workplace, why not go to your boss? Isn't that the appropriate place to start with complaints about the office. Then your boss has to make a choice between a non-smoking worker who, based on statistics, is probably more productive than the smoking worker. Life really can be that simple.

And if your boss smokes? Or just doesn't care? Or likes the smoker more because they play poker together?
Imagine the situtation... your boss tells the person not to smoke. He replies, "First, you aren't my boss, you are the complainer's boss. Second, even if you were my boss why should I stop smoking when everyone else in the office can still smoke, and third, go screw off."

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Joe: Whaat? what do you mean i can't talk.
Jack: well, you can't talk, means, you can't talk. you can't talk on a cell phone while you are driving. That's dangerous and against the law. You can get distracted and cause accidents.

Jack and Joe are really a couple of morons, aren't they?

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If we can simplify things a little bit... Should non-smokers have to put up with others who voluntarily emit dangerous carcinogens in their vicinity?

No, but should it require the police power of govnerment to resolve the issue when one or the other can leave?

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And if your boss smokes? Or just doesn't care? Or likes the smoker more because they play poker together?

Then you leave and go somewhere else. Or you go to your boss's boss. Go to the owner of the company and show the owner how smoking in the office is costing the company money. Show the owner the cost of you leaving the company. It doesn't require the government stepping in to tell everyone what to do with their rights.
Would you find it acceptable if the government decided that all businesses must allow their employees to smoke in the office?
[ May 02, 2003: Message edited by: Matthew Phillips ]

[Melvin Menezes]

[b]Thomas Paul: Jack and Joe are really a couple of morons, aren't they?
there are plenty of jacks and joes everywhere.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
Then you leave and go somewhere else. Or you go to your boss's boss. Go to the owner of the company and show the owner how smoking in the office is costing the company money. Show the owner the cost of you leaving the company. It doesn't require the government stepping in to tell everyone what to do with their rights.
Would you find it acceptable if the government decided that all businesses must allow their employees to smoke in the office?

And what if you can't leave because you have a wife and kids to support? What if you aren't a spoiled programmer but just some guy trying to feed his family?
And since tobacco smoke is a known carcinogen (it is the number one cause of lung cancer in non-smokers) it should be banned from the workplace.
How would you feel if every morning one of your co-workers threw asbestos dust on your desk. "It's just a little habit I have," he explains.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
No, but should it require the police power of govnerment to resolve the issue when one or the other can leave?

Brilliant. So the non-smoker must quit his job because he doesn't want lung cancer? And go where? To some other job with obnoxious cigarette smokers?
Matthew, have you ever had anyone relying on you to bring home a paycheck each week? Do you have any kids that you have to feed and clothe?

[Melvin Menezes]

Just so that you all don't get mad at me, let me tell you that I neither completely agree nor completely disagree with Joe, Jane, John, or Jack, in anyway. The story was just my way of putting different views togather, for those who favor as well as for those who oppose any kind of intervention by law.
I thought someone would oppose Joe's ideas about gun-control as much as they opposed his frustration over smoke-control. Both are somewhat similar issues according to me.

[Matthew Phillips]

Thomas, maybe I have misinterpreted your position in many of our debates, but it seems that you believe that government is the solution to everything.
A business owner, driven by the need to generate profit, is not going to favor a generally unproductive group of workers over a productive group of workers. If you are the only non-smoking employee in a department, then yes, you will probably have to find another job. It is more likely that the non-smokers are in the majority based of the fact that a minority of the population smokes.
If you were a business owner, what would you do? Would you risk losing a large group of productive employees to your competitors or a smaller group of unproductive employees? It's not brilliance, just simple common sense.
I'm not advocating a law that would require business owners to allow people to smoke in the building. I saying it should be left up to the property owner to decide how to use that property. I don't believe that government is the solution to everything.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Jack and Joe are really a couple of morons, aren't they?

I've been trying to figure out which one of us is Jack and which one of us is Joe.

[Thomas Paul]

Thomas, maybe I have misinterpreted your position in many of our debates, but it seems that you believe that government is the solution to everything.
You would be wrong in that belief. But I do believe that the government has the responsibility to insure that I have safe workplace.
A business owner, driven by the need to generate profit, is not going to favor a generally unproductive group of workers over a productive group of workers.
I doubt that most business owners would even notice that smokers are less productive than non-smokers. And I doubt that this is true in the short term but would only be noticeable in the long term (like when the smoker died of lung cancer).
If you are the only non-smoking employee in a department, then yes, you will probably have to find another job. It is more likely that the non-smokers are in the majority based of the fact that a minority of the population smokes.
And in most places people don't like to cause trouble so they just keep their mouth shut rather than be seen as a complainer.
If you were a business owner, what would you do? Would you risk losing a large group of productive employees to your competitors or a smaller group of unproductive employees? It's not brilliance, just simple common sense.
What do you think is the average salary of someone in the US? Not everyone is a highly productive computer programmer pumping out thousands of lines of code a minute. Most workers are skilled in the sense that it would take a week to replace them.
I'm not advocating a law that would require business owners to allow people to smoke in the building. I saying it should be left up to the property owner to decide how to use that property. I don't believe that government is the solution to everything.
But the government is the right place to protect American workers from dangerous working conditions. Or would you like to go back to the conditions prior to government involvement in workplace issues?

[Matthew Phillips]

I want my employer to provide a safe workplace for me. I see no reason to involved govnerment in the transaction at all. In fact, I am unable to find any Constitutional justification for the federal government to be involved at all. I can't speak to the Consitutional authoritiy of state and local governments.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Employers have shown a great interest in providing employees a safe workplace over the years. Which graemlin is pure sarcasm?
If I'm not mistaken somewhere there is a phrase about life, liberty and .... inalienable rights
Workplace safety is covered under life. So many money grubbing employers had no interest in whether employees lived or died. Probably in so many cases death was more profitable.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Employers have shown a great interest in providing employees a safe workplace over the years. Which graemlin is pure sarcasm?
If I'm not mistaken somewhere there is a phrase about life, liberty and .... inalienable rights
Workplace safety is covered under life. So many money grubbing employers had no interest in whether employees lived or died. Probably in so many cases death was more profitable.

Maybe I'm naive, but I believe we can learn from the past. The government is in no way obligated to protect you from giving up your rights. If you choose to work in a dangerous environment, then the government can not and should not protect you from your decision.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Seems there were so many injured and destitute that the government found themselves ward to that it looked more profitable to make the employers show minimum decency.
Or maybe it was the gun battles with the pinkertons followed by looting and riots that finally got their attention.
Anyway somewhere it says

establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

and then later

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

The coffins, fires, crying widows, orphans just did not seem to go along with the general welfare clause so that somebody like Bill Gates could have more, more, more

[Matthew Phillips]

The first quote you brought from the Constitution is the preamble. It states the purpose for the rest of the document. It doesn't answer the question of how. It answers the question of why.
The 2nd quote if followed by a strict enumeration of the powers the government can execute. The first one is to provide for the general welfare. James Madison, one of the members of the Constitutional congress, wrote in one of The Federalist Papers that providing for the general welfare was limited by the rest of the enumerated powers. Those are answers to the question of how that the preamble implies.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
The first quote you brought from the Constitution is the preamble. It states the purpose for the rest of the document. It doesn't answer the question of how. It answers the question of why.
The 2nd quote if followed by a strict enumeration of the powers the government can execute. The first one is to provide for the general welfare. James Madison, one of the members of the Constitutional congress, wrote in one of "The Federalist Papers" that providing for the general welfare was limited by the rest of the enumerated powers. Those are answers to the question of how that the preamble implies.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
I want my employer to provide a safe workplace for me. I see no reason to involved govnerment in the transaction at all. In fact, I am unable to find any Constitutional justification for the federal government to be involved at all. I can't speak to the Consitutional authoritiy of state and local governments.

Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution? We are talking about smoking in thw workplace. I know of no federal law to prohibit smoking in thw orkplace and since the Constitiuion only limits the federal governments power it has no bearing on this discussion.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
Maybe I'm naive, but I believe we can learn from the past. The government is in no way obligated to protect you from giving up your rights. If you choose to work in a dangerous environment, then the government can not and should not protect you from your decision.

Yes, you are correct that you are naive. I would suggest that you read the history of why we have these laws.
You can start here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1884365302
I remember when that book was required reading in high school.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Why do you keep bringing up the Constitution? We are talking about smoking in thw workplace. I know of no federal law to prohibit smoking in thw orkplace and since the Constitiuion only limits the federal governments power it has no bearing on this discussion.

The first time I brought up the Constitution was in response to you expecting the government to provide a safe workplace for you, not specifically related to smoking. OSHA is a federal department designed to regulate safety in the workplace.
The second time I brought it up was in response to Rufus's refute Rufus's comments that it should be a federal issue.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

Yes, you are correct that you are naive. I would suggest that you read the history of why we have these laws.
You can start here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1884365302
I remember when that book was required reading in high school.

I'll check that out. When I was in elementary school, this was required reading. I highly recommend it.