The adventures of Mommy woman

A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject.  He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants.  I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.

First of all, smoking is legal.  Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment?  I told my friend this is a very slippery slope.  He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach.  So what's next?  Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol? 

This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl.  Our economy is about the worst out there.  If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke.  The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.

I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it.  If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity?  Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.

I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.


Comments (Page 9)
19 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last
on Feb 21, 2009

No I understand personal responsibility.  My examples were extremes of how far your argument could be taken by the government if we ignore the fact that each person is responsible for their own actions and that each person assumes a certain amount of risk of being harmed if they knowingly enter situations where harm may come to them. 

I am not sure you understand the concept still.

My argument is SOLELY about personal responsibility and its importance and how it should apply EVEN to smokers.

But you are talking about the slippery slope of IGNORING the fact that each person is responsible for their own actions.

I disagree with you that being shot at means that one put oneself in harm's way and that the victim has _any_ responsibility whatsoever to avoid being shot at. Personal responsibility is for what one does, not for what is being done to one.

 

on Feb 21, 2009

A perfect example here is a cannibal... his "lifestyle" choices are harmful to himself (he is in danger of being killed by his victims, and eating another human puts you at a variety of health risks), yet his actions harm others, thus it is NOT just his own choice...

And if the business owner didn't put up a sign forbidding cannibalism on his property, the cannibal is of course free to slaughter and eat whomever he wants. The victims of passive-cannibalism had a choice. They could have chosen a different restaurant.

If there are enough cannibals in society, no restaurant owner will be able to run a restaurant without allowing them into his business.

At some point, the anti-cannibal movement will grow and vote for laws prohibiting cannibalism, at least indoors where it bothers too many people (presumably issues with blood).

Supporters of cannibalism will argue that prohibiting cannibalism in restaurants should be the owners' choice and that government intervention is wrong, that cannibalism is a choice and that nobody is forced to stand next to a cannibal (or even live in the same city).

Any argument that cannibals should be responsible for their actions like everybody else will be disregarded as being the equivalent of making eating per se illegal.

And what about the children? Should eating your children be considered child abuse? Some supporters of cannibalism will agree that it should be. But eating other people is a different matter.

It's a complicated question.

 

on Feb 21, 2009

aeortar

A person is held responsible for his actions (eg, drunk driving, assulting someone while on drugs, etc), but they are allowed to make those choices


Actually they are not allowed to make those choices - they're illegal, hence why if they do decide to do it, they'll be breaking the law+face arrest. The same would go for smoking - make it illegal in public places and yes you can still smoke in public places, but you'll be held responsible for it.

I was talking about a free society. The united states obviously isn't one.

on Feb 21, 2009

If such a free society means that you're allowed to go drink driving, assault someone while on drugs etc., then it's not a society I want to be a part of.

on Feb 21, 2009

If such a free society means that you're allowed to go drink driving, assault someone while on drugs etc., then it's not a society I want to be a part of.

In a free society you are allowed to drink, and you are allowed to do drugs, you are not allowed to assult or drunk drive and will be punished if you do so.

please reread my original post about the issue.

on Feb 21, 2009

I joined the same Facebook group with some of the same issues that JillUser expressed.

The further away a government is from my position in society the more I want them to stay the hell out of my live.  I'm willing to put up with more intrusion at the city level than at the federal.  That's how I roll.

I believe that smoking costs the gov't money in health care.  That's my money.  If they can pass a law that saves me money [fewer tax dollars spent], makes my life better [I don't have to smell that smell and lessons my chance of cancer], and doesn't inconvenience me [as a long-time ex-smoker] I'm all for it.

And at the state level if it fails to accomplish what it's intended to do or has a detrimental effect elsewhere, it can be changed.

on Feb 21, 2009

Zubaz
I joined the same Facebook group with some of the same issues that JillUser expressed.

The further away a government is from my position in society the more I want them to stay the hell out of my live.  I'm willing to put up with more intrusion at the city level than at the federal.  That's how I roll.

I believe that smoking costs the gov't money in health care.  That's my money.  If they can pass a law that saves me money [fewer tax dollars spent], makes my life better [I don't have to smell that smell and lessons my chance of cancer], and doesn't inconvenience me [as a long-time ex-smoker] I'm all for it.

And at the state level if it fails to accomplish what it's intended to do or has a detrimental effect elsewhere, it can be changed.

 

O really... and what about people that eat un healthy? what about people that get cancer... what about people that pop out kids every year? Are you going to bad fast food? cheetos? Kick people out of your state that has terminal deseases?

on Feb 21, 2009

I guess I'll pose the question this way- If the government has deemed smoking as hazardous to peoples health and the only way you can smoke and avoid harming others is by being completely alone while smoking, why not make it illegal?

If you are living with anyone else and smoking in your home, you harm them.  If you ever smoke in your car with a passenger, you harm them.  The idea of banning smoking in businesses public or otherwise is it harms others.  So why isn't it illegal?

 

on Feb 21, 2009

The way I see it, the government wants to be able to keep making money off from smokers but wants to take away the right of private business owners to do the same. 

on Feb 21, 2009

O really... and what about people that eat un healthy? what about people that get cancer... what about people that pop out kids every year? Are you going to bad fast food? cheetos? Kick people out of your state that has terminal deseases?
New York City has made trans-fat illegal.  And I'm OK with that too.  1) I'm not in NYC, and 2) I'm tring to cut back too.

You know what though . . I don't really care about NYC.   That is their local gov't problem and as New Yorkers, it's their job to vote the schmucks in or out that support what they believe in.

And as a matter of fact . . if we  in Michigan had the best socialized medicine in the country and Ohio-ans started flocking here I would support laws to set residency rules and limit care to those that fulfill those rules

on Feb 21, 2009

If the government has deemed smoking as hazardous to peoples health and the only way you can smoke and avoid harming others is by being completely alone while smoking, why not make it illegal?
The way I see it, the government wants to be able to keep making money off from smokers but wants to take away the right of private business owners to do the same.
Answered your own question there didn't you?  And I think it's exactly correct.

on Feb 21, 2009

JillUser
The way I see it, the government wants to be able to keep making money off from smokers but wants to take away the right of private business owners to do the same. 

 

BINGO!

 

Jill Id hug ya for finally seeing the real reason why smoking is the new deamon! Its not because they want to "help" others and live a healthier lifestyle... its just a front for the real reason WHY they are doing it which is... as you stated.... money. Its easy to make alot off taxes in the name of "better health"

 

This is the reason why I said where does it stop. When will junk food be taxed when the smoking tax goes away because no one is smoking... and you know damn well the gov will not cut spending... so they will make it someplace else and deem something else as the "evil"

 

 

on Feb 21, 2009

Zubaz

O really... and what about people that eat un healthy? what about people that get cancer... what about people that pop out kids every year? Are you going to bad fast food? cheetos? Kick people out of your state that has terminal deseases?New York City has made trans-fat illegal.  And I'm OK with that too.  1) I'm not in NYC, and 2) I'm tring to cut back too.
You know what though . . I don't really care about NYC.   That is their local gov't problem and as New Yorkers, it's their job to vote the schmucks in or out that support what they believe in.

And as a matter of fact . . if we  in Michigan had the best socialized medicine in the country and Ohio-ans started flocking here I would support laws to set residency rules and limit care to those that fulfill those rules

 

socailized medicine... your nuts right... you want the Gov to run the healthcare? You think that your insurance company is tough to deal with... wait till you have to deal with the gov for health care.

on Feb 21, 2009

Zubaz
I joined the same Facebook group with some of the same issues that JillUser expressed.

The further away a government is from my position in society the more I want them to stay the hell out of my live.  I'm willing to put up with more intrusion at the city level than at the federal.  That's how I roll.

I believe that smoking costs the gov't money in health care.  That's my money.  If they can pass a law that saves me money [fewer tax dollars spent], makes my life better [I don't have to smell that smell and lessons my chance of cancer], and doesn't inconvenience me [as a long-time ex-smoker] I'm all for it.

And at the state level if it fails to accomplish what it's intended to do or has a detrimental effect elsewhere, it can be changed.

which is why i wish they would pass a law forbidding the use of taxpayer money to treat smoking related illnesses.

on Feb 21, 2009

socailized medicine... your nuts right... you want the Gov to run the healthcare? You think that your insurance company is tough to deal with... wait till you have to deal with the gov for health care.
Where did you get the idea that I suppoerted socialized medicine?  Please note that I responsed with hypothetical "if" in response to your hypothetical about people coming to my state with terminal diseases.

which is why i wish they would pass a law forbidding the use of taxpayer money to treat smoking related illnesses.
I too would support legislation to end funding for programs that are self-induced.

19 PagesFirst 7 8 9 10 11  Last