I wonder how average people (not zealous moralist crusaders against smoking) would react if offered a deal - you can either have smoking bans, or the tax revenue from the cigarettes, but not both. When Joe Voter was hit with a property tax to offset the lost revenue from smoking taxes, I bet they'd be tripping over themselves to roll back the prohibition they had so eagerly patted themselves on the back for. Suddenly, I bet the overwhelming and horrible risk of lung problems would take a back seat to a few extra bucks per month in their pockets

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well, actually if a pandemic were to occur then yes, people would be quarantined. Or do you think that's foolish as well?

People lobbying their governments for toxin-free work environments is hardly the "ruling elite". Are the servers working in the bars, restaurants and clubs that ar worried that their current job could lead to lung cancer down the road, the "ruling elite".

If you were working a job and discovered that you were inhaling dangerous toxins, you'd have to be some kind of eunuch coward to not stand up to your employer and demand safer, cleaner working conditions. No one should have to die for their job. Damn, you people are confusing.

Seems to me that you do want to return to the industrial revolution where you'd get whipped by your foreman for questioning anything at all. The answer is to simply get another job. And if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job and if that workplace is toxic then find another job.

Great solution.

I guess I am just not 'enlightened'

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

As I have pointed out before, your scenario does not work in today's society. An employer will adapt his/her company to retain skilled workers. If he/she doesn't, he/she will go out of business. If the employer finds that they keep loosing skilled employees because they allow smoking in the office, you better believe they will then ban smoking in the office.

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

So why not ban alcohol consumption in public?

As a nondrinker, why should I then have to experience any possible hazard due to your personal choice to consume any amount of alcoholic beverages in public? Can't you eat your dinner without booze? Can't you drink soda at the bars? Since impairment starts at the first drink, why should I have to experience any elevated hazard because of your choice when you choose to drive under the lawful yet not anywhere near zero tolerance DUI laws? Why should I have to risk anyone acting out in a way that harms me because they decided to drink alcohol in public?

So you believe that as long as it's your private property that your private property should be a lawless zone where you, the dictator decides what goes and what doesn't.

It is about safe working conditions. The bar owner is reaping the majority of revenue from watching others inhale dangerous toxins, including other employees. Why should any employee be exposed to proven cancer causing toxins regardless of what the source is?

In case you haven't noticed, most garages pipe the exhaust of the cars they're working on out the door of the garage. Are they fools for protecting themselves against toxic automobile exhaust fumes?

More and more, pesticides are being linked to diseases like Parkinsons. Should farmers just find another job or should we perhaps make farming a non-toxic working environment?

Interesting that you say that; we were talking about this earlier today. It strikes me as odd that the government would want to fund different projects with the funds from cigarette taxes. Smoking is increasingly unpopular. If the non-smoking lobby got its' way, those projects currently funded with cigarette taxes would either going to die out or be funded with other taxes; neither would be positive.

If the project is allowed to die, it would be an acknowledgement that it was unnecessary and, therefore, a waste of tax dollars to begin with. If a project survives, but is no longer funded by cigarette taxes, it's going to be funded by something, which will likely impact everyone, and not the minority of Americans who smoke...

The one question that the anti-smoking Nazis avoid is this:

Why would someone, who doesn't smoke, apply for a job at an establishment that allows smoking?

I think that's expedient, but your strawman is beside the point. I'm suggesting that spewing flu germs everywhere is a lot more detrimental to people's health both short and possibly long term than the chance exposure to cigarette smoke (which isn't a lot different than sucking down lots of exhaust during rush hour up there in Toronto).

The "ruling elite" was a tongue-in-cheek reference to taking the power to make such decisions out of the hands of the common man (the hoi polloi to which you refere as "Jane/Joe voter"). Your implication was clear - people who disagree with you are too half-witted and uninformed to be left with that sort of decision making power. I'm not sure how you can now turn around and adopt a populist air on behalf of the people who choose to work in such environments - you're going to give people whiplash.

Well, I'd probably get a different job or demand a higher rate of compensation for my exposure to risk. That's probably a more practical and less self-entitled solution than demanding that everyone change the world on my behalf. There are all manner of dangers in any work place. While working at a manufacturing facility, several people have sustained injuries here requiring hospitalization. That is a fact of the job and they are compensated better for assuming that risk.

I'm not going to bother addressing this strawman. If you want to argue with yourself, have at it. Condescending and then championing the common man in two successive breaths is a great start.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Because the act of consuming an alcoholic beverage does not inherently impact those around you.

Come on, OSB, you can do better than this.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Because sometimes you just need a job.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

As long as the owner is not infringing on the rights of someone else, then yes. What the owner says goes.

No they are not fools. Those companies realized the hazards and adjusted their policies accordingly. They wouldn't be making money if their employees started dropping dead would they? So, what would be the reason to not pipe it out? No need for the government to get involved.

If the farmers stop buying pesticide products that get linked to Parkinsons the market would adapt and offer a product that is safer, don't you think?

__________________
There can be no bystanders in the battle for survival. Anyone who will not fight by your side is an enemy you must crush.

We are at war with forces too terrible to comprehend. We cannot afford mercy for any of its victims too weak to take the correct course. Mercy destroys us; it weakens us and saps our resolve. Put aside all such thoughts. They are not worthy of those in the service of country.

This is total horse shit. Employers changed their working conditions and standards because of worker revolutions demanding better, safer working conditions and higher paying wages. People died for this belief. This has been a painstaking process by the people for the people over a long period of time or else we'd still be getting whipped by our foreman for taking too much time to cough soot out of our lungs.

Yes, some people can choose to find another job but the reality is that many people just need a job, period and being a server is one of those jobs that someone can get into without having experience. Seems to me your attitude is that if someone is desperate for a job, regardless of their reasons, that they should deal with inhaling poisonous toxins.

Sorry, but what the hell is wrong with you?

The concept is pretty simple: safe, clean working environments for ALL workers.

So?

You don't have a "right" to be hired someplace just because you want to work there...

Because they need to purchase health insurance so they're desperate for any job.

Do you believe safe, clean working environments should only be for the elite?