karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) (03/02/88)
In article <4932@ihlpg.ATT.COM> tan@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Bill Tanenbaum) writes: >< Karl Denninger >< However, when I go out to eat, I have no right to "clean" air. I *do* have >< a right to choose where I put my money. I do not have to patronize those >< places in which I cannot enjoy my meal, shop without gagging, etc. >---- >When I go out to eat, I have a right not to have tear gas sprayed in my face. >I fail to see the distinction between that and getting cigarette smoke blown >in my face. Oh, come off it. First off, I am a NON SMOKER, always have been, and personally dislike large quantities of cigarette smoke in my face. In some extreme situations I have been forced to leave the environment I was in. Got my perspective yet? Would you say that you have the right to a tear-gas (diluted) free environment if there happens to be a demonstration going on across the street, and the cops toss a few cans? No, you'd leave the restaurant and go somewhere ELSE. >---- >< Get it? >< You can choose. >< You don't have to eat in a smoky restaurant, sleep in a smoky hotel room, >< or take a smoky airplane. >---- >Oh yeah. Where. Where is the non-smoky airplane I can take. What utter bullshit. Why don't you consider the other option -- you don't HAVE TO FLY. If your air travel is personal, then you have the ultimate choice -- don't go. If your profession requires that you use air travel, then you have three choices: 1) Change professions; get a desk job in a smoke-free office. 2) Work peacably, through showing that you WILL support businesses that prohibit smoking on their premesis by spending your DOLLARS there. 3) Charter an aircraft when you have to fly. Oh wait -- I get it. Just because you're a <insert profession>, and that profession often has to fly, you have the RIGHT to clean air in that plane. You have a god-given space around you, and the absolute right to clean air, clean water, and safety in this bubble. And you have the right to enforce this bubble with laws. All because the cost of obtaining the environment you want is unacceptable to you. Sorry, I don't buy that. >---- >< If the benefits of being in a smoke-filled environemnt outweigh the risks, >< you will plunk down your cash and grit your teeth. >---- >What if I am travelling on the road in the middle of Nevada and have no choice. >What if I am in an airport waiting room. Or a bus or train station. There IS >no free choice, Mr. Denninger. You DO have a choice, Bill. You can choose not to be there. Oh wait -- see above -- you've the right to perfect safety wherever you go, and the right to any occupation, free from health risks. Yeah, right. Tell that to the millions who work in what are considered today 'hazardous' professions. They take the risk associated with their jobs WILLINGLY -- why don't you? Don't even try to tell me you didn't choose to either (1) travel, or (2) be employed in a profession where travel is an accepted part of the job. If you are forced, kicking and screaming, PHYSICALLY against your will, into a vehicle full of smoke, you have a point. But in that case you can get someone for kidnapping, not just blowing smoke in your face. >---- >< If not, you will take your money somewhere it is appreciated -- to a >< non-smoker's business. >< >< You might not like the alternatives which this mind-set leaves you. >< That does *not* give you the right to inconvenience others with laws. >---- >More total bullshit. When anyone smokes in public, everyone within a certain distance >from them smokes too. Smoking in public is nothing less than a physical assault, and >should be treated as such. If anyone MUST have a smoke in public, they can always take >nicotine tablets instead. Their right to smoke stops where my lungs begin. Not >to mention my nose, eyes, hair, etc. You didn't bother to address my argument here, did you? The FACT that if you, and others like you (which, as a non-smoker, happens to include *me*) were willing to pay for the service which you are requesting (ie: a smoke-free airplane) then business would provide it. It's easier, of course, to scapegoat the entire thing onto the backs of the lawman, and make it illegal to smoke in 'public'. Did you even think what 'public' is as you just defined it? It's not public, it's PRIVATE. These are PRIVATE establishments. Not funded with public money. The owners act, in the final analysis, in their own interests. Your company does this too. ALL businesses do, or they cease to exist. That is THE fundamental law of business, sir. Let's take an example: There are 100 restaurants in a city. 5% of the population is VIOLENTLY non-smoking (as you are) Assume all people in the town are equally pre-disposed to eat out. A businessman wants to open a restaurant. He can either: 1) Open a regular restaurant, and compete for 1% of the sales. 2) Open a NON-SMOKING restaurant, and immediately get 5% the market. Which would you do if you were this businessman ? As stated before, I have no objection to prohibiting smoking in truly PUBLIC buildings and places (ie: where your and my TAX DOLLARS are being used to build and operate the place in question). I do have a problem with prohibiting smoking in privately-owned buildings and locations -- it falls outside of the role I feel government should take. [Followups have been redirected to alt.flame -- this is getting out of hand, and turning into a circular argument with increasing speed...] ----- Karl Denninger | Data: +1 312 566-8912 Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. | Voice: +1 312 566-8910 ...ihnp4!ddsw1!karl | "Quality solutions for work or play"