|
Resident Chimp
|
 |
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
|
|

Apr 18th, 2004, 04:30 PM
Willful endangerment still costs taxpayers in the end. It's the same reason why there are laws that say you have to wear a seatbelt. Sure, you can forget about wearing one, and accept the risks, but sometimes you will get unlucky and wind up splattered across the streets.
Same goes for working in a smoking environment. The taxpayer foots the bill when Joe Bartender needs a respirator in 50 years; it doesn't matter if he's "near" or "past" retirement age.
The government doesn't let you work with hazardous materials like chemicals, asbestos, etc. without the safety equipment, regardless of whether or not you're okay with the potential risk of burning your face off... unless you're doing it on your own property.
The smoking ban doesn't extend into your own home. If you want to smoke there, you're still quite welcome to. It'll cost you, though, because cigarettes cost $12/pack now.
The ban applies to anywhere that is open to the public. Businesses, even though they are private establishments, are still open to the public. There are numerous laws that already extend into this realm, like the health codes that I mentioned earlier.
If you want to count as completely private, you have to start charging for membership and be selective about who you let in; no one has done that because the smokers here have just accepted the fact that the vast majority of people think their habit is disgusting. It might fly here, but why pay when you can go for free, even if you can't smoke while you drink?
Why should 3/4 of the population be beholden to 1/4 of the population?
|
|
|
|