Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The One and Only
Quit changing the topic. We are talking about smoking. (Also, while I don't think really think those laws need to go, I don't think they are necessary.)
|
Jackass, tell me how this is
off topic. The argument is essentially ABOUT government regulation, to ban smoking, or to not ban smoking. The discussion is about regulation, and if you can't address my points, please, don't play the straw man argument of "stay on topic."
Quote:
Do what? Make smoking in buildings illegal?
As I said before, most businesses have already made a "no smoking inside the building" policy.
Besides, if people choose to work for higher wages instead of care about their health, isn't that their own damn fault? Are you trying to say that people can't take care of themselves?
|
I'm saying people are placed in positions where they need to prioritize. Families often needed to send their children to work in factories, and private businesses didn't just stop doing that and put up little signs. I'm saying people will be exploited, and to buy into your little Libertarian fantasy of self-regulation is asinine stupidity.
Quote:
|
Business has, and always will, regulate itself based on the consumer's and worker's demands.
|
Read above.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, everyone has this image of big, evil corporations taking over the world put in their mind from revisionist history. If I only had a nickel for how many times my history book infers that a strong, central goverment is key to prosperity...
|
An activist central government, yes. What history books are
you reading?? It seems you're only interested in the history provided by
www.lp.org.
Quote:
|
The disadvantages should be obvious. If people are constantly leaving because of the owners smoking policy, it would be simpler to have designated smoking areas set up for those who do smoke. It takes time to find new employees; it's true it doesn't take much in many fields, but even a day can be damaging.
|
Bar tending, particularly in cities and college towns, much like waiting tables, is a VERY competitive field. Tips are good, and the hours are often plenty. This isn't about the customers who leave, it's about the workers who need to pay bills, just like workers have ALWAYS chosen to sacrifice their own health and well being in order to feed their families and pay the rent or mortgage. Your utopian fantasy of a business world that has always reghulated itself is just that, a fantasy. Give me examples, tell me of major events when businesses changed their policies not merely for profit, but for the good of their workers. Did the motor industry? How about the factories during industrializing America in the 19th Century...? Hell, even today, people are working longer hours for less pay, and in some fields, the attempt to unionize can still cost you your job.
Quote:
|
Don't like the smoke as an employee? Think about it this way. If smoking were banned is such places, you might not have the job in the first place. After all, smokers do constitute a large number of people who frequent these areas...
|
I agree. However, when the laws are instituted, after a period of adjustment, smokers will give in and return to these places. The jobs will be there again, just like smokers dealt with losing the right to smoke up every other place.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Numbers
I would like to add that I support Kahl's last 3 or so posts. Poeple keep calling restaurants public places. They are not. They are privately owned institutions. The owners should be allowed to show discrepancy.
|
And again I say show me a proivate establishment that has complete autonomy over itself. Koitchens must be clean, food must be prepared in a sanitary fashion, and workers must wash their hands when they piss or shit. Regulation exists on MANY common sense levels, and anybody who has frequented all-night diners would know that these bans don't seem to far out of step with the previously mentioned regulations.
Linear Mode
