In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Do You Think?
J 1357
Member Posts: 283 ✭✭✭
I'm a smoker, and for years now, I have watched my rights go down the tubes to those who are ademently against smokers. Recent articles express, that companies will not hire people who test positive for nicotine.
Do you think, that taking away my right to smoke is any different than taking away a persons right to own guns?
Smoking kills and causes extensive medical costs, so do guns.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in gun ownership.
But, if you take away a right from someone else, don't complain when another right is revoked. It would be interesting to find out how many here advocating gun rights, voted for or encouraged smoking bans.
Do you think, that taking away my right to smoke is any different than taking away a persons right to own guns?
Smoking kills and causes extensive medical costs, so do guns.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in gun ownership.
But, if you take away a right from someone else, don't complain when another right is revoked. It would be interesting to find out how many here advocating gun rights, voted for or encouraged smoking bans.
Comments
Smoking bans in publicly owned buildings are fine with me. I smoke on occasion, but never indoors, never in a car, etc. I don't understand how someone can be selfish enough to to smoke indoors where non-smokers may be, but I don't think it is government's responsibility to stop them.
Employers testing is always an interesting question. A smoker will statistically add to an employers health insurance costs, will statistically lose more time due to respiratory issues, etc. though I would imaging the actual cost per employee is minimal. Smokers, unless they can smoke at their workstation, are likely to be less productive on the whole due to taking smoke breaks, thinking of their next smoke break, etc., and I have no issue with an employer using nicotine addiction as an input into their evaluative process. I would imagine the effort for smaller companies would not be worth the up front investment, but if you have 1,000 or more employees, there may be a statistically significant monetary gain by using this addiction as one criteria.
In short, private property owners and private employers should be able to do what ever the hell they want. Government intrusion should be limited to its own property and employees.
Brad Steele
You complain about Your rights but what about the Guy that doesn't smoke?
My Wife always knows when I am at My Brothers House because He smokes and She can smell it on Me when I come Home.
Yes,You have the right to Smoke if You want to but I have the Right not to have to breath it.
I Smoked for Years and only stopped when I started coughing up Blood,Luckily I do not have Cancer or any other problems but that made Me quit cold Turkey.
A big thing with Employers is insurance costs more for Smokers than non-Smokers and that alone makes it hard to find a Job if You Smoke.
It's a dirty nasty expensive habit and besides that,Kissing a Smoker is like licking a dirty Ashtray.
If you take away or impune on one right, doesn't that open the door for government to take away other rights?
The government has decided, that guns cause insurance costs to rise, based upon those that are admitted to hospitals for gun related injuries, have no insurance. Guns used in robberies, cause millions of dollars in costs to the tax payers in the form of insurance claims and damage.Therefore based upon the precedent of banning and taxing tobacco, a tax of 400% should be placed upon guns. Guns should be banned from all public places. Gun owners should be denied jobs, because they might add to the cost of employers insurance.
If you own a gun and keep it in your residenc and have children, your children should be placed in a safer enviroment. Accidental use of a gun by children is dangerous to their well being. As a gun owner, your health insurance premiums should be raised to compensate for the increase costs due to the extreme chances of injury.
If you own a gun, you should be required to have liability insurance.
So,
So, we have allowed people to put in place laws against tobacco, and taken away use of a legal entity by tax.
Whats the difference between the two?
Don't complain about the loss of gun rights and then tell me I can't smoke!!!
You guys are missing the point. This question is not about smoking, its about the taking away of a right, being smoking, and then complaining, when your gun rights are taken away.
If you take away or impune on one right, doesn't that open the door for government to take away other rights?
Guys?
In my original post, I stated:
'To this end, it is, IMO, a violation of private property rights for a government to dictate that a privately owned establishment cannot allow smoking.'
If a property owner or employer does not want smoking on their premises, or if they do not want to hire someone who smokes, where is your right to impose upon their private property? It does not exist.
Laws against smoking in privately owned buildings are a different matter. In your OP you lumped employers and laws in the same basket. They are not. You are, IMO, correct regarding anti-smoking laws intruding on private property rights, but are way off-base when suggesting that a private employer cannot decide who he wants to hire.
Brad Steele
Your right, government should not intrude on private decisions.
Again, I believe in gun ownership and the 2nd, but if I intend to complain about intrusion on my gun rights, I had better be right out front defending even the smokers rights. Smokers rights have been attacked in small ways for 20 years and now have come to full fruition. Gun rights can and will be attacked the same way.
Don, What would be the difference between an employer not hiring a person, because he or she smokes or because he or she owns a gun?
...
What would it matter?
Are you suggesting that the Government should step in and force an employer to hire someone they do not want to hire?
Brad Steele
Smoking is not protected by an amendment to our United States Constitution.
Hmmm......... yep,it really is that simple[:)]
Hypocrisy has no bounds, when it comes to 2nd defenders.
I don't take what you say too seriously, since you continually make statements like these.....
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I believe in gun ownership and the 2nd
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I've stated before and I'll state it again, assualt weapons have no legitimate place in a society governed by the rule of law.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
Military weapons have no place in a civilized society.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
When I purchase a gun it always makes me feel a little safer, knowing, that everyone who purchases one has to be checked.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
In my opinion, assualt weapons do nothing but wreak havoc in society.
Talk about HYPOCRISY.
P.S. If you are going to constantly bash them, you REALLY should at least learn how to SPELL........assault
Guns can be used for positive purposes.
Makes it likely that you will marry less well. Cost many dinero.
We just lost a prominent member. Serious heart issues and history. On our one and only meeting he lit up three times...probably would have been more except we were in Starbucks for part of the time. He was worried about dying two years before it happened.
Your life risk from guns is probably a day or two over 75 years. Smoking is 4600.
It costs the average smoker 13 years, and recent research says more like 16.
Makes it likely that you will marry less well. Cost many dinero.
We just lost a prominent member. Serious heart issues and history. On our one and only meeting he lit up three times...probably would have been more except we were in Starbucks for part of the time. He was worried about dying two years before it happened.
Your life risk from guns is probably a day or two over 75 years. Smoking is 4600.
OK, then.
Is this a public service announcement only, or does it relate to the thread in some fashion?
Brad Steele
I'm a smoker, and for years now, I have watched my rights go down the tubes to those who are ademently against smokers. Recent articles express, that companies will not hire people who test positive for nicotine.
Do you think, that taking away my right to smoke is any different than taking away a persons right to own guns?
Smoking kills and causes extensive medical costs, so do guns.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in gun ownership.
But, if you take away a right from someone else, don't complain when another right is revoked. It would be interesting to find out how many here advocating gun rights, voted for or encouraged smoking bans.
I would support your right to harm yourself;I believe what you do to your own body is your business as long as others do not have to breath your secondhand smoke. Your rights stop where mine begin. You have a right to smoke and others have a right not the breath your smoke I believe in the ban in enclosed commercial public buildings such as restaurants.
I would support your right to harm yourself;I believe what you do to your own body is your business as long as others do not have to breath your secondhand smoke. Your rights stop where mine begin. You have a right to smoke and others have a right not the breath your smoke I believe in the ban in enclosed commercial public buildings such as restaurants.
You position surprises me, sovereignman.
Where does individual choice and private property rights fit into your stance?
If you remember, in the late 1980s or early 1990s, Northwest Airlines came out with a policy of no smoking on any of their fights well before the current Federal Ban. The individual was given the option of flying on a NW flight that was smoke-free, or choosing another carrier that permitted smoking. Free Market solution.
Prior to my state banning all smoking in restaurants and in bars, a large percentage had already made the switch to a smoke-free environment. Many of them used it as a marketing tool, and publicised their position. Patrons had the opportunity to choose between a smoke-free environment or an establishment where they could smoke is they chose to do so. Again, a Free Market solution.
Now, the Federal Government dictates to airline passengers that they cannot smoke on board airplanes. I find flights more pleasant now, but do not believe that it is a role government should take, particularly when the private sector had already implemented the proper solution.
Likewise with restaurants and bars. The private sector had implemented a solution that respected the freedoms and choices of all citizens; property owners and their patrons. I cannot see how freedom and/or liberty is advanced by a government imposing a position upon an entire sector when that sector had already provided the imposed option.
Brad Steele
I'm a smoker, and for years now, I have watched my rights go down the tubes to those who are ademently against smokers. Recent articles express, that companies will not hire people who test positive for nicotine.
Do you think, that taking away my right to smoke is any different than taking away a persons right to own guns?
Smoking kills and causes extensive medical costs, so do guns.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in gun ownership.
But, if you take away a right from someone else, don't complain when another right is revoked. It would be interesting to find out how many here advocating gun rights, voted for or encouraged smoking bans.
The negative effects of smoking FAR out way any, if there are any, positive aspects of smoking.
Where as the exact opposite is true of firearms ownership/usage.
Smoking is not a 'right'!
And yes, those who hire and fire, business owners, have a 'right' TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT WORKING FOR THEM!!!!
I do not believe the government has the 'right' to ban smoking, except in government properties. Private business should make the decision to allow smoking or not, not the government!!![V]
The negative effects of smoking FAR out way any, if there are any, positive aspects of smoking.
Where as the exact opposite is true of firearms ownership/usage.
Smoking is not a 'right'!
And yes, those who hire and fire, business owners, have a 'right' TO DECIDE WHO THEY WANT WORKING FOR THEM!!!!
I do not believe the government has the 'right' to ban smoking, except in government properties. Private business should make the decision to allow smoking or not, not the government!!![V]
'Smoking is not a Right'? How do you figger?
Are you suggesting that individual rights are somehow limited to those that are enumerated in the Constitution? It would explain a lot. As a primer, I would suggest you read 'The Invisible Constitution' by Laurence Tribe, and if you have not recently, perhaps the Federalist Papers would be worth reading again.
Smoking is not a specifically enumerated right, and smoking on someone else's property is not a right, as it is imposition on someone else's personal property rights. Government power (not rights, Governments have no rights) to control that which is not specifically protected in the Bill of Rights is specifically protected in the 9th Amendment. The 9th Amendment protects the right to smoke as much as the 2nd protects the RTKBA. Neither, however, protect those rights to the point where they can be imposed upon others.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by sovereignman
I would support your right to harm yourself;I believe what you do to your own body is your business as long as others do not have to breath your secondhand smoke. Your rights stop where mine begin. You have a right to smoke and others have a right not the breath your smoke I believe in the ban in enclosed commercial public buildings such as restaurants.
You position surprises me, sovereignman.
Where does individual choice and private property rights fit into your stance?
If you remember, in the late 1980s or early 1990s, Northwest Airlines came out with a policy of no smoking on any of their fights well before the current Federal Ban. The individual was given the option of flying on a NW flight that was smoke-free, or choosing another carrier that permitted smoking. Free Market solution.
Prior to my state banning all smoking in restaurants and in bars, a large percentage had already made the switch to a smoke-free environment. Many of them used it as a marketing tool, and publicised their position. Patrons had the opportunity to choose between a smoke-free environment or an establishment where they could smoke is they chose to do so. Again, a Free Market solution.
Now, the Federal Government dictates to airline passengers that they cannot smoke on board airplanes. I find flights more pleasant now, but do not believe that it is a role government should take, particularly when the private sector had already implemented the proper solution.
Likewise with restaurants and bars. The private sector had implemented a solution that respected the freedoms and choices of all citizens; property owners and their patrons. I cannot see how freedom and/or liberty is advanced by a government imposing a position upon an entire sector when that sector had already provided the imposed option.
To be honest,I am torn between the two. But I remember having to sit in a restaurant which had divided the smoking from the non smoking and smell second hand smoke and ruin my meal. Then I think of the burden on all taxpayers that have to pay for the indiscretion of smokers like my mother in law who is dying of lung disease and my mother who passed on years ago from same,the tax payers have to pick up the bill.
If the owners of public establishments really did care for non smokers
they would have done a much better job of catering to those that did not smoke. It is possible to properly filter the air if they choose to and eliminate the health problems for the non smoker. They choose not to. As I have asked in the past. Where does rights begin and end.
My grandpa used to say your rights end where mine begin and viceversa.
I look at this from a personnel and health consensus, right or wrong.
They pushed the law through in MN as necessary to protect the health of the worker. More BS IMO. I have always said" If a woman doesn't want to work topless....don't fill out applications at nudie bars."
I also find it interesting that the argument the taxpayers are on the hook for it is used so often. The taxpayers are only on the hook for those who have inadequately prepared and that includes non smokers as well as smokers. They also never figure in the fact that smokers pay more in taxes and health insurance premiums all their lives. Since smokers die an average of ten years earlier than non smokers, I find it curious that nobody ever subtracts the ten years worth of social security, pensions, health care, and other assorted benefits never used in the missing decade of a smokers life.
Smoking is nothing I would recommend to anyone but If we are talking about justification for curtailing a citizens right to choose how they conduct their lives we should at least take an effort to be accurate with our accounting.
If you live in a cave, by yourself, it doesn't matter. But if you subject others to negative/dangerous effects by your actions you are violating their rights. None of us have that right![;)]
Yes smoking is not a 'right'. Can I make it any simper than that.[;)]
If you live in a cave, by yourself, it doesn't matter. But if you subject others to negative/dangerous effects by your actions you are violating their rights. None of us have that right![;)]
How does this differ from other rights?
If a business owner is offended by someone carrying within their place of business, no one has the right to carry within that business. Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment does not enumerate a right?
A business owner can demand that you leave his place of business if you are carrying a sign that disparages his business. Your implication is that the 1st Amendment does not enumerate a right.
A business owner or homeowner can make almost any demand upon a visitor, provided the option of leaving the premises is maintained.
Again, take a stab at 'The Invisible Constitution', Jim. The wording is not as simple as is yours, but then neither is the subject.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes smoking is not a 'right'. Can I make it any simper than that.[;)]
If you live in a cave, by yourself, it doesn't matter. But if you subject others to negative/dangerous effects by your actions you are violating their rights. None of us have that right![;)]
How does this differ from other rights?
If a business owner is offended by someone carrying within their place of business, no one has the right to carry within that business. Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment does not enumerate a right?
A business owner can demand that you leave his place of business if you are carrying a sign that disparages his business. Your implication is that the 1st Amendment does not enumerate a right.
A business owner or homeowner can make almost any demand upon a visitor, provided the option of leaving the premises is maintained.
Again, take a stab at 'The Invisible Constitution', Jim. The wording is not as simple as is yours, but then neither is the subject.
I don't see how anything you just said has anything to do with what we are discussing! If a person say they want no weapons on the premises he has that right, it's his property. I have the right to take my money else where. Being armed is a RIGHT smoking is not! To try and equate the two is ridiculous!!!![?]
Just because the Bill of Rights only enumerated certain rights, that does not limit the rights of an individual to what is therein enumerated.
Amendment IX specifically addressed the issue.
There is a fundamental disconnect between two warring ethics...'Collectivism vs Individualism'.
We are living on that battleground and in that war and factually, this Republic was founded upon the Ethic of Individualism yet we have been taken over by the Ethic of Collectivism.
Any individual has the absolute right to smoke if they so choose, just as that same individual has the absolute right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason, along with any number of liberties they may desire to exercise.
The only limitations on any individual liberty or right, is supposed to be when one individual's exercise of their liberty negatively impacts on the rights or property of another individual.
That is the proper area for society or government to address this merging of individuals, but not via the collectivist tactic and dogma of the 'greater good', 'feel good', 'societal desires', 'prior restraint', 'majority rule', 'think of the children', ect..
It seems as if the basic concept of rights is lost on you and others, sadly.
Collectivism inevitably leads to totalitarianism.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Yes smoking is not a 'right'. Can I make it any simper than that.[;)]
If you live in a cave, by yourself, it doesn't matter. But if you subject others to negative/dangerous effects by your actions you are violating their rights. None of us have that right![;)]
How does this differ from other rights?
If a business owner is offended by someone carrying within their place of business, no one has the right to carry within that business. Are you suggesting that the 2nd Amendment does not enumerate a right?
A business owner can demand that you leave his place of business if you are carrying a sign that disparages his business. Your implication is that the 1st Amendment does not enumerate a right.
A business owner or homeowner can make almost any demand upon a visitor, provided the option of leaving the premises is maintained.
Again, take a stab at 'The Invisible Constitution', Jim. The wording is not as simple as is yours, but then neither is the subject.
[:D][:D][;)]
But I too fear that at some point, gun laws will be just as restrictive. To the point that we will all remember these days fondly. Hopefully, I will have passed by then.
But I agree, that smoking is bad for you.
And a Government is always trustworthy as to what should or should not be inhaled, for the benefit of Society. Start with Zyklon B.