NationStates Jolt Archive

yah, i love capitalism/free enterprise, but there have to be some regulations in place so when a consumer opens up a can of Chef Boyardee Ravioli, he can be fairly certain that it won't contain dog feces.

yah, i love capitalism/free enterprise, but there have to be some regulations in place so when a consumer opens up a can of Chef Boyardee Ravioli, he can be fairly certain that it won't contain dog feces.
:D I'm sure the law of economics will ensure this for us...economics rules all, didn't you read the lecture by Oaks? :eek:

I really do not think the government should have any say whatsoever over the matter in terms of private business, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local. Any law they pass regarding such, is illegal. And will not be obeyed.

And similarly, let's get rid of all laws protecting businesses, too. Goodbye copyright laws!

And similarly, let's get rid of all laws protecting businesses, too. Goodbye copyright laws!
Ohhh...that's a good angle! I luvs ya!

I just think some of these posters are spouting without thinking. They have an idea, but haven't thought it through yet. Hopefully these examples will help them see that things are not so black and white.

Ohhh...that's a good angle! I luvs ya!

I just think some of these posters are spouting without thinking. They have an idea, but haven't thought it through yet. Hopefully these examples will help them see that things are not so black and white.

Just like you have your college socialists who have figured out how the perfect socialist society could be established without ever leaving their dorm room, you have your college libertarians.

Yes. Let's toss out all the fraud laws, all the safety regulations in regards to their products, let them be accountable only to themselves!!!

OR you can stop making absolute statements, and qualify yourself.

Don't even start that bullshit rhetoric.

What a business owner allows his people to do, or not to do, is no ones business but his, and his employees.

You can shove your statements back up your ass, where you got them from.

Just like you have your college socialists who have figured out how the perfect socialist society could be established without ever leaving their dorm room, you have your college libertarians.
LOL. Too true...my favourite is when they say, "you should take a class in such and such" as though you'll suddenly realise why they are right if you do:). Been there, done that.

And similarly, let's get rid of all laws protecting businesses, too. Goodbye copyright laws!

Copywrite protects intellectual property, either from corporate or individual sources.... Learn something, mental midget.

Don't even start that bullshit rhetoric.

What a business owner allows his people to do, or not to do, is no ones business but his, and his employees.

You can shove your statements back up your ass, where you got them from.
Wow! You've completely convinced me with your reasonable argument, so well backed up with facts!

Careful, you're straying awfully close to flaming.

I guess your position is not mature enough to admit that things are not so black and white.

Copywrite protects intellectual property, either from corporate or individual sources.... Learn something, mental midget.
Well now. That IS flaming. And reported to moderation.

Too bad you don't actually feel like having a discussion. This isn't a soap box.

Copywrite protects intellectual property, either from corporate or individual sources.... Learn something, mental midget.

Protects them from what, exactly?

Sinuhue, you're probably right in that Canada's lower population has something to do with it, but not everything. I don't feel like getting facts and figures for it though, I'm not that invested in the situation.

Damn but this thread grew...

smoking in the workplace should be banned because some people are allergic im not but i just dislike smoking

You can shove your statements back up your ass, where you got them from.Ah-burn!

Sinuhue, you're probably right in that Canada's lower population has something to do with it, but not everything. I don't feel like getting facts and figures for it though, I'm not that invested in the situation.

Damn but this thread grew...
Didn't it though?

We only have about 33 million people, and we are very, very spread out. Our cities are not that large and I really do think that this has a large impact on the lack of choice in terms of finding non-smoking restaurants and bars in areas where there is no ban.

But it's not something we can really follow up on. BC, the NWT are already fully non-smoking. Many cities in other provinces are as well. I think that is only going to spread. To be quite honest, so far I haven't heard a lot of complaints from smokers about this. For those that frequent bars, even they didn't like the way they felt after breathing in all that smoke (it was a lot more than they were used to). People usually smoke outside their homes and automobiles now, and there were no regulations needed to cause that, but *shrugs* here we are with the bans, and really, I've heard only positive things about them, from all sides.

Ah-burn!
Only if he were talking about a lit cigarette....

Don't even start that bullshit rhetoric.

What a business owner allows his people to do, or not to do, is no ones business but his, and his employees.

You can shove your statements back up your ass, where you got them from.

Copywrite protects intellectual property, either from corporate or individual sources.... Learn something, mental midget.

That's enough, Tekania. Learn proper etiquette for debating. Calling someone a 'mental midget' and telling them to shove their statements 'back up their ass' isn't good tactics.

Tekania: Official Warning for Flaming

snip

It's so weird seeing Euroslavia post in General.

Copywrite protects intellectual property, either from corporate or individual sources.... Learn something, mental midget.

tell that to china

(which reminds me... what's being done about all the foreign patents china steals?)

Only if he were talking about a lit cigarette....Oh, come on. I'm sure that you can see that, although undeserved, and completely inapropriate for a serious, civil discussion forum, that was a pretty good burn.

Oh, come on. I'm sure that you can see that, although undeserved, and completely inapropriate for a serious, civil discussion forum, that was a pretty good burn.

Excuse the pun, but I've pulled better burns out of my ass.

tell that to china

(which reminds me... what's being done about all the foreign patents china steals?)
We sit around eating Chow Mein and bitching that everything's made in China now :D

Oh, come on. I'm sure that you can see that, although undeserved, and completely inapropriate for a serious, civil discussion forum, that was a pretty good burn.

Seemed pretty standard and lacking in imagination. If you want a good burn it should make the recipient feel like their whole life has been for nothing, but in a subtle way

Oh, come on. I'm sure that you can see that, although undeserved, and completely inapropriate for a serious, civil discussion forum, that was a pretty good burn.
Na. But I like them with some wit. Drunk Commies is good for that. Ass jokes, while a favourite of mine, don't qualify as wit. I think you just liked it because it was directed at me.

Wow! You've completely convinced me with your reasonable argument, so well backed up with facts!

Careful, you're straying awfully close to flaming.

I guess your position is not mature enough to admit that things are not so black and white.

Here, let me repeat this again, for people who didn't pass their english courses in the course of their basic education...

"I really do not think the government should have any say whatsoever over the matter[1] in terms of private business, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local. Any law they pass regarding such[1], is illegal. And will not be obeyed."

1: 'the matter' and 'such' reffer to previous subject matter established by the original thread post, established as "I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned.

This operates much like someone asking "Do you have an opinion on stem-cell research?" and responding "I have no opinion in the matter...." Obviously, to anyone with command of the language would see "the matter" as illuding to a subject, and of course that subject is supplied by the original question "stem-cell research", and not being a universal maxim.

Thus, your black & white statement is rhetoric, based from poor comprehensive skills.

To translate the post, for the benefit of your defunct comprehinsive skills...

"I really do not think the government should have any say whatsoever over [smoking] in terms of private business, I don't care if it's federal, state, or local. Any law they pass regarding [smoking in private establishments], is illegal. And will not be obeyed."

Sinuhue receives a mark of "Deffered Success" in reading comprehension...

We sit around eating Chow Mein and bitching that everything's made in China now :D

yah

i've heard most Western "chinese" dishes aren't chinese at all

the one that takes the cake, at least around here, is General Tso's Chicken.

it's at every single chinese place in town... even at the (get this.. lol) New Famous Chinese Restaurant.

I'm not the one who didn't understand the mod warning.

Oh behave! (a la Austin Powers)

Na. But I like them with some wit. Drunk Commies is good for that. Ass jokes, while a favourite of mine, don't qualify as wit. I think you just liked it because it was directed at me.No, I liked it in general. I'm easy to impress; I have the sense of humour of an eight year old. Ass jokes get me every time.
"Shove it up your ass", I've heard before, but the last bit was a nice twist.

Seemed pretty standard and lacking in imagination. If you want a good burn it should make the recipient feel like their whole life has been for nothing, but in a subtle way

yah... we don't really want anyone committing suicide, now, do we? hehe

Here, let me repeat this again, for people who didn't pass their english courses in the course of their basic education...
-snip-
Thus, your black & white statement is rhetoric, based from poor comprehensive skills.
-snip-
To translate the post, for the benefit of your defunct comprehinsive skills...
-snip-
Sinuhue receives a mark of "Deffered Success" in reading comprehension...

Tekania: Knock it off. NOW. Anything more like this out of you, and you'll receive a vacation from NationStates.

~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

We only have about 33 million people, and we are very, very spread out. Our cities are not that large and I really do think that this has a large impact on the lack of choice in terms of finding non-smoking restaurants and bars in areas where there is no ban.

It's more about the economic and business base than anything else. Incidentally, California has about 33 million pop as well, but there's plenty of variety even in it's smaller towns (like SB). I think it's because at the base, business is allowed to breathe freer. But again I don't have figures for this.

BC, the NWT are already fully non-smoking. Many cities in other provinces are as well. I think that is only going to spread. To be quite honest, so far I haven't heard a lot of complaints from smokers about this. For those that frequent bars, even they didn't like the way they felt after breathing in all that smoke (it was a lot more than they were used to).

Even smokers don't like hot-boxing it. This is one reason why I step outside for a cigarette, and also why I'd be for ventilation if indoor smoking was a reality where I live.

But also, just because you haven't heard a lot of complaints from smokers, doesn't mean smokers are actively approving of it. I wouldn't, but then that's also from my libertarian-esque political views as much as from my enjoyment of smoking a fag now and then.

However, the fact of the matter is [if restaurant attendance is to be any indicator], most people don't seem to have a problem with sitting 30 feet away from a smoker once a week for a meal. Since this is generally the limit of exposure for people who take pains to avoid smokers, I fail to see how this will give anyone cancer.

Besides, even if the EPA study is to be believed, the chances of getting cancer from ETS are a lot lower than most things we accept in life.

Sorry, haven't actually read the rest of the thread, so I'm sorry if people have already pointed this out...

It isn't just restaurants that would be affected, but bars and clubs too. The ban is to protect the workers who are breathing in the smoke every shift. I give you the example of Roy Castle (kids tv celebrity in UK) who played in a jazz club every night when he was young and died of lung cancer having never smoked a fag in his life.

Also regular patrons in clubs etc stand to benefit from such a ban.

I would support such a ban in heart beat. If someone chooses to take their own life by smoking that is their choice and I have no problem with them making it, but many people choose not to commit suicide by death stick, they should not be forced to suck in second hand smoke every time they go out to enjoy themselves. I also think that smoking in eating establishments must surely pose a health risk beyond the smoke in the air. Come on, if kitchen staff aren't allowed to smoke in the kitchen, why is it ok to smoke over the food on the table?! I've never understood that!

That's my contribution to the subject.

Protects them from what, exactly?

It protects their (the people(s)) work.... Allowing for the fair and just compensation of their labor in production of that work... This can either be individual, or corporate work, depending on which produced it.

For example, when a person creates a peice of music, or a novel; they have the capability to copywrite that work; thus ensuring that any other distrobution of their work is illegal (and in fact, theft of their initial labor); or via selling such work, in copywrite, to another for distrobution; also recieving just compensation.... Unless of course you do not think people deserve compensation for their own work?

Thus, your black & white statement is rhetoric, based from poor comprehensive skills.

To translate the post, for the benefit of your defunct comprehinsive skills...

Ah-burn!!! :D

It protects their (the people(s)) work.... Allowing for the fair and just compensation of their labor in production of that work... This can either be individual, or corporate work, depending on which produced it.

For example, when a person creates a peice of music, or a novel; they have the capability to copywrite that work; thus ensuring that any other distrobution of their work is illegal (and in fact, theft of their initial labor); or via selling such work, in copywrite, to another for distrobution; also recieving just compensation.... Unless of course you do not think people deserve compensation for their own work?

Why should there exist laws protecting business from unsavory consumers but not have laws protecting consumers from unsavory businesses?

But also, just because you haven't heard a lot of complaints from smokers, doesn't mean smokers are actively approving of it. I wouldn't, but then that's also from my libertarian-esque political views as much as from my enjoyment of smoking a fag now and then.
True. Lack of obvious complaint does not mean assent. Well, really, if they could come up with a good ventiliation system for bars (restaurants are really not in the same league, smoke wise), I'd be happy too...but just imagine the industrial strenth suction that would be needed...toupees flying everywhere, shirts popping off big-breasted women... :D

I honestly think that venitlation systems were not even considered, and I'm not sure why. Right now, you can still smoke in the patios outside...but come winter, that's not really going to be an option.

The ban is to protect the workers who are breathing in the smoke every shift. I give you the example of Roy Castle (kids tv celebrity in UK) who played in a jazz club every night when he was young and died of lung cancer having never smoked a fag in his life.


Not every case of lung cancer is because of cigarette smoke.

Not everyone has to play in a jazz club.

Not every worker has to work at a place with policies they do not agree with.

they should not be forced to suck in second hand smoke every time they go out to enjoy themselves.

Are they also forced to enjoy themselves in places filled with smoke? No.

Free will. Learn it, love it.

I'm not going to read all 18 pages of this thread (20 by the time I posted it), but here in Wisconsin at least two cities have passed such bans on smoking. The effect was pretty drastic: an average loss of business of 40% in Madison and 70% in Appleton to every bar in the city in summer, just think what will happen come winter. People are losing jobs at the bars and entertainment and contests hosted by the bar are forced to be cancelled because of the sudden lack of revenue, beer distributers are losing business because the bars are losing business, bowling allies have had the majority of bowling league players leave town, the cities are losing tax money, and eventually, places are going to be forced to go out of business, all because the government decided it'd be a good idea to ban smoking, so many of the smokers said, fine we'll go to another city where we can smoke, and quite a few of the nonsmokers went with them because without the smokers, the bars just weren't as happening any more.

In the end, when you live in a capitalisitic society where everyone is encouraged to fend for themselves, you can't go around passing blanket rules that are going to affect all businesses (or certain types of businesses) because those rules are going to affect different businesses differently and may put some at an advantage, or in this case, disadvantage, and things like this affect small businesses, who are already at a disadvantage to corporations, the worst. You have to let businesses decide for themselves what is best for their business, making decisions for them and killing 40-70% of their business in the process cannot be accepted, majority vote or not (and to clarify, neither Madison or Appleton allowed its citizens to vote on it, the city councels decided for them).

It protects their (the people(s)) work.... Allowing for the fair and just compensation of their labor in production of that work... This can either be individual, or corporate work, depending on which produced it.

For example, when a person creates a peice of music, or a novel; they have the capability to copywrite that work; thus ensuring that any other distrobution of their work is illegal (and in fact, theft of their initial labor); or via selling such work, in copywrite, to another for distrobution; also recieving just compensation.... Unless of course you do not think people deserve compensation for their own work?I think that there should be laws prohibiting people other than the creators of intellectual property from profiting from it, but the free distribution of copies of any work should not be controlled.
If you burn a CD to give to a friend, should that be illegal? How about copying out a passage from a novel?

Ah-burn!!! :D
Oxwana, TG.

I honestly think that venitlation systems were not even considered, and I'm not sure why. Right now, you can still smoke in the patios outside...but come winter, that's not really going to be an option.

There's a commonly held belief - who knows how true it is, I've never seen an impartial and conclusive study about it, but it's something "they" say - that ventilation doesn't work or help at all. Something alluding to how the nasty smoking chemicals cannot be aired out, as if they were radiation or something. (This idea is pedalled by the anti-smokers primarily, btw, so it's them we can thank for not having ventilation.)

Are they also forced to enjoy themselves in places filled with smoke? No.

Free will. Learn it, love it.

But a minority of people can fill a bar with smoke pretty quickly

But a minority of people can fill a bar with smoke pretty quickly

The idea is that if smokers are such a minority, then people who do not want to smoke or be around smoke will go to other bars where smoking is not allowed, and the market will sort things out on its own.

The idea is that if smokers are such a minority, then people who do not want to smoke or be around smoke will go to other bars where smoking is not allowed, and the market will sort things out on its own.

Ok thanx for clearing that up for me

The idea is that if smokers are such a minority, then people who do not want to smoke or be around smoke will go to other bars where smoking is not allowed, and the market will sort things out on its own.
Then why hasn't it? People have known for many years now that smoking is not good for you, and surely even before that people were annoyed with the smell. So why hasn't the market evened itself out?

I think that people are no more going to 'vote with their dollars' than they are going to vote in fact, no matter their views. We're lazy when it comes to democracy, and we're lazy when it comes to this 'democratic capitalism'.

Then why hasn't it? People have known for many years now that smoking is not good for you, and surely even before that people were annoyed with the smell. So why hasn't the market evened itself out?

Because I think we severly underestimate the amount of smokers out there, and we overestimate the people who are bothered enough by the smoke to actually do something about it.

Because I think we severly underestimate the amount of smokers out there
Well, I agree with that, considering so many of those smoking in the bars aren't really smokers...just smokers-when-they-drink, bringing the numbers up even higher.

I don't know. I'm happy coming home not smelling like an ashtray, whatever the reason.

Well, I agree with that, considering so many of those smoking in the bars aren't really smokers...just smokers-when-they-drink, bringing the numbers up even higher.

I don't know. I'm happy coming home not smelling like an ashtray, whatever the reason.

But if your favorite bar suddenly became a haven for smokers, would you stop frequenting it? Or would you continue to go, and complain about the smoke? I believe the latter is a lot more common than the former.

But if your favorite bar suddenly became a haven for smokers, would you stop frequenting it? Or would you continue to go, and complain about the smoke? I believe the latter is a lot more common than the former.
True. I think even more so in Canada, where we are notoriously loathe to 'cause a fuss'. Shit.

And yet, perhaps that unwillingness to complain explains the support for this other solution...having the government step in rather than take the issue into your own hands?

I think that there should be laws prohibiting people other than the creators of intellectual property from profiting from it, but the free distribution of copies of any work should not be controlled.
If you burn a CD to give to a friend, should that be illegal? How about copying out a passage from a novel?

Regardless whether you turn a profit or not, you are still stealing from the time the author put such out, as long as you are distributing it without just compensation to the owner of the work.

Even in the case of distrobution and ownership contracted by a third party (who pays the owner in compensation, either in lump or through percentiles).

Your argument supposed your desire to steal from the time the original author put into the work. No matter how you lay your beans out. To use his work, for your own use, without any compensation.

To your two questions.... Should burning a CD for a friend be illegal? Yes.... You are stealing from the time the author put into production and performance of that work.

Should copying pages from a novel be illegal? Yes, you are stealing from the time and work the author put into writting that novel.

Tons of time were put into the performance, editing, and advertising for music on that CD.... And you'ld be stealing from every single person who put time into its production....

Tons of time went into the text, editing, artwork, typesetting, and advertising of that novel, and you'ld be stealing from every single person who put time into its production....

So we see you do not respect the work of others...

So we see you do not respect the work of others...
And we see that you're still a rude poster. Can you cut out the condescension?

So we see you do not respect the work of others...

And you still suggest that consumers take it up the ass from businesses without any real recourse whatsoever.

Perhaps we should ban pornography because some people are offended by it. Of course the people who want it go of their own free will to stores or websites where it is available. And those who oppose it don't. But then again smokers who go to smokey bars and resturaunts know it's going to be smokey. And non-smokers do to and have the option of avaoiding it. But hey who needs choices and responsible decision making when we can just be told what to do like good little drones right?

Perhaps we should ban pornography because some people are offended by it. Of course the people who want it go of their own free will to stores or websites where it is available. And those who oppose it don't. But then again smokers who go to smokey bars and resturaunts know it's going to be smokey. And non-smokers do to and have the option of avaoiding it. But hey who needs choices and responsible decision making when we can just be told what to do like good little drones right?

Porn isn't detrimental to the health of those around someone who is using it.

Porn isn't detrimental to the health of those around someone who is using it.

Unless said people are uber christians... Then, we'd have to be talking about mental health.

*runs*

Sdaeriji,
Quit lying. I never said that. In fact, quite the opposite. I said that the government, has no business what-so-ever over what an employer allows his employees to do.... Nothing past that, and in fact reaffirmed the need for laws against fraud. If I allow my employees to smoke, drink, play video-games, or shoot marbles; what business is it of yours? ABSOLUTELY NONE. If you don't like it, don't be a patron. Such is between the employer and his employees.

Sinuhue,
That was a statement of fact. The suggestion of redistrobution of the work of another freely, with no compensation to the creator of that work, shows no respect what-so-ever for the person who created that work. Thus, that was a statement of fact based upon the intent of the poster. Regardless of the posters own admissions to the contrary, he is still purporting to use the work of another, without compensating the other, and denying the creator just compensation. He obviously, by distrobution considers the work of worth; yet by denying just compensation to the creator, denies that creator's worth in creating the work to begin with. Since the work obviously has worth in his eyes, it can be seen he simply does not respect the creator of that work (the artist). Otherwise he would not be freely distributing the work to begin with. Now, if one were to create something and distribute it free... It's his work, he can do such.... But to do so for a work which the author has not distrobuted freely, is, to be blunt, THEFT.... STEALING from the creator, indicates that one does not respect that creator; otherwise, you would not STEAL from him/her to begin with.

Both of you need a reality check.

Sdaeriji,
Quit lying. I never said that. In fact, quite the opposite. I said that the government, has no business what-so-ever over what an employer allows his employees to do.... Nothing past that, and in fact reaffirmed the need for laws against fraud. If I allow my employees to smoke, drink, play video-games, or shoot marbles; what business is it of yours? ABSOLUTELY NONE. If you don't like it, don't be a patron. Such is between the employer and his employees.

I'm just trying to establish where you stand on the matter. So if those drunk and stoned employees of your make an inferior product because they were incapacitated and it kills 28 people, should the government then be able to tell you that your employees can't drink or smoke while working? Or is accidental death just part of the risk of doing business with your company?

Regardless whether you turn a profit or not, you are still stealing from the time the author put such out, as long as you are distributing it without just compensation to the owner of the work.Once the author has expended the effort of producing their work, and made it public, nothing is taken from them by reproducing their work.


Your argument supposed your desire to steal from the time the original author put into the work. No matter how you lay your beans out. To use his work, for your own use, without any compensation.My arguement supposed that I disagreed with the post to which I was replying, and was rebuting it as I saw fit.


Tons of time were put into the performance, editing, and advertising for music on that CD.... And you'ld be stealing from every single person who put time into its production....Said people have been paid for their work. Reproducing their work is not stealing, from them or anyone else.


So we see you do not respect the work of others...So we see that my opinion (http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/279/2/) differs from yours, and that you are intolerant of people who disagree with you.

Sweet Buddha. I won't post my opinion here because those who agree with me have already taken the conversation from intelligent debate to internet-anonymous pussy bitchslapping. :rolleyes:

From one to another, read this article.

The Late Great Libertarian Macho Flash (http://www.lpws.org/nlanddocs/macho.htm)

Porn isn't detrimental to the health of those around someone who is using it.

Plenty of things are. And rather than make them illegal we segregate them and warn people ahead of time. No one forces a non-smoker to go into a smoking establishment. But non-smokers feel they have the right to force smokers out of them. Are the non-smokers so stupid or out of control of their own bodily functions that they cannot avoid smoking establishments? Or are they so dictatorial that they feel they have the right to force others to conform to their lifestyle?

Referendums are terrible ideas, most people are too stupid to vote in general elections, never mind on laws that directly affect others.If they're too stupid to make the decisions themselves, then they're hardly going to be able to elect people smart enough to make said decisions.


Smoking should definitely be banned in enclosed public spaces like restaurants and offices, but if people want to smoke in their own homes or outside who cares?I could respond to this, but it would open up a whollllllllle new tangent to the thread. :) So I will stick to discussing Sinuhue's question, with regard to public places.

I thought you were pro legislation?I am pro legislation as opposed to doing nothing about it, but ideally all decisions would me made in a direct democratic manner.

Smoking should be banned...tho I only say this because I don't smoke. I think it is a disgusting habit, 2 members of my family and several of my friends do and their hands and teeth are yellow, they always smell smokey and have nasty coughs.

Smoking should be banned...tho I only say this because I don't smoke. I think it is a disgusting habit, 2 members of my family and several of my friends do and their hands and teeth are yellow, they always smell smokey and have nasty coughs.
i think everything I dislike that would have no direct effect on me should be banned too. If the war on cigarettes is half as much fun as the war on drugs then were are in for a treat.

Perhaps we should ban pornography because some people are offended by it. Of course the people who want it go of their own free will to stores or websites where it is available. And those who oppose it don't. But then again smokers who go to smokey bars and resturaunts know it's going to be smokey. And non-smokers do to and have the option of avaoiding it. But hey who needs choices and responsible decision making when we can just be told what to do like good little drones right?
OK, smokers may smoke whenever, however, and wherever they want provided there is no person around that does not smoke. I give you my acceptance to kill yourself by yourself

I'm just trying to establish where you stand on the matter. So if those drunk and stoned employees of your make an inferior product because they were incapacitated and it kills 28 people, should the government then be able to tell you that your employees can't drink or smoke while working? Or is accidental death just part of the risk of doing business with your company?

Injury should be held under liability to the business owner.... This, of course, has nothing to do what-so-ever, with what the employer allows his customers or employees to do on premises.

You honestly think, that if I own a tobacco shop (for example); that I would give a damn about legislation which would ban the use of the product I sell on my own premises? Or, if I allowed my employees to play loud music; or if I allowed them to play videogames in the back of my computer service shop?

None of it is the government's business. It's mine alone. Their productivity is my concern, not yours.

Once the author has expended the effort of producing their work, and made it public, nothing is taken from them by reproducing their work.

their re-imbursement comes in small quantities from sales; as opposed to lump sum. This is where your argument fails. Unless, when you buy that novel for $5.95, you think "Five Dollars and Ninety-Five Cents" makes up the entire effort put forth by the writters and printers in production of that work.



Said people have been paid for their work. Reproducing their work is not stealing, from them or anyone else.

Said people have not been, the re-embursement artistians receive comes from sales of their work, over the course of time. Not in singular lump sums. You really want to create a society of starving artists don't you?


So we see that my opinion (http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/279/2/) differs from yours, and that you are intolerant of people who disagree with you.

Your "opinion", if enstated, would drive up market price for the artists and developers to even survive. The sale price is based from the total cost of production and development of the final product (even including the hours the creator spent in development of his IP)... Artists struggle enough as it is... We don't need to extend this to the point where it is impossible for them to survive, for denying them the rights over that which they created.

OK, smokers may smoke whenever, however, and wherever they want provided there is no person around that does not smoke. I give you my acceptance to kill yourself by yourselfI was fined $125 for smoking outside when no one was around. I was on school property, not in a designated smoking area. It was -20C, and the snow in the smoke pit was knee-deep.

Smoking should be banned forever this thing kills to many people

their re-imbursement comes in small quantities from sales; as opposed to lump sum. This is where your argument fails. Unless, when you buy that novel for $5.95, you think "Five Dollars and Ninety-Five Cents" makes up the entire effort put forth by the writters and printers in production of that work.Ah, but I am poor, and cannot remember the last time I paid for music or bought a new book. If I will not be buying the artist's work no matter what, the artist loses nothing when I don't buy it, and make myself a copy, or borrow a book from a friend, etc.


Said people have not been, the re-embursement artistians receive comes from sales of their work, over the course of time. Not in singular lump sums. You really want to create a society of starving artists don't you?Yes. >insert evil laugh here<


Your "opinion", if enstated, would drive up market price for the artists and developers to even survive. The sale price is based from the total cost of production and development of the final product (even including the hours the creator spent in development of his IP)... Artists struggle enough as it is... We don't need to extend this to the point where it is impossible for them to survive, for denying them the rights over that which they created.How would my opinion drive up the cost of living? Those who can pay, and admire an artist's work enough to covet it should pay for it. Those who cannot pay should not go without. Should Brazil be left in the dark ages because they cannot afford to access current technology?

Smoking should be banned forever this thing kills to many peopleObesity kills more people in the States now than are killed by smoking.
Ban Cheetos, then we'll talk.

Whether or not I smoke should be none of anyone's concern. I'm not forcing anyone to smoke nor is anyone else. And, yes, I have full knowledge of what these will do to me and I don't quite care.

In the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, you can not smoke inside buildings (you can smoke in your own home), and not within 25 feet of the entrance to building. You can smoke outside though.

There are talks of banning smoking any where on the campus of the University of Arkansas (U of A legislation, which doesn't hold a ton of meaning...but still, students and staff can be punished). I'm not opposed to that ban. Not because I don't want to breathe smoke...but because cigarette smokers are largely dipshits that insist on throwing there butts down where ever they get done smoking and it makes the campus look terrible.

Not because I don't want to breathe smoke...but because cigarette smokers are largely dipshits that insist on throwing there butts down where ever they get done smoking and it makes the campus look terrible.

Apart from the whole smoke thing this is the second biggest thing which pisses me off.

Is it not possible for smokers not to use those specially designed bins...you know guys the ones palced out side buildings exactly where you smoke, the ones you can't be arsed to walk 2 metres to get to.

Ok, lets go through the economy side of it AGAIN. Since you people are not getting it. Lets say their are two companies. Company C and Company D. Company C does not allow smoking, however company D does. Company C has a clean working enviorment and minnimum health risk. The employees are able to work longer hours and years. However in Company D. Health is a problem due to the smoking, employees are having trouble working their shift and have to retire early due to health problem. Company D has to shell out tons of money for mediaid, and lawsuits by people who don't like the smoking. At the end Company C is more proftiable than Company D. In the near future, Company C will buy out Company D. So you can go work for another company that doesn't allow smoking, and you'll be happier there. Trust me.

So basically, I should throw away the 18 years I've spent rising to the level where I am now, and start back at square one at some other company, making MUCH LESS money than I'm making now (probably about 35% of what I'm making now - if I'm extremely lucky) - meaning that I will go bankrupt because I can no longer make my mortgage payment, motorhome payment, and my husband's motorcycle payment, along with all of our other living expenses. And somehow ruining my good credit, and hence, my good name (something that would be a great source of shame in my family - worse than killing someone), will make me happy??? And all because a group of idiots decided that they should be allowed to pollute the air of their coworkers with known carcinogens? And this actually makes sense to you?

Whether or not I smoke should be none of anyone's concern. I'm not forcing anyone to smoke nor is anyone else. And, yes, I have full knowledge of what these will do to me and I don't quite care.

It is my concern if I have to breathe your second-hand smoke in an enclosed room! Do you really not see this??? I couldn't care less what you do to yourself - but I shouldn't have to suffer because of your choice, should I?

I’m a supporter of civil rights in general, but smoking is kind of difficult because a decision either way will infringe on someone’s rights. We therefore have to decide whose rights are more important – the smokers’, or the non-smokers’. Since there are more non-smokers than smokers, non-smokers get priority. However, here we can compromise. In public places and government-owned buildings, smoking should be banned. However, in privately owned buildings and enclosed places, the owner can decide whether smoking is allowed or not. And, of course, smokers are free to light up in their own homes.

~Envoy of the Nova~

I think they're should be a total ban on smoking.and before people start with sarcastic suggestions about banning everything that isnt good for you i think i should clarify:People enjoy things like salty,fatty,or sugary foods.so they eat them.some of these people eat too much,and maybe even become addicted.

smoking however is different,i'm not aware of any person who ever enjoyed smoking when they started.to the best of my knowledge you only enjoy smoking once you are addicted to it,and they you aren't really enjoying smoking,you're enjoying not feeling like you need to smoke.

other drugs like marijuana get you high,and that's the feeling you become addicted to.tobacco just gets you addicted with little or no high(i say little or know because i don't actually know there might be some slight high),so why even start.

I don't know any smoker who doesn't want to quit.well if you can't buy any ciggarettes then quitting should be much easier.Zero temptation.

So it's simple,if so few benefit from the production and sale of ciggarettes(oh ya,and cigars etc too)and if so many are worse off because of them then why not bad them?

I agree with Nova. The smokers can still smoke, but the non-smokers wont have to suffer.

I agree with Nova. The smokers can still smoke, but the non-smokers wont have to suffer.*points out that the proper abbreviation is NCD*

But, since everyone seems intent on calling me Nova, I guess I'll just have to live with it. *sighs* ;)

Note: I do not actually mind that much what you call me, although I do object to "@*#*$ bastard asshole".

I think they're should be a total ban on smoking.and before people start with sarcastic suggestions about banning everything that isnt good for you i think i should clarify:People enjoy things like salty,fatty,or sugary foods.so they eat them.some of these people eat too much,and maybe even become addicted.

smoking however is different,i'm not aware of any person who ever enjoyed smoking when they started.to the best of my knowledge you only enjoy smoking once you are addicted to it,and they you aren't really enjoying smoking,you're enjoying not feeling like you need to smoke.

other drugs like marijuana get you high,and that's the feeling you become addicted to.tobacco just gets you addicted with little or no high(i say little or know because i don't actually know there might be some slight high),so why even start.

I don't know any smoker who doesn't want to quit.well if you can't buy any ciggarettes then quitting should be much easier.Zero temptation.

So it's simple,if so few benefit from the production and sale of ciggarettes(oh ya,and cigars etc too)and if so many are worse off because of them then why not bad them?

Very simple. Look at prohibition of drugs and alcohol. It breeds crime and disrespect for the law, turns people who are currently law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, puts money and power into the hands to smugglers and bootleggers, puts tobacco products on the market that have no government oversight, and ultimately doesn't really solve the problem. Prohibition never solves anything. We have too many laws and too many criminals already.

Very simple. Look at prohibition of drugs and alcohol. It breeds crime and disrespect for the law, turns people who are currently law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, puts money and power into the hands to smugglers and bootleggers, puts tobacco products on the market that have no government oversight, and ultimately doesn't really solve the problem. Prohibition never solves anything. We have too many laws and too many criminals already.

I agree with you regarding the Prohibition thing - that never works. But I am adamant that my right to breathe smoke-free air outweighs anyone else's right to smoke in my airspace - particularly in the workplace or in public buildings. If people want to smoke in their own homes, or their cars or outside - that's none of my business and it doesn't bother me a bit.

Alright. I know that certain people on this forum (Melkor baby, I'm looking at you!) are very against a government imposed ban on smoking. (We don't seem to make such a big deal about it in Canada though, most people, smokers included just go, 'meh' to the whole thing and move on). However, if a referendum is held in a municipality, and the decision is made by the majority, would you be happy with the way that the ban was implemented? Is it just that you don't want a government unilaterally imposing this restriction? Would it be better if the majority in a particular area did?

Edit: to clear up confusions, I'm talking about banning smoking in the workplace, whether privately or publicly owned. You could still smoke outside, or in your home.



I belive in a smoking ban in ALL public places. If you want to poison yourself your own home, that is fine. But out in the public, where second hand smoke can kill and give cancer- that's not an issue of freedom, that's an issue of respect to others. The supreme court ruled that smoking in prisons could not be allowed because second-hand smoke danger to the guards would be "cruel and unusual punisment". What does that tell you?

I agree with you regarding the Prohibition thing - that never works. But I am adamant that my right to breathe smoke-free air outweighs anyone else's right to smoke in my airspace - particularly in the workplace or in public buildings. If people want to smoke in their own homes, or their cars or outside - that's none of my business and it doesn't bother me a bit.
I think public buildings, and places like airports, are a reasonable place to prevent smoking. I could go either way for offices, I suppose, but I suppose most offices wouldn't want smoking inside either way. But I definitely think that a business owner should have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking in his bar or restaurant.

I think public buildings, and places like airports, are a reasonable place to prevent smoking. I could go either way for offices, I suppose, but I suppose most offices wouldn't want smoking inside either way. But I definitely think that a business owner should have the right to decide if he wants to allow smoking in his bar or restaurant.



Yeah, I agree. I have known resteraunts that were just too smokey for me, and I stopped eating there.

I belive in a smoking ban in ALL public places. If you want to poison yourself your own home, that is fine. But out in the public, where second hand smoke can kill and give cancer- that's not an issue of freedom, that's an issue of respect to others. The supreme court ruled that smoking in prisons could not be allowed because second-hand smoke danger to the guards would be "cruel and unusual punisment". What does that tell you?
Your supreme court decision part there is dead wrong. First, the Supreme Court can't make a decision like that, the state or Federal government can and the Supreme Court can decide whether or not they are allowed to. The issue would be whether or not disallowing smoking would be considered "cruel and unusual", which the court decided it was not.

Your supreme court decision part there is dead wrong. First, the Supreme Court can't make a decision like that, the state or Federal government can and the Supreme Court can decide whether or not they are allowed to. The issue would be whether or not disallowing smoking would be considered "cruel and unusual", which the court decided it was not.


Whoops, I guess screwed up. Thanks for pointing it out. I stand by my statement though.