Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
when doing so would violate the rights of others, like not murdering someone on their property, but NOT mandating that someone patronize their business because we made it non smoking for you. It's like making bars alcohol free because people want to go there, but not be around alcohol.
|
Would it be a violation of someone's rights to murder or assault them on your property if you told them in advance you were going to do it? If they could choose between coming to your property and getting maimed and/or murdered or staying off your property and avoiding your wrath? Yes, it would be a violation of their rights. My right to be alive doesn't end when I step onto your property, even if I have a reasonable expectation that you're going to kill me.
How about this: what if, instead of outright murdering/assaulting someone on your property, you hired them, and then over a period of several years you exposed them to constant elevated levels of substance known to cause several types of cancer and heart disease. And then, what if this chronic exposure resulted in debilitating or terminal health problems? Would that violate their rights? I think it would.
Criticisms of smoking bans are often directed at the patrons, when really the focus should be on the employees. The belief that employers should provide a working environment which isn't likely to cause chronic health problems and/or death in their employees is pretty well established. You can call it totalitarianism if you like.