Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
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.
|
If I have posted "PRIVATE PROPERTY/NO TRESPASSING, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT" signs on my property and it is fenced. Then you chose to ignore those and came on anyway. Then I could legally shoot you (depending on state and jurisdiction). I have the signs warning you and the right to protect my property. You violated the signs, knowing the possible consequences for such action. Now, if I chase you off my property and shoot you AFTER you have left then I can be arrested.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1057.pdf
Quote:
|
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.
|
If I informed you that you will be working around asbestos and provided you with ample protection and you continued to work there, it would be your fault.
Quote:
|
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.
|
The simple solution is to put smoking workers in the smoking sections, non smokers in the non smoking sections.
Also, if you know the risks and continue to work there, then it would be on you.
I would like to see 1 case where they proved a non smoker died from lung cancer due to working in a bar that allowed smoking. Or where a non smoker suffered serious health issues from working in a bar.
Now if we share an office and you sit there and chain smoke for 20 years and the ventilation is bad, then I can see the argument.
Somewhere, PERSONAL responsibility has to be considered. I am tired of people expecting government to protect them for LEGAL activities.
If non smoking laws ends up closing a lot of bars and bowling alleys (which it has done), then in reality people have lost jobs. I'm sorry, I would rather have a job around smokers than no job at all. I can eventually find a job in a non smoking establishment, if I so desire.
My feeling to handle this "worker safety" issue is to have the smoking section either staffed solely with smokers or people who have signed waivers, or nor have service in that area. A room designated for smoking. Thus, the owner still has a right to decide if he wants smoking and the patrons and workers have the right to be around it or not.