Quote:
Originally Posted by pan6467
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
|
While it may be true in some places, it is not generally true that you can kill someone for coming onto your property even if you told them that you would before hand. Also, are there any places where you can torture someone for coming onto your property if you told them you would beforehand? Are there any places where you can steal someone's wallet for coming onto your property if you told them you would beforehand? Informed consent doesn't absolve someone of the obligation to recognize the rights of others. Otherwise I could buy a 100 square foot plot of land, post signs that I reserve the right to do whatever I want on my property and I would be able to completely strip the rights of everyone who came near me.
Quote:
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.
|
Workers in smoking allowed establishments aren't provided with any protection at all. While some employers would no doubt voluntarily provide personal protection equipment to abestos-exposed workers, for many of them, the only reason that personal protection equipment is used in conjunction with asbestos is that the state coerces them.
Quote:
The simple solution is to put smoking workers in the smoking sections, non smokers in the non smoking sections.
|
Right, but then you'd have to hire people based on whether they smoke or not to ensure you had enough workers for each section. And then a person's employment might end up being contingent on them not quitting smoking. It seems like the solution is worse than the problem.
Quote:
Also, if you know the risks and continue to work there, then it would be on you.
|
Ultimately, it would, but that wouldn't make it just. Coal miners pretty well know the risk of black lung and collapses, but that doesn't mean that the coal mine owners should have zero obligation with respect to safety equipment.
Quote:
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.
|
These statements are inconsistent. You'd need to see proof in the first instance but not the second? Did you know that hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction frequently drop following the implementation of a smoking ban?
Quote:
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.
|
Why don't these people just get new jobs? It's so easy for employees who don't want to get exposed to secondhand smoke to do, why can't the people displaced by the bans do it too?
Quote:
Somewhere, PERSONAL responsibility has to be considered. I am tired of people expecting government to protect them for LEGAL activities.
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.
|
I don't think this makes sense. You don't think government should step in, but clearly your solution would require the coercive force of government to be enforced.
Furthermore, people should expect the government to protect them from legal and illegal activities- that's ostensibly what the government exists to do. Driving is legal, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't regulate who gets to do it. Disposing of toxic waste is legal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate how it's done.