Protection of Public Health Bill (Law'd)

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I basically agree with President Lief that this shouldn't be dealt with on the federal level, & urge that it be left up to the owners of the establishments to decide for themselves. I hope that all right-wing Senators respect the free market in this case, & reserve to businessowners the right to decide whether or not they want their establishments to be smoke-free.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

Last session, the Senate passed health care legislation where the government would provide healthcare to many Atlasians.  Because of that law, I think we should have the right to impose laws to make our citizens healthier.

Where does it end though? It's a logical argument, I agree, but are you also going to start legislatin what people are allowed to eat and drink.....or how much they have to excercize every week?

(crap Vepres, you took my response!) Not only are you hurting yourself, but you are hurting those around you. Downing 5 Big Mac's only hurts yourself, and not exercising only hurts yourself. There's a big difference.
I do stand by my statement, that the government has a responsibilty to protect our people's health.

     If it would be sufficient to satisfy you, I suggest that businesses be made to post whether they are smoking or non-smoking establishments. If a person enters an establishment that they are already aware allows smoking, they make a choice knowing about the potential for harm.

     A person lighting up in such a business would do so harming nobody who wasn't already aware that they would be subjected to secondhand smoke. There's no sense in disallowing that unless you don't think people should be allowed to make choices that put themselves in harm's way.

[Associate Justice PiT]

What is superior, the right to conduct your business, or the right to good health, in yourself and your environment?

     I'm not sure if that's directed at me, but you should have the right to choose whatever you want for yourself. As long as a business warns prospective employees & patrons that it allows people to smoke on its property, I simply can't justify forbidding them from allowing that.

Last session, the Senate passed health care legislation where the government would provide healthcare to many Atlasians.  Because of that law, I think we should have the right to impose laws to make our citizens healthier.

Where does it end though? It's a logical argument, I agree, but are you also going to start legislatin what people are allowed to eat and drink.....or how much they have to excercize every week?

(crap Vepres, you took my response!) Not only are you hurting yourself, but you are hurting those around you. Downing 5 Big Mac's only hurts yourself, and not exercising only hurts yourself. There's a big difference.
I do stand by my statement, that the government has a responsibilty to protect our people's health.

     If it would be sufficient to satisfy you, I suggest that businesses be made to post whether they are smoking or non-smoking establishments. If a person enters an establishment that they are already aware allows smoking, they make a choice knowing about the potential for harm.

     A person lighting up in such a business would do so harming nobody who wasn't already aware that they would be subjected to secondhand smoke. There's no sense in disallowing that unless you don't think people should be allowed to make choices that put themselves in harm's way.

I don't. I can't find any reason to not restrict health risks as much as possible when taxpayers are the ones paying for it. I don't want MY money going to fix THEIR lung cancer!

Cigarette companies target the poor, they target the less educated, the less fortunate. They use aggressive advertising tactics and there is a lot of pressure. Many people who are currently smokers want to quit themselves. Smoking as a "choice" is most often made in youthful ignorance and later grows to be a regret. It is large corporations snaking and sharking and stealing from the lower classes. It is a despicable industry with horrifying consequences and is clearly malicious in its intent.

This bill must pass in its current form, to respect the rights of citizens to a healthy environment and for non-smokers to feel comfortable in all businesses. If smoking is banned from all businesses, the smokes can't boycott- where would they go? On the other hand, if it's an employer's "choice." They could lose a significant portion of clientele depending on what they allow. This is wrong- it hinders our health, our commerce, and our piece of mind. Smoking indoors is also a possible fire hazard.

This bill is good because it protects our rights while at the same time allowing proper and appropriate locations to apply for exemption if necessary. Some locales will allow smoking, but most of them will be establishments that are smoker-based in nature.

I highly encourage all sensible Senators to support this bill. What I don't want to see is some bullshit excuse about regional rights- a national health care system is in place. All citizens of all regions are paying the prices. The more difficult and inconvenient smoking is, the more smokers will be able and encouraged to quit. The benefits far outweigh any negative consequences that may be perceived.

     In that case, the national healthcare plan should be repealed, or amended to exclude tobacco-related illnesses. If it was only implemented as an excuse to create an overarching nanny state, I am disappointed to the utmost in many people here.

     This has nothing to do with regional rights. This has to do with individual rights. I have no interest in "positive liberty", & this bill reminds me exactly why. The only liberty for me is that arrived at without the power of the state, but by the power of me.

     As for your other points, I don't see any validity in the government deciding for businesses when giving them an option could damage them economically. It could be a fire hazard, though I would hope the employer would take serious measures to protect against fire regardless, such as installing sprinklers.

     Now that I'm done venting, I'm not sure we could ever convince each other since it is self-evident that our priorities & principles are completely different. I don't think continuing to argue would actually make a difference, especially since the esteemed members of the Senate have already seen what we have to say. Feel free to rebut anything I said in this post, but I don't see the need to continue with this.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't think you understood the argument about businesses. Given that you want to leave this option up to businesses, they will be FORCED to make a choice one way or the other. With debate over this bill, passion is brewing, of course, on both sides, smoker and non-smoker. Do we really want to put our small businesses in a position that could alienate angry members of either of those two broad groups?

Additionally, while you may not agree with the healthcare bill, the reality is that it's here and we are going to have to learn to work with it and within it until it is either repealed or altered or whatever.

     More people are non-smokers than smokers. Unless they wish to specifically cater to smokers, there's no real reason for them to allow smoking. Still, I think restaurants should be able to cater to smokers if they want. However, it appears that nobody agrees with me, so I will give up on it now.