Protection of Public Health Bill (Law'd)

[Alexander Hamilton]

I oppose such a compromise, as I think that would effectively gut the bill.

We absolutely have a right to tell private establishments to make efforts to protect the health of our citizens. I don't think ya'll quite understand how terrible secondhand smoke truly is. This isn't a business or individual rights issue, this is a health issue, and an important one to me.

Then allow private establishments the right to ban it themselves. Nobody is forced to actually go to a restaurant that allows smoking if they have such a problem with it.

Minors, almost all the time, have no choice, if they're with their parents or some other authority figure. Also, alot of people are pressured into going by the group they're with. Further, why should a few smokers that directly harm the health of everyone around them inconvenience other people, as if it's their fault?

It's a matter of civil liberty. Now what it's dependent on is whether your idea of liberty involves the right to smoke wherever and whenever, or whether your idea of liberty involves the right to a smoke-free environment preserving health and piece of mind.

I'd hope this Senate comes to the conclusion that it is the right of Atlasians to have a smoke-free environment, and given that taxpayer funded health care is in effect, we discourage such harmful and unhealthy behavior as much as possible.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

you make a compelling argument, Hamiton.

My question is this: If you don't your tax dollars going to treat smokers' lung cancer, what other unhealthy activities would you be willing to discourage or prohibit? Should McDonalds be shut down because of the potential health risks? Or should people also not be able to consume alcohol in public places.

I'm not asking this to get on anyone's nerves. I'm also not implying that smoking is the same thing as eating a hamburger.

I only want to know how far you'd be willing to go.

Personally, the hamburger or the drink aren't nearly as bad to me because they don't adversely affect the health of others. I do think more measures could be taken to discourage those unhealthy products as well, but it's far less of a problem.

[Alexander Hamilton]

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.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Personally, the hamburger or the drink aren't nearly as bad to me because they don't adversely affect the health of others. I do think more measures could be taken to discourage those unhealthy products as well, but it's far less of a problem.

Are you aware of the obesity epidemic?

Yes. It's horrible, but second-hand obesity isn't as much of a problem as second-hand smoke.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Personally, the hamburger or the drink aren't nearly as bad to me because they don't adversely affect the health of others. I do think more measures could be taken to discourage those unhealthy products as well, but it's far less of a problem.

Are you aware of the obesity epidemic?

Yes. It's horrible, but second-hand obesity isn't as much of a problem as second-hand smoke.

And first-hand obesity is a greater problem than first- and second-hand smoking combined.

Which is a problem that could and should be addressed in a different bill.