Doesnt catering to the inferior disenfranchise the superior?
For instance, anti-smoking laws disenfranchise smokers who are smart enough to choose to go to a restaurant or give their business to a place that allows smoking...
whereas anti-smokers are too stupid and utterly inept to choose to go to a bar or restaurant that doesn't allow smoking. (no one forced them to go to one that does)
So laws are made to cater to the inept that in turn strip business owners of property rights and smokers of individual liberty.
Answers:
Anti-smoking laws do not "disenfranchise" smokers. As in anti-smoking laws do not prevent smokers from voting.
Why are you claiming that the non-smokers are inferior? Smokers are the ones who start an addictive habit and knowingly hurt their health on a regular basis- how is that superior?
Also when smoking is legal in restaurants and bars usually establishments have non-smoking and smoking sections; it is less common for an entire place to be smoking or non-smoking. However the harmful effects of smoking are not easily confined to one "section".
Inept means clumsy, is that what you meant to say - non-smokers are clumsy? Because that doesn't really make sense.
Smokers are not stripped of their individual liberties. The key here is individual. Because smoking in public exposes others to the effects of smoking it is the smoker who is infringing on others' rights, not vice versa. Your individual liberties stop at harming others.
Smoking in establishments is not about the rights of the owners, the rights of the employees to a safe work environment trump any alleged loss in business or clientele.
In communities that allow smoking try actually FINDING a fully non-smoking establisment.
Find Elvis whiile you're at it.
And I also shouldn't be put into a position where I'm slowly killed because you're a stupid, utterly inept, addict.
Not in this case.
Of liberty and servitude.
Unfortunately, alas, there are more non-smokers than smokers and thus since its considered healthier to NOT smoke, they constitutionally pass laws that discriminate against smokers.
Smokers are treated like 2nd class citizens, worse than scum, and shunned as evil, decrepit, perversed fools.
The saddest part of what I have written, aside from it being 100 percent true, is that smokers are people too.
Heck, even illegal immigrants get treated better than smokers!
And worse yet, illegal immigrants have more rights even though they aren't citizens and don't reside here.
If a non-smoker could deport an illegal alien rather than a citizen who happens to be a smoker, they'd deport the smoker.
The worst offenders are the sandal-wearing, pot-smoking hippy types that think its okay to toke all day long because pot is natural, but its a crime to smoke cigarettes, cigars or God forbid, pipe tobacco.
What a bunch of sanctimonious horse****!
So when you go and blaze up outside your local government building, where you've paid taxes ever so dearly, remember that you are hated. Hated I tell you, by a bunch of self-righteous, sanctimonious BS artists.
The problem with smoking bans is that it is a violation of the rights of smokers and private business owners. The reason the bill of rights was created was to establish limits on the amount and types of control the majority or (as is often the case) the government minority can exert.
There is no violation of a non-smokers rights if he/she choses to eat or drink at a bar or restaurant that doesn't have enough filtration or separation of the sections. This is a choice.
The law definable is for stupid people because it is not needed and violates civil rights. If non-smokers had the will and intelligence to boycott the places that were inadequate in their section separation, business owners would (willfully as it should be in a democratic nation) decide to ban smoking or put in better filtration. The truth is, most places had perfectly fine separation/filtration-accept for bars.
The argument for non-smoking bars though, is absurd since 99.9% of everyone there is drinking-already a poor health choice and a much larger proportion of patrons smoke, either pot or cigs; therefore the majority would NOT want smoke free bars.
The truth about the non-smoking movement, in my opinion is that its just an outlet for anger for 99% of the people involved. They are being rude, bossy, infringing on others-but they have the excuse of health. If you are allergic to bread you cannot ban bakeries! If you don't eat sugar because it's bad for you you cannot force businesses to not carry it. If YOU don't like the idea of microscopic particles that make escape the open air vented smoking section...DON'T go to the restaurant and let them know whats up. If you don't have the will to stop pigging out at the local restaurants over it, you don't care enough to get it done, let alone force it on everyone else.
Are we all so immature that we have to have a rule made every time our opinions sway and we decide we want things to change? Supply and demand, civil rights, it's what our country was founded on!
Unless theres a major problem like racists burning people and refusing to hire etc., civil rights should be preserved.
Also, there's no way 1st or 2nd hand smoke causes all the problems attributed to them-france and the japanese both smoke at a much much higher rate with vastly lower rates of lung cancer and heart disease, idiots.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: