[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: Cerek, the hypothetical I pressented is "what if she has no other place to work". It's futile to argue whether the hypothetical COULD occur, because I presented it as a hypothetical which still stands. WHAT IF that's the only job she can get? She is then FORCED to choose between health and food.

OK, I'll give this a shot...even though you seem to change the rules slightly as we go along. First, it was "what if waitstaff is the only job she can get". This still leaves several businesses that would need her services. Now we are limiting that to one particular establishment in NYC. Not exactly realistic, but what the heck - I'll run with it.

IF this is the ONLY waitress job available in NYC AND the restaurant allows patrons to smoke inside - then YES, she WILL have to choose between exposure to second-hand smoke and feeding her children. Any parent will tell you this is NOT a hard choice. The health risks presented by second-hand smoke are minor compared to the risk of your children going hungry. Actually the health risks from second hand smoke are minor in comparison to the fallen arches, swollen knees, shin splints, twisted ankles, and arthritis she is likely to suffer from her waitress duties - not to mention the burns from spilled coffee or hot pasta dishes.

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: What's so hard about a smoker being forced to go outside in NYC?? 1) Rain. 2) Strong winds (messing up the hair of women smokers). 3) Below freezing temperatures. 4) Snow. Of course, none of these situations really matter because it's the smokers fault for being an addict, right?

Compared to lung cancer is that such a bad deal?[/QUOTE]No it isn't, Yorick. So show me a case study of a non-smoker that died of lung cancer because they liked to frequent bars and restaurants that allowed smoking. Even the example presented by Bardan can not meet that standard. The reporter's job exposed him to significant amounts of second hand smoke for long periods of time - and it still took many years for the cancer to form.

Willow basically said the same thing...that it can take a tumor over 30 years to form. I don't know many women who wait tables for 30 years. Even if she did, her children will now be grown and able to feed themselves, allowing her the freedom to seek other jobs.

Originally posted by Yorick: I know smokers that smoke outside of their own home Cerek. They won't smoke inside at all. What's the big deal?

The "big deal" my friend is that it is their CHOICE to do so. They are not FORCED to do it by the government. The individual is allowed to decide for themselves!!!!

Rokenn was correct when he said that the case of the NY Mall vs the T-shirt was an issue concerning the First Amendent rights of the patron in question. He was incorrect when he said the ban on smoking was entirely different.

The Preamble of the Constitution garuantees EVERY American the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The smoking ban restricts two of these three rights.....the right to liberty {freedom from excessive gov't restrictions} and the pursuit of happiness {enjoying a cigarette after a meal or with their drink}. The smoker themselves are restricting their right to life...but it is their choice to do so.

Privately owned businesses should have the freedom to choose whether a legal activity is allowed to occur inside their establishment or if it will be banned within the confines of their walls. If they choose to allow smoking inside, then the individual (smoker and non-smoker alike) should be allowed to chose whether he indulges his pleasure and "lights up", or waits until he leaves the bar before having a cigarette.

In either case, the choice of policy is left to the business owner and the choice of compliance is left (primarily) with the individual patron. THAT is truly "equality for everyone".