broken smoking dichotomy
Recently the Michigan State House of Representatives passed a bill banning the act of smoking by patrons on various types of private property including restaurants, clubs and other gathering places regardless of the intentions and will of the respective owner(s).
The usual and loudest justification for this interdiction into private property, private citizens, and private citizens’ private property rights, is that this is a public health concern and that the allowance of smoking in these places damages the health of the service-staff at the smoking-places. It is usually phrased as thus:
You should not have to choose between your health and a paycheck.
I think there are some good (clever) responses to that, since this is apparently about choice. For instance
You should be able to choose between your health and a paycheck.
They also emphasize that people willingly endure actual damage (caused by chemicals native to the workplace environment for the money necessary for living yet they forget that
people choose to hurt their bodies for pleasure why can they not choose to harm their bodies for work?
These moral busy bodies act as if waitresses are tied to stocks with Zyklon-B gas-hoses jammed down throats. I think smoking is a disgusting habit and I know more than most people A) how lethal it is and B) just how unpleasant second-hand smoke can be. I hear people complaining about how irritating it is that someone in the restaurant they chose to patronize is smoking… I lived with the smoke for 15 years. They could leave. After 15 years the smoking died with the smoker.