Thats what they called it, "The Fireman's Rule". Now I did have to go to the Comp Board because my employer did try to only pay 50% benefits. The example they gave was if I slipped on the ice in the parking lot of the station then it is not an inherently hazardous part of my job, it is one of the risks I assume living in new England. The Comp Commissioner shook her head at that and said if I slipped on the station because there was ice in the parking lot they would be better off paying me and not having me sue my employer!

She laughed that the Department would even argue that.

Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

So, according to the liberal view, it's not okay for me to smoke a cigar and infringe on the well being of a non-smoker, but it is okay for a woman to abort a pregnancy and infringe on the well being of her fetus. Isn't that what's called "Hypocrisy"???

The mind boggles.

Look, first of all, I dunno about "the liberal view". I don't presume to speak on behalf of the "liberal left" -- my comments here reflect my views only.

Fair enough then...please change "Liberal Left" to "Jack White".

quote:

Second, I'm have no idea what your point is about abortion, why you thought it would be appropriate to insert it into a thread about smoking bans, or how it's in any way pertinent. Have you somehow gotten the dumb idea that if a person supports smoking bans, he'll also support abortion, just to be consistent?

I was using one arguement to prove another. No, I don't have the dumb idea that if a person supports smoking bans they support abortion. What I am saying is that if a person smokes and causes undo risk to a non-smoking bartender that make a choice to work in a bar where smoking was allowed, then by that same manner a woman getting an abortion is causing undo risk to her fetus. It is a known fact that, although you may personally disagree with it (I don't know if you do or don't and it's not relative), the liberal movement is pro-choice, but anti-tobacco. What is the differnce between a bartender and a fetus if they are both viewed as living being by way of feticide laws? Why is one okay, but not the other?

quote:

And third, you begin your post by manufacturing a premise based on convoluted logic and a mistaken assumption, then use that premise throughout your argument (whatever it is you're arguing for -- against smoking bans, against abortion?). New York does not have the constitutional right to ban abortions. What the legislature can do is show concern for the rights of the unborn by passing feticide laws that provide for charging the killer of a pregnant women with two counts of murder. Many states have such a law.

How is it convulted? If a living being is at risk by tobacco, then according to NY State law, I can't smoke there. However, a living being is at risk by abortion, but that is perfectly legal. Either way, a living being is at risk. How is the non-smoker different than the fetus if they are both at risk?

quote:

Oh, and Jack...as far as the rat dropping comment is concered, when the day comes that I can walk into my local 7-11 and buy a pack of rat droppings off the shelf, I'll give you that part of your arguement back.

I have no earthly idea what the hell you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

Here is part of your reply to a post from Scotological on Page 1 of this thread.

"...I'm not sure why you think there's no law against allowing rat droppings in the salad. Of course there is. There are many regulations to which Health Department inspectors require restaurant or tavern owners to adhere ... sanitation, meat storage, rodent excrement, temperature of the water dishes are washed in, and others..."

Of course there are laws against having rat droppings in food. When I walk into a restaurant or a bar, I am assuming that there will be no feces in my beer. However, tobacco is a legal product and it's comsumption by way of smoking is legal. When an adult accepts a job in a place that has smoking, they are aware of the situation at the time of acceptance and are assuming the risks of being aroud 2nd hand smoke. If they do not want to work in a place that allows smoking, they should not seek employment at that location.

I'm sorry that if you feel you were being lumped in with my references toward the "liberal left" but the fact that both the liberals are the ones behind the tobacco bans and you are in favor of the tobacco bans, that's guilt by association. Whatever your views on abortion are, are irrelevent to the arguement. However, the arguements do share a link in that both are affected by the health and well-being of the victims. One is legal and the other is not. Why is that?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: The EVP,

The sad thing that permeates through this argument is the fact that we are becoming more isolated from each other. Before the smoking bans became entrenched, I remember cigars were a great icebreaker. Bars, restaurants,teeming with activity, often begat great opportunities for smokers and non-smokers alike to relate to each other. Sitting alone, I often found while smoking conversations would abound. It was always fun engaging in interaction with strangers, and that cigars were the great focal point. Before too long drinks were bought and friendships created. Now bars are emptier, and people stand alone. Eventually, what will germinate is that we will all walk around in our own bubbles. As for the personal attacks in this converstion, remember: Its not personal Sonny, it's business.

I'm into a really busy period with my business at the moment, and have neither the time nor the intellectual energy to continue participating in this particular thread. Being called a 'troll' and an 'asshole' notwithstanding, it's been fun. Oddly unsatisfying, though. Anyway, a final recap.

I don't smoke cigarettes, but I love cigars -- they give me a lot of enjoyment and cigar bars are a source of pleasure and good times. Thankfully, my oral surgeon tells me I can start smoking them again in another week!

And still, I think smoking bans in public places -- offices, restaurants, theaters, etc. -- are good public health policy because of the danger of tobacco smoke to others, and the nuisance it causes. It is, in my view, a matter of safety in the workplace, no different than controlling the amount of asbestos to which workers can be exposed, or requiring hard hats on construction sites. The increased risk of cancer and heart disease from tobacco smoke to bystanders, patrons or employees, in my view, overrides whatever pleasure is to be derived from lighting up a Kool or an Oliva V, and I believe governments have a legitimate and appropriate interest in matters of both public health and workplace safety.

Bars? Okay, you can make an argument for allowing exceptions for bars that can meet standards for ventilation, air-scrubbing and the like, and I'll support it. Same with physically-separate lounges for smoking in restaurants. I've always stated here that the laws overreach and exemptions should be easier to come by.

While it's true that Republican lawmakers happily accept a quantum level more money than Democrats from Big Tobacco, I think it's a mistake to consider it just a liberal vs. conservative issue. Extremely conservative states, like Utah, Idaho and Florida, have sweeping bans on smoking in public places. The Southern Baptist Convention has been on record supporting no-smoking laws for many years. Conservative GOP candidate Mike Huckabee not only favors a federal no-smoking law, but as governor of Arkansas, he supported a measure to totally ban cigarette sales in the state. The smoking ban initiatives in California have all originated in rock-solidly conservative communities in Orange County by Republican assemblymen.

As a matter of fact, the true "liberal view" is that goverments should not attempt to enforce by law our individual well-being, which is no one's business but ours. Don't try to make me do something just because it's good for me. The ACLU, consistent with its opposition to lifestyle discrimination, has filed court briefs arguing that companies should not be able to prohibit their employees from smoking on non-company time. They also persuaded the state of Rhode Island to allow the Narragansett tribe to smoke as part of religious ceremonies. Don't be so quick to blame solely the "liberal left" for smoking bans.

Okay, back to work. I gotta make a buck or two.

Busy times at business is a good thing...hope business keeps staying well. Just for the record, I enjoyed the debate and nothing I said was meant to be personal. I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I respect your right to them and your defense of them.

quote:

Sorry Jack, I was in one of my foul moods, and I sincerely apologize.

S'ok .. it happens.

quote:

I enjoyed the debate and nothing I said was meant to be personal. I may not agree with your viewpoint, but I respect your right to them and your defense of them.

I feel just the same. Thank you.