| marley said: You're right, no one is being forced into a place that allows smoking. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the right to purchase goods/services or work somewhere without the risk of bodily harm. This is why there are such things as building codes, health inspectors, fire marshalls etc. Secondhand smoke creates a real risk. It shouldn't be involuntarily imposed upon people simply because someone else is addicted and too inconsiderate to take their bad habit somewhere else. In the US there is no federal legislation on the subject. There are only state/local laws and they're different everywhere you go. But even in places where it's not law, most business still ban smoking because it's good business. It also reduces their healthcare costs and insurance premiums. |
I disagree. I don't think you do have a "right to purchase... or work somewhere without risk of bodily harm".
At the end of the day, there are property owners. You and someone else. If you want to trade something with them, sure, but the trade has to be under conditions that both parties agree to, or the trade doesn't occur. If one party wants to allow smoking in the place where the trade occurs, and the other party doesn't, then the trade doesn't go forward. You shouldn't be allowed to bend the conditions to your liking, and force the trade to go ahead strictly under your terms, that's immoral.
Whether or not something is "good business" does not have an impact on the morality of the argument.
