I read a friend's recent post and had to comment. This is a topic that I debated about much with myself and others around me (Jessi, I do miss our debates since I left...haven't had a worthy opponent since) and I ended up voting against it. No, I'm not a smoker, and I do like the idea of having more places be smoke free, but this was not the problem that I saw with this initiative. In the end, it bothered me that, once again, a control was being put on a freedom of choice. It is my choice to go to a place that is smoking vs a place that is non-smoking, just as it is (or was) the choice of the owner to make the place smoking or non. If I had a problem with a place being smoking, I could write or talk to the owner and let them know that my business would be taken elsewhere, less they change. This gave the owner a right to choose. I do not think that it is right for anyone to dictate the way anyone runs a legit business. It is the owner's responsibility to create an environment that will bring customers and the customer's responsibility to find a business that caters to them.
One way that I have thought about it is that I am left-handed, which makes me a minority in the dominant-hand arena. Now we could pass a law making it illegal for any business to sell left-handed or ambidextrous goods. This would make more room for right-handed things and I would have to force myself (willing or no) to use right-handed items.
My point is that I should have as much of a choice of being able to go to a store that carries left-handed goods as a person has a choice to go to a smoking or non-smoking establishment and it's not right for someone else to take that freedom of choice from them by forcing the decision.
posted by ~mike @ 10:18 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Smoking is not allowed in or around public facilities as it should be for the reasons you list, but we are talking about privately owned businesses. Yeah, there's a health risk, but it's the responsibilty of the individual to make sure that they don't subject themselves to it. Furthermore, if we are to start banning potential illegal drugs, shall we ban alcohol? Caffeine? And while we're banning things that have the potential to harm people, hows about sports, video games, and fluid exchanges! How's about a future consisting of "a 47-year-old virgin, sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing, "I'm an Oscar Meyer wiener" because this the direction we seem to be heading. For better or worse, I want the choice, the freedom, the power to decide my own destiny. If I have the sudden desire to go to a smoke-choked bar and pound a few with my friends, I want to do it and I don't want somebody else telling me I can't.
It's a freedom and, while it may benefit some of us in the short-term, restricting our freedoms will help nobody in the long run because it just opens the door to similar laws.
Mike, thank you for your comment. I haven't had a good office debate since you and Jeremy left.
You're thoughts on this please.
Jeremy, while I see your point and the point that many argue, I do have to hold to my perspective on this one so, yes, I agree to disagree.
Jessi, I found that article to be a nice summation of a lot of the talk and speculation of what is currently happening and what may be happening in the future with Google and a number of the other tech/internet giants. I think, however, that in order for some of the authors preditions to succeed, the internet in itself is going to have to become a much more stable and fixed entity. Unfortunately for growth, it is still quite caotic and volitile. As you see quite often in your work place, as do I, it is very difficult to keep the entirety of it up all the time. Time, however, is key. In time it will become faster, more stable, and more standardized, creating the oportunity for much growth and change.
I do know one thing for sure; know matter what is to come, I can't wait and am ever excited to see what's around the corner.
Post a Comment
<< Home