The slippery slope

Which are private property, the owners invite the public to come and buy their products & services. It is not owned by the public in any way. The public comes or does not come at their will, they are not required to in any way.

The next step has begun. Those who think they are entitled to have all think and behave as they do step-it-up even to the point of making-up science.

Trans Fat Lawsuit Against KFC Based on Thin ScienceTrans Fat Lawsuit Against KFC Based on Thin Science

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Which are private property, the owners invite the public to come and buy their products & services. It is not owned by the public in any way. The public comes or does not come at their will, they are not required to in any way.

I'm not certain this matters much, anyway, as the issue of smoking in private businesses could be simply rolled in under public health code, which is where I think such laws would reside, anyway.

Sure, OSHA air quality applies... as long as the air quality and ventilation allows for it, I don't see what the issue is.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Sure, OSHA air quality applies...

And any other air quality laws that happen to be passed, such as anti-smoking laws.

Wrong, OSHA enforces EPA standards for associates health, levels that are deemed unsafe for prolonged exposure. If you excluded all carcinogens that would include closing all kitchens, paint stores, nail salons, grills and any other business that puts anything into the air. It is about the associates, not the public.

[Happy Monkey]

That's why they're separate laws. But both laws apply.

The law imposing the publics wishes upon privates property owner's rights should not, however.

[Happy Monkey]

They both do.

Nope, one is about regulating the environment of workers. The other is just fascist individuals who want to force others to be like them.
The two have nothing to do with each other.
Because with proper ventilation people smoking in an establishment are well within OSHA standards. Always have been.

[Happy Monkey]

One regulates the environment of workers, one regulates the environment of customers (and workers). Both impose a public interest onto private property.

So the public needs different air standards? Be specific on what you mean by that and how you come to this conclusion.

[Happy Monkey]

No, the employees can't smoke either.

You misunderstood completely, but clearly showed how you want to rule everyone else's lives.

[Happy Monkey]

You just keep trying to make distinctions that don't exist. OSHA laws and anti-smoking laws both make impositions on private property owners' rights for the benefit of people who could go somewhere else. So do handicap-accessibility laws. So do USDA meat inspection guidelines. Also the FDA drug approval process. They all have the same legal justifications. Many people disagree with those justifications, and that is a valid position (though I hope it doesn't become a majority opinion), but I don't see any way to say OSHA is "regulating the environment of workers" and that's OK, while anti-smoking laws regulate the environment of workers (and also customers) and that's "fascist individuals who want to force others to be like them".

Your issue seems to be with the scientific justification, not the legal one.

Again, incorrect. I agree there must be a safe work environment.
At the point where we agree on the level of save air quality, that is it. End of story.
The rest is up to the property owner. The anti-smoking laws have nothing to so with safe environments, ventilation and reason they have to do with a group imposing their personal tastes on everyone else.