Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If smokers actually left places smoke free of their own volition, I'd be fine. But they feel they have the 'right' to smoke, and so I have the 'right' to vote for bans.
I just came back in for a minute before hitting the sack and caught this one. And I am "crushing my ugly head between my two hands and shaking it*
This is NOT about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. It is about private property rights. If you don't want to smell smoke, then DON'T go into a place where it is allowed. Simple as that.
Strange as it might seem, CallMeLaura, you have no more rights than that spelled out in the Bill of Rights. This "me" culture is scary to me.
Earth to whoever? You have NO inherent right to enter my place of business (assuming I owned one) and expect me to do anything more than provide a good/service that you knew ahead of time was going to be provided. So what if I wanted to permit smoking in my place? My own property? That I pay for and put up the money for? If you don't like it? Leave, or don't come in. Simple as that.
OR..you might boycott, write, petition, approch, me and get me to change my policies on smoking. I might or might not. But if it is MY property, then it should be MY decision to make. Not the goverments.
Ok...I have ranted and raved enough for the night. Fried chicken and blackeyed peas await tomorow! G'night y'all
Just to clarify... you have no rights under the Bill of Rights when you are on private property. You have no right to free speech, no right to bear arms, no right to anything.
The Bill of Rights enumerates God given rights that the federal, state, and local governments must recognize. Any rights not enumerated within the Bill of Rights is not considered a lack of a right, however it is considered a lack of enumeration of that right by the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I say this not in disagreement with you Reb, just clarifying for others that may misinterpret your last statement.
This is NOT about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. It is about private property rights. If you don't want to smell smoke, then DON'T go into a place where it is allowed. Simple as that.
Strange as it might seem, CallMeLaura, you have no more rights than that spelled out in the Bill of Rights. This "me" culture is scary to me.
Earth to whoever? You have NO inherent right to enter my place of business (assuming I owned one) and expect me to do anything more than provide a good/service that you knew ahead of time was going to be provided. So what if I wanted to permit smoking in my place? My own property? That I pay for and put up the money for? If you don't like it? Leave, or don't come in. Simple as that.
If it is truly a private property issue, like your home, or even a private club of some kind where you choose to agree to certain terms in order to become a member, then I 100% agree with and support you.
If we are talking about a business, such as a restaurant, which is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (not a private club), then it is far from simple.
The restaurant's product is not the air inside the building. If it were, then you would be correct. If that were the product or service of restaurants, then it is my choice as a consumer to choose the product or service that I deem worthy of trading money for. That would be free market and capitalism.
The product is NOT air however. I really hope you will consider what I am saying and not just glance at it thinking how to counter. If I want restaurant A's Super Cheddar Cheeseburger, then it is my right as a consumer under the system of capitalism to have access to this product without having to deal with a contaminated environment. What you are saying as applied to this situation, this is against capitalism and free market. A business first of all has the responsibility to provide their product or service in a safe manner. A car maker cannot legally sell a car that does not pass inspection, for example. Secondly, restaurants are not private clubs, they are open to the public, so they cannot deny access to potential consumers by providing the product/service in a contaminated environment that is detrimental to the health of ALL people in general (not a small subset) and simply say 'If you don't like it, go somewhere else.' That, my friend, is AGAINST capitalism and free market.
On top of this, your logic is also flawed by this: if all businesses open to the public had the policy you describe, where would this other place be for people to go to????? You seem to be stuck in this mindset where only a few places are allowing people to smoke and since there are so many other places where smoking is not allowed, then the few places that still let people smoke should be left alone. Have you ever actually been somewhere outside of the US? Somewhere where smoking is still pretty much allowed anywhere and everywhere?
If we are talking about a business, such as a restaurant, which is OPEN TO THE PUBLIC (not a private club), then it is far from simple.
The restaurant's product is not the air inside the building. If it were, then you would be correct. If that were the product or service of restaurants, then it is my choice as a consumer to choose the product or service that I deem worthy of trading money for. That would be free market and capitalism.
Funny, I always thought that's what they meant by the "atmosphere" of the restaurant. The restaurant experience is MORE than just about the food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadmaster200
If I want restaurant A's Super Cheddar Cheeseburger, then it is my right as a consumer under the system of capitalism to have access to this product without having to deal with a contaminated environment.
So I guess the sign on the door that reads "We have the right to refuse service" is meaningless and I can do whatever I please once inside and they have no legal right to remove me. I will order the courts to extract the burger from the establishment because my rights are king.
Do you even understand how a market economy works? If enough patrons decide the 'atmosphere' of the restaurant is not satisfactory they will vote with their pocketbook. Thus, the owner will either fail and be closed or decide he can accept the loss of business and continue. Either way, it is HIS choice.
Curious question, if you go into a hospital do you require they cease and desist from using any X-ray equipment while you are there? Those X rays are causing you substantial more harm than the second hand smoke. Or are the X rays an agreed and acceptable risk that you are comfortable with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadmaster200
Have you ever actually been somewhere outside of the US? Somewhere where smoking is still pretty much allowed anywhere and everywhere?
Of course, I've lived in China for several months (and numerous places in Europe). Our system might not be perfect, but it's the best of the worst. The foundations of freedom and personal responsibility that we enjoy in this country are the basis for our successful (comparitively speaking) way of life.
Peachy
Former smoker
Lifetime Libertarian (Go Ron Paul!)
Just to clarify... you have no rights under the Bill of Rights when you are on private property. You have no right to free speech, no right to bear arms, no right to anything.
The Bill of Rights enumerates God given rights that the federal, state, and local governments must recognize. Any rights not enumerated within the Bill of Rights is not considered a lack of a right, however it is considered a lack of enumeration of that right by the 9th Amendment. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
I say this not in disagreement with you Reb, just clarifying for others that may misinterpret your last statement.
Funny, I always thought that's what they meant by the "atmosphere" of the restaurant. The restaurant experience is MORE than just about the food.
So I guess the sign on the door that reads "We have the right to refuse service" is meaningless and I can do whatever I please once inside and they have no legal right to remove me. I will order the courts to extract the burger from the establishment because my rights are king.
Do you even understand how a market economy works? If enough patrons decide the 'atmosphere' of the restaurant is not satisfactory they will vote with their pocketbook. Thus, the owner will either fail and be closed or decide he can accept the loss of business and continue. Either way, it is HIS choice.
Curious question, if you go into a hospital do you require they cease and desist from using any X-ray equipment while you are there? Those X rays are causing you substantial more harm than the second hand smoke. Or are the X rays an agreed and acceptable risk that you are comfortable with?
Of course, I've lived in China for several months (and numerous places in Europe). Our system might not be perfect, but it's the best of the worst. The foundations of freedom and personal responsibility that we enjoy in this country are the basis for our successful (comparitively speaking) way of life.
Peachy
Former smoker
Lifetime Libertarian (Go Ron Paul!)
Well put, Peachy. I was all prepared to reply myself, when I read your own response. It was pretty much what I would have said. You saved me a bit of typing this morning!
Newbie? You say one persons rights end where it begins to infringe on anothers. I totally agree. However, your (or anybody else) "rights" stop when you enter (by choice) another persons home, or business establishment. If you knew they allowed smoking, the solution is simple. Don't go to that place.
What in the world is so hard to understand about that?
I agree with a lot of what you say. But the difference is that the government is certainly allowed to stop any activity that is deemed a public health risk.
Are you saying that people should be allowed to do Meth if they are in a private residence? Oh wait, Meth is illegal.
Let's use guns as an example. You cannot shoot a gun within a certain distance of a highway - even if you are on public property. Why? Cause the bullet can kill someone. I directly relate this to smoking with one difference - the bullet is clearly the murder weapon. Smoking takes years, but it does the same thing.
If it weren't for the money made via taxes and the money spent on lobbying, smoking would be made illegal in the US. Period. To argue that it's a right is, IMO, silly. It endangers other people's lives. Period. Therefore, it should be illegal. It is NOT a right. You are seeing this trend start in Europe. Thank God!
A hospital??? How can a hospital be used as comparison? Who goes to hospitals as a consumer to purchase a good or service? Who chooses to go to a hospital because of desire? X-rays? Are you serious? Who the hell is trying to use an X-ray machine anywhere and everywhere all the time affecting the health of third persons? Risk? Again, if millions of people were constantly trying to use X-ray machine all over the place anywhere and everywhere, then of course it would not be worth the risk.
Everyone who keeps bringing up free market and capitalism and private ownership does not seem to understand the fact that smoking, as a result of second-hand smoke, causes serious damage to the health of third people. This makes it an issue of public safety, health, whatever, and this is why it should be regulated by a government, federal or local, as with drinking and driving, murder, rape, assault, etc. Because it is a public safety issue, private property rights, capitalism, free market, whatever does not even enter into the picture. It is not for business owners to decide, NOR is it for the consumer to decide. I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend. Example: Making rape or murder illegal, despite the fact that some people may want to make a business out of it by providing people to rape or murder (or both) as a service or despite the fact that some people might be willing to pay for such a service, is easy to understand, right? Exactly the same thing with smoking. It is not even slightly different.
If smoking was simply a nuisance and smelled bad, then all this free market crap would be 100% justified.
I agree with a lot of what you say. But the difference is that the government is certainly allowed to stop any activity that is deemed a public health risk.
Are you saying that people should be allowed to do Meth if they are in a private residence? Oh wait, Meth is illegal.
Let's use guns as an example. You cannot shoot a gun within a certain distance of a highway - even if you are on public property. Why? Cause the bullet can kill someone. I directly relate this to smoking with one difference - the bullet is clearly the murder weapon. Smoking takes years, but it does the same thing.
If it weren't for the money made via taxes and the money spent on lobbying, smoking would be made illegal in the US. Period. To argue that it's a right is, IMO, silly. It endangers other people's lives. Period. Therefore, it should be illegal. It is NOT a right. You are seeing this trend start in Europe. Thank God!
Brian
The operative word you use here is "public." Within the confines of a public/goverment building (courthouse, city hall, municipal auditorium, etc) that is to say, supported by taxpayers, there is indeed a "right" (assuming the voters agree) to restrict smoking. No problems there.
However, PRIVATE property is another matter. You (in the third person sense) have no inherent "right" to enter on to my property. Whether it be my home or place of business.
And as I have said, and several others as well, there are no limits to what can be defined as a "public health risk" if enough special interest group people decide to get together and lobby for government to declare it so. The use of perfume or colonge is one example that has been cited.
The operative word you use here is "public." Within the confines of a public/goverment building (courthouse, city hall, municipal auditorium, etc) that is to say, supported by taxpayers, there is indeed a "right" (assuming the voters agree) to restrict smoking. No problems there.
However, PRIVATE property is another matter. You (in the third person sense) have no inherent "right" to enter on to my property. Whether it be my home or place of business.
And as I have said, and several others as well, there are no limits to what can be defined as a "public health risk" if enough special interest group people decide to get together and lobby for government to declare it so. The use of perfume or colonge is one example that has been cited.
So you do believe that while on your PRIVATE property, laws don't apply.
As I stated and you conveniently ignored, do you feel you can do Meth on your private property?
Do you feel you can shoot your gun on private property close to a highway?
These are just two examples where government DOES and SHOULD have control over what people do on private property. Another is simply a building permit. Do you think that the government "dictating" that you build your home with certain specifications to ensure safety is in some way wrong? You're building on private property.
Your argument doesn't hold water. When it comes to public safety, the private property argument is a very weak defense.
Brian
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
