Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Penn: to live in, price, safety)

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Smaller diner type restaurants that also served as social gathering places for regulars and bars that served strictly alcohol suffered. .

I don't know about that. The Glider diner in Scranton banned smoking last year and the place is as crowded as ever, if not more crowded. It brought in people like me, families with children, who would not have gone there before. So, while they may have lost some of the old-timers who came in, bought a few cups of coffee and chain smoked and read the paper, they gained a lot more families who come in and buy meals.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

On the other hand there is study linked to in previous post that indicated Bars in New York State lost a lot of business.

Although I'll bet that beer stores gained business because more people stayed home to drink. That's not a bad thing...money is still being pumped into the economy, and the roads are safer because people are staying home to drink rather than going out to bars and drinking and driving.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

I don't know about that. The Glider diner in Scranton banned smoking last year and the place is as crowded as ever, if not more crowded.

I wouldn't doubt it since most other restaurants in the area had smoking sections? Did any other restaurants in the area follow their lead? The difference there is the customers were replaced by new ones because they had a unique policy. As I previously mentioned I'm surprised there isn't more restaurants that are smoke free and make a point to market that fact. Since all restaurants will be smoke free these smaller diners that have a lot of regualrs that smoke won't have that advantage.

[harleyrider1978]

life without freedom

I ask you, do you remember your grandfather talking about the great war........The war that was to free the peoples of europe from NAZI aggression. Your grandfathers message
wasnt about the acts of war or the terrors of war but of the rights, freedoms and liberty of all people.
America has fought wars all over the world,our blood is
the foundation for many free societies of today.Many of these countries try and emulate our greatness but has our greatness blinded our reasons for being.
In todays fast paced life and victim mentality where everyone is afraid of offending someone or even some inanimate objects. Did we lose a pathway in americas greatness,have we come to the point where those values of our own liberty have been lost to politically correct ideaologies.
The founding fathers had a great plan a very big social experiment where liberty and rights and freedom were to be
the inheritance for all americans in their great experiment called america. We the people,sounds great doesnt it,well we the people are all individuals where the greatness of the whole is no greater than the rights of one. A pyramid one might call it. A pyramid of rights and liberties that when stacked up build a country based upon the freedom of the individual to go and come as they please,to excersice their god given liberty as they see fit not as government see's fit.

The constitution wasnt really written to create a government as much as it was written to empower the people to be individuals and limit government intrusion upon those individuals.

When I read the constitution I dont read into it,I pretty much just read what it says and take it for that....
What I do find amazing is how lawyers and judges and even the congress have REDEFINED what it says and means.
When, WE THE PEOPLE read the constitution we pretty much take it for granted that what it says is what it means.
We the people havent been REEDUCATED by universities and colleges to reinterpret what the constitution says or means. We pretty much have a unbiased outlook on its meaning and when we say hey that laws unconstitutional from our unbiased perspective after reading the constitution. Thats when WE THE PEOPLE must ask whats going on here and why are you outlawing my rights or their rights.............
In come the social engineers with their lawyers and scientists and media hypsters.........and lets not forget the truest of the social eletists the ETHECISTS. Ya those guys, you see bascially an ethecists finds ways to alter or change societal thought and patterns. They come up with uniques ways to get people to think another way and perpetuate social change....whether you like change or not isnt the question here. The question is does this change alter my constitutional rights and individual liberty.
What will this new thought and perceptions have upon me,my home,my family. Will it mean my kids grow up with less freedom than I have had,will my values be outlawed or denied by this new progressive thought.
We come back to the constitution again, the constitution is a living document for the ages. It sets down and protects people from changes. Your rights are set in stone
supposedly by the constitution,but to the ethecist the constitution gets in the way of social reforms and so he with other progressives contribe ways in which to change the thought of WE THE PEOPLE, there by gaining the ability to bannish our rights and liberties thru feel good legislation and other social reform laws.
Its kind of like buying something from a fast salesman, he tells you how important this is and how great itll be when you have it......then to make you think its an even better deal he throws big reputable names out who want this thing too. He further builds the case of buying into his deal by utilizing scientific case studies to back up his fraudulent case.......but hey how are WE THE PEOPLE to know any diferent........the same salesmans pitch is on every channel with uhoh no opposing views.
The first warning IS no one has an arbitrary view point
on this deal........But after years and years of the same sales pitch youve bought into it........Then the salesman goes for the throat the jugular.......your out doing what youve always done......sitting there at dinner in that fine dining hall and you lite up that smoke and down comes the cuffs, your being read the MIRANDA your being charged with attempted murder by second hand smoke a capital crime. You think back and go I never meant for this to happen...........but the salemans laughing all the way to the next round of fraudulent sales.

[FightinPhils]

Am I the only one who finds it offensive when people equate smoking bans with the Nazis? Its a disgrace that people will compare genocide committed against the Jews by Hitler to not being able to smoke in a restaurant.

We have many other laws that restrict what we can and can't do....should we compare all laws to Nazi Germany?

[The Commish]

I personally enjoyed the artfully spelled words ("ethecists?" "eletists?") and the incoherent paragraphs (hint: your computer keyboard has a "return" key; hit it twice every eight sentences or so at the very least.)

But what our freedom-loving "harleyrider1978" doesn't understand, among other things, is that the Constitution as a "living document" means its meaning changes over time. You can't argue that it has both a fixed meaning (the originalist view) *and* a meaning that changes over time. That's clearly contradictory, and no one on either side of that debate would argue any differently. Harleyrider1978 may have a point somewhere in there, but just cobbling together some civic clichés doesn't get the job done.

That said, harleyrider1978, even in your plain-reading of the Constitution, where is your right to smoke tobacco products? You're making a Constitutional argument, so let's have at it. I'm game. Through my own studies of the Constitution at three different educational levels, I can't say I've come across a provision that supports your view using any means of interpretation.

[herefreeman]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

Am I the only one who finds it offensive when people equate smoking bans with the Nazis? Its a disgrace that people will compare genocide committed against the Jews by Hitler to not being able to smoke in a restaurant.

We have many other laws that restrict what we can and can't do....should we compare all laws to Nazi Germany?

Most unjust laws may be compared to Nazi Germany.
Smoking bans were imposed by Nazi's in the 1930's. The anti smoker zealots have used the same kind of junk science to support their position. Nazi's used Eugenics to prove racial superiority.
No one is comparing smoking bans to genocide. It is the fascist ideology of anti smokers that is being compared. Genocide was not carried out until fascism was firmly in place to have total control. Groups were de-normalized for a period before genocide began.
A restaurant/bar is private property and the owner should choose what lawful activities to allow, not the state.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
--George Orwell

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

Am I the only one who finds it offensive when people equate smoking bans with the Nazis? Its a disgrace that people will compare genocide committed against the Jews by Hitler to not being able to smoke in a restaurant.

We have many other laws that restrict what we can and can't do....should we compare all laws to Nazi Germany?

No, you are not the only one who finds that offensive. It's amazing, to me, what some people will fight to the death (practically, anyway) to defend.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by herefreeman

Most unjust laws may be compared to Nazi Germany.
Smoking bans were imposed by Nazi's in the 1930's. The anti smoker zealots have used the same kind of junk science to support their position. Nazi's used Eugenics to prove racial superiority.
No one is comparing smoking bans to genocide. It is the fascist ideology of anti smokers that is being compared. Genocide was not carried out until fascism was firmly in place to have total control. Groups were de-normalized for a period before genocide began.
A restaurant/bar is private property and the owner should choose what lawful activities to allow, not the state.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
--George Orwell

[herefreeman]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

LOL LOL
Typical zealot unable to respond to a sound position. Attack the messenger with ad hominem.
Your offense of references to Nazis shows you are defensive to the same type of dogma as their's.
Sorry, you lost this one. Try thinking freedom for all, make your own choices without the force of government. I support your freedom to choose. Making a law to enforce personal preference is wrong, unless a Nazi.
Definition for you:
(ad hominem |ˈad ˈhämənəm|
adverb & adjective
1 (of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.