Smoking Ban bill as been passed (Scranton, Jefferson: condo, mortgage, fence)

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

You have no one to blame but yourself if you patronize such an establishment and find it offensive. As an adult you have made a conscious decision to walk into a smoking establishment.

None of that has any relevance.

As an adult, you realize Pennsylvanians have rules to follow.

One of those rules is that you can no longer smoke in restaurants and other public places. I'm certain that by this point you know that you can't just do whatever you feel like, coalman. Pennsylvanians through their representatives in the general assembly have decided that enough is enough, and that they no longer want to have to make "a conscious decision to walk into a smoking establishment" (at least as far as the bill goes in prohibiting smoking).

So you can argue that it's a "choice" all you want. Pennsylvanians no longer want to have to make that choice, so that matter is already settled.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

If you think it's so harmful and find it offensive why would you be there to begin with. Most normal people avoid things the feel are dangerous or disagreeable, I avoid situations like that instead of placing myself in the position to be effected by it. Someone commented in the other thread that her children will finally be able to eat at a restaurant without all the smoke, my question is what the hell kind of parent to allow there children to be exposed to it if they feel it's so harmful.

Gee, why would anyone in their right mind want to go to a restaurant?



Obviously, I personally enjoy dining out, and I'm sure others feel the same. That we enjoy dining out more in a smoke-free atmosphere without having to pick from a limited number of places that prohibit smoking is at least one reason why we finally passed an anti-smoking bill.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Sorry but you know as well as I do this is not the end of it, give it year and it will be completely banned.

If that happens, then so be it.

But, as the British say, "not bloody likely!"

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Having said that since there is such a demand for non-smoking establishments and a lack of them why haven't you or any of the other non-smokers gone out and started your own restaurant instead of whining about it? Having been in business for many years I can tell you this, if there is market for something people are going to buy it.

Where 's all the non-smoking restaurants then? Surely if 75% of the population doesn't smoke 75% of restaurant owners must be non-smokers and would be agreeable to banning smoking in their restaurant? There not and the reason why is simple, they are independent minded self reliant people like myself who rather suffer through the smoke than have people like you tell them what to do.

If you want a no smoking establishment so bad and there is such a demand invest your time and your money in it and you can make all the rules you want.

I have no idea what the demand is for fully-non-smoking establishments.

All you need is a simple majority to pass laws.

Tough luck that you're on the other side of that majority.

[Michael J. McFadden]

Commish wrote, "So you can argue that it's a "choice" all you want. Pennsylvanians no longer want to have to make that choice, so that matter is already settled."

Actually, it's only settled until the next vote. Remember, we already had one "do-over" vote on the ban just a week ago. No reason we can't have many more.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

Commish wrote, "So you can argue that it's a "choice" all you want. Pennsylvanians no longer want to have to make that choice, so that matter is already settled."

Actually, it's only settled until the next vote. Remember, we already had one "do-over" vote on the ban just a week ago. No reason we can't have many more.

There won't be another vote....this ban was actually signed into law....the past bans were just proposed bans that never made it out of the legislature. Now that its been signed by the governor, its law, and the haggling is done. The only thing that could possibly change is that the ban could become more strict in the future.

[herefreeman]

Commish ( he who refuses to be open minded)

Originally Posted by The Commish

None of that has any relevance.

As an adult, you realize Pennsylvanians have rules to follow.


Sieg Heil !!



"I have no idea what the demand is for fully-non-smoking establishments.

All you need is a simple majority to pass laws.

Tough luck that you're on the other side of that majority.

"

Tyranny of the majority. Very similar to Jim Crow laws. Bigots make such laws.


"I have no idea what the demand is for fully-non-smoking establishments."

That is not ALL you do not know.

You are so knowledgeable but do not know this country was formed as a Republic not a Democracy. A democracy is mob rule--Tyranny of the majority.
You are right that a "simple" majority of legislators can pass laws. Emphasis on SIMPLE !!

You are right in ALL the wrong places.

You tire of quotes here is one you preach.

"The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."
--Adolph Hitler

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by The Commish

I have no idea what the demand is for fully-non-smoking establishments.

Yet you're more than willing to put the livelihood's of many people at risk.

The U.S, was built on freedoms of the individual.

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

LOL I was getting a kick out of the posters quotes but I think that one is quite succinct for this topic.

[Michael J. McFadden]

OK Commish, *now* you've got me intrigued.

You said "There won't be another vote....this ban was actually signed into law....the past bans were just proposed bans that never made it out of the legislature. Now that its been signed by the governor, its law, and the haggling is done. The only thing that could possibly change is that the ban could become more strict in the future."

So now WHY can bans become *more* strict in the future but not *less* strict?

Please point me to something in the law that specifies that.

Thank you.

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by Michael J. McFadden

So now WHY can bans become *more* strict in the future but not *less* strict?

Please point me to something in the law that specifies that.

Thank you.

Well, I guess they COULD become less strict, but seeing that 75% of the population are nonsmokers, and the legislators need to follow the will of the people to continue to be voted into office, the chances of a ban being weakened and repealed are very slim.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by herefreeman

Tyranny of the majority. Very similar to Jim Crow laws. Bigots make such laws.

Jim Crow laws were unlawfully based on race.

Smoking bans are based on no such protected class and therefore violate no part of the Constitution. You can't just whip out "tyranny of the majority" for every single law passed that you don't agree with. That phrase pertains only to a majoritarian system of government with no supreme law like the Constitution to govern anyone: just the whims of the majority.

We have a constitution in this country, herefreeman. A federal *and* state one. Under a legal doctrine called "New Federalism," states can give greater rights under the state constitution than under the federal constitution. Pennsylvanians have not given any protection to smokers under its constitution, even though it may.

Originally Posted by herefreeman

"I have no idea what the demand is for fully-non-smoking establishments."

That is not ALL you do not know.

You are so knowledgeable but do not know this country was formed as a Republic not a Democracy. A democracy is mob rule--Tyranny of the majority.

I've said in previous posts that we have a constitutional republic.

That is a form of democracy.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Yet you're more than willing to put the livelihood's of many people at risk.

How many livelihoods are you putting at risk by allowing an atmosphere where smoking takes place? People die from second-hand smoke. You can wave your hands and say it's only a "choice" to go to restaurants, but that ignores what people actually do. Big surprise: they go out to restaurants.

That said, the economic impact of the statewide ban we'll see next year sometime. My guess is that we won't see much of a difference either way.

Originally Posted by thecoalman

The U.S, was built on freedoms of the individual.

Regardless, the U.S. has a particular structure of government where smoking bans are fully constitutional.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by FightinPhils

Well, I guess they COULD become more strict, but seeing that 75% of the population are nonsmokers, and the legislators need to follow the will of the people to continue to be voted into office, the chances of a ban being weakened and repealed are very slim.

I wouldn't assume that, this is relatively small issue overall and is one of the reasons they could vote for it without having to worry about rocking the boat too much. When November rolls around the vote they made on this isn't going to mean a thing no matter which way it was.

[memoriesbre]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

At the risk of being redundant, and I'm only asking this because I have yet to hear anyone answer it... Who has held a gun to your head forcing you to patronize an establishment that allowed smoking?

The fact is there are more non-smokers usually sitting in a restaurant than smokers. The smokers have a choice... don't light up until they leave an establishment or go outside then come back in. I also have not gone to certain restaurants because of the smokers blowing their smoke all over the place. Now I can go and enjoy a certain restaurant without having to breath in their toxic fumes anymore. I can't wait until September!!