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.
Well, I edited my statement - but as I said, the government can make drugs illegal, so I find it hard to believe they cannot regulate the consumption of it.
They can regulate - they can give out liquor licenses, they can make drugs illegal, they can say when and where you can consume drugs...
...Even if the Ohio supreme court were to say the governments in and of Ohio cannot regulate drugs, I'm pretty sure that ruling would never be adopted by a federal court... Indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court would really have to find that conclusion within the state constitution, not the federal constitution.
Well, the problem is, the government has no authority to regulate and ban those as well. These social mandate violations only exist because society has accepted them and the government allowed majority oppression to stand. Prohibition was tried, but it failed because society rebelled against it.
The point is, the government is overstepping its bounds in those areas as well. It is an example of how we betray our protections of liberties with the social mob.
Well, the problem is, the government has no authority to regulate and ban those as well. These social mandate violations only exist because society has accepted them and the government allowed majority oppression to stand. Prohibition was tried, but it failed because society rebelled against it.
The point is, the government is overstepping its bounds in those areas as well. It is an example of how we betray our protections of liberties with the social mob.
Then the government has been overstepping its bounds since the adoption of corporate charters. That must have been due to the ills of "social mob", no?
Nope. Consider this for an example:
1- You own a home. You have people over and serve them alcohol.
2- You own a business. You have people over. To serve them alcohol, you need license. Or would you try the "entirely private property" excuse instead.
Mass distribution versus limited distribution. That is all that is evidence of. The license exists for mass distribution because it has a larger area of effect on visitors and if a violation of such (poorly cooked food, bad batch of alcohol, etc...) were to hit a mass area, the damage would be large and expanded before a problem could be identified.
In a limited distribution (having friends over for a drink), there is an implied risk those people take and its effect is localized. That is why home fire regulations are different than business.
Then the government has been overstepping its bounds since the adoption of corporate charters. That must have been due to the ills of "social mob", no?
Correct.
Another example of a violation of the social mob to dictate to another in establishing mandates and conditions to such. The government has been overstepping its boundaries from the moment of its inception, it was the job of the people to keep it limited and in check. In the last 100 years though (though Lincoln was a major violator as well) the infringement has been severe.
Another example of a violation of the social mob to dictate to another in establishing mandates and conditions to such. The government has been overstepping its boundaries from the moment of its inception, it was the job of the people to keep it limited and in check. In the last 100 years though (though Lincoln was a major violator as well) the infringement has been severe.
Violation of what? Leave your ideas about Lincoln and last 100 years at home. That the businesses were meant to be regulated via charters dates back to BEFORE the foundation of the nation, and continued after it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Mass distribution versus limited distribution. That is all that is evidence of. The license exists for mass distribution because it has a larger area of effect on visitors and if a violation of such (poorly cooked food, bad batch of alcohol, etc...) were to hit a mass area, the damage would be large and expanded before a problem could be identified.
In a limited distribution (having friends over for a drink), there is an implied risk those people take and its effect is localized. That is why home fire regulations are different than business.
What difference does it make but the fact that businesses aren't quite "entirely private property" (and never have been).
Violation of what? Leave your ideas about Lincoln and last 100 years at home. That the businesses were meant to be regulated via charters dates back to BEFORE the foundation of the nation, and continued after it.
So was slavery, your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
What difference does it make but the fact that businesses aren't quite "entirely private property" (and never have been).
I am not making that point, you are and you are wrong, which is now why you are attempting to change the discussion by asking why it matters. *chuckle*
I am not making that point, you are and you are wrong, which is now why you are attempting to change the discussion by asking why it matters. *chuckle*
Well, then excuse me for having seen this post that showed up magically under your screen name without you having a clue...
I tend to think otherwise, that these laws and rules highlight governments inability to believe the private sector will do whats best for them, to the point that think our choices need legislated away.
This case struck my interest because we owned a family bar for years and we spent thousands of dollars installing air filtration systems so we could entertain both smoking, and non smoking customers. It made economic sense to do so because we wanted both customers in our establishment. Government comes along and takes away 1/2 of them by saying smokers not welcome and they wipe away the value of the investment we made in the filtration system.
I'd love to see a law which requires government to compensate the private sector for "taking" when they reduce the investment so many businesses make daily. It happens everyday in america and this is just a minor example. Car companies constantly spend tens if not hundreds of millions to re-retroffit their factories to comply with federal laws which change constantly. The government is choaking our businesses to non-existance while we sit here and moan about how we need more and more legislation.
You would have certainly had my business. You had taken the most sensible and logical approach.
Last night I went on to read stats about smoking being banned from establishments in NYC. The powers that be mixed the restaurant and bar results together making it appear that all institutions did well following the ban, when in fact, bar owners suffered a loss in revenue. Instead of staying indoors in a spot where alcohol could be served, the smokers had to step outside to smoke. Sales in bars went down somewhere around 15%.
As usual, you dont get it correct. You need a license in order to SELL, not serve alcohol. Companies can give away alcohol all day long without a license.
The not-for-profit with which I am associated is required by the county to obtain a temporary permit/license to serve free wine at openings or fund raisers.
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.
