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.
The matter is that we are debating the rights of gov't entities to ban smoking within various establishments - we are NOT debating the merits of vehicles and/or alcohol. To follow your reasoning, heck then lets debate the right of the federal gov't to 'blackmail' state gov'ts to impose their will of forcing us to wear seat belts w/in our privately owned vehicles...
As to the restrictions being forced on those that have a need to fill not just their own lungs with crap but those around those, be their other patrons and/or workers within these establishments, who said that smokers have a 'right' to contaminate others with the byproducts of their habits?
BTW, maybe your bs is shooting over my head at 40k feet, as I am staying w/in the confines of this debate - those of you that are bringing in other peripheral items to this discussion are the ones flying way out of the bounds, and need to come back to ground level so that this discussion can stay on track, on the merits of this particular subject.
So, if you desire to open up a debate on the ills and negatives regarding drinking, driving, and so forth, then maybe another thread regarding such would be a better venue for that, not a thread that is discussing smoking bans.
I see it now...we can debate but only on your terms and within the constraints that you choose to define. Inhibiting one action of course would have no affect on any other action and could not possibly lead to action against others personal choices.
BTW, your statements deny your claim to being a libertarian. You would seem to encourage government control in any number of matters, not the statement of the party to support individual rights.
I see it now...we can debate but only on your terms and within the constraints that you choose to define. Inhibiting one action of course would have no affect on any other action and could not possibly lead to action against others personal choices.
BTW, your statements deny your claim to being a libertarian. You would seem to encourage government control in any number of matters, not the statement of the party to support individual rights.
Actually, you are mistaken. This debate is not on my terms or constraints - this debate is about smoking bans - and if the gov't has the legal and/or moral right and/or obligation to impose such bans w/in a publicly-accessed privately-owned establishment. It is not about drinking, food additives, jay walking, driving, DRM, whale hunting, climate change, or any other subject. Why does not get through to you? If you need, here is the first post that created this thread:
Quote:
Default City & State Smoking Bans....
The Arizona smoking ban thread was closed because things got "too hot & heavy!" I wonder if we can have a sane, calm and rational discussion about city & state smoking bans over here.
It does seem like a "hot potato issue" for a lot of us. We all have a "personal stake" in this issue....and a wide range of feelings on "both sides" of the "fence." Anyway, I thought I'd start this thread and maybe we can handle things better over here. Thanks, Claire
Call me silly, but,,, for some reason I do not see anywhere w/in Claire's post where drinking, helmet laws, driving, spitting on sidewalks, illegal immigration, etc were the subject of this debate.
Only those who own or possess a property, or any possession for that matter, should have the right to dictate what legal activities are held, performed, or allowed.Simply because the government defines a particular group of buildings as "public places" does not transfer ownership of those places to the public and therefore should have no say in their operation.
So with what you’ve said in the above quote I should believe that anyone who owns private property has the right to dictate what legal activities are held, performed, or allowed. What you’re saying would negate any law/s on private property. A business owner could have any number of illegal activities going on without the government control or intervention to include laws on: stolen items being sold in a pawnshop, marijuana sold in a tobacco store, prostitution in a hotel/motel, loan sharking activities in a “check cashing store, illegal drugs in a pharmacy and others items but you get the point! The government has the right to make laws that protect the general public both at public buildings and places and private buildings places and businesses.
I don’t want to be off topic with what I’ve posted but the smoking ban (I’ve searched and provided as a link) covers “locations” that smoking is no longer allowed and even one type of location (I included it in the post) that allows smoking. However from what you’ve said in your post ~ you support the government having no laws that cover illegal activities on selected properties. Is that what I’ve read in your post?
I’ve (researched) and seen the smoking ban laws written for several states and the law covers the activities of smoking very clearly. I don’t find anything wrong with the law but then I’m not a knowledgeable about a lot of legal stuff. I guess I only try and follow the law to the best of my ability whether I agree with it or not, and I dislike government control in our lives being part Libertarian in my thoughts and feelings.
So with what you’ve said in the above quote I should believe that anyone who owns private property has the right to dictate what legal activities are held, performed, or allowed. What you’re saying would negate any law/s on private property. A business owner could have any number of illegal activities going on without the government control or intervention to include laws on: stolen items being sold in a pawnshop, marijuana sold in a tobacco store, prostitution in a hotel/motel, loan sharking activities in a “check cashing store, illegal drugs in a pharmacy and others items but you get the point! The government has the right to make laws that protect the general public both at public buildings and places and private buildings places and businesses.
I don’t want to be off topic with what I’ve posted but the smoking ban (I’ve searched and provided as a link) covers “locations” that smoking is no longer allowed and even one type of location (I included it in the post) that allows smoking. However from what you’ve said in your post ~ you support the government having no laws that cover illegal activities on selected properties. Is that what I’ve read in your post?
I’ve (researched) and seen the smoking ban laws written for several states and the law covers the activities of smoking very clearly. I don’t find anything wrong with the law but then I’m not a knowledgeable about a lot of legal stuff. I guess I only try and follow the law to the best of my ability whether I agree with it or not, and I dislike government control in our lives being part Libertarian in my thoughts and feelings.
I specified "legal" activities. Though I do support ANY activity that does not infringe upon the property rights of others, smoking cigarettes is a legal activity. These bans only place limits as to where this activity can occur. To limit this legal activity from taking place in a privately owned business is not only anti-Libertarian but anti-American IMO.
So what you’re saying is that I can dictate what legal activities could happen on my personal and private property (inside my business or building). This would include smoking, and whatever else that was legal. It’s legal to sell food in restaurants however the health department monitors the business and says that I must wear latex gloves because it is the law of the state. I don’t want to wear gloves while handling food items that are uncooked. I don’t have that right as a business to negate the law of the health codes anymore then I have the right to negate the nonsmoking ban law. It’s a health issue. The public wants health issues and the government to protect the general population. Latex gloves or cigarettes it’s the law and health issues, and businesses should not have a negative impact on the health of the general public. Business owners must be responsible to the general public (as defined by law) for the good of and to protect the public.
This reminds me when I got a bad bean burrito that was not handled correctly by the owner and cook. WOW talk about being sick from the bad bacteria that wasn’t kept at the correct temperatures and controlled before serving. However this is off topic but shows what can happen when health issues are not looked after.
So what you’re saying is that I can dictate what legal activities could happen on my personal and private property (inside my business or building). This would include smoking, and whatever else that was legal. It’s legal to sell food in restaurants however the health department monitors the business and says that I must wear latex gloves because it is the law of the state. I don’t want to wear gloves while handling food items that are uncooked. I don’t have that right as a business to negate the law of the health codes anymore then I have the right to negate the nonsmoking ban law. It’s a health issue. The public wants health issues and the government to protect the general population. Latex gloves or cigarettes it’s the law and health issues, and businesses should not have a negative impact on the health of the general public. Business owners must be responsible to the general public (as defined by law) for the good of and to protect the public.
This reminds me when I got a bad bean burrito that was not handled correctly by the owner and cook. WOW talk about being sick from the bad bacteria that wasn’t kept at the correct temperatures and controlled before serving. However this is off topic but shows what can happen when health issues are not looked after.
Your experience also goes to show how effective these law are. These types of regulations are reasonable because the way food is cooked is typically transparent to the customer, not so with smoking.
I am part of "the general public", so please don't lump me in with those who don't want to be personally responsible but instead wish to be cared for by the bureaucrats in Washington.
You commented about the second paragraph only. The first paragraph was the important one; the burrito story was only to support the reasons for health codes.
So what you’re saying is that I can dictate what legal activities could happen on my personal and private property (inside my business or building). This would include smoking, and whatever else that was legal. It’s legal to sell food in restaurants however the health department monitors the business and says that I must wear latex gloves because it is the law of the state. I don’t want to wear gloves while handling food items that are uncooked. I don’t have that right as a business to negate the law of the health codes anymore then I have the right to negate the nonsmoking ban law. It’s a health issue. The public wants health issues and the government to protect the general population. Latex gloves or cigarettes it’s the law and health issues, and businesses should not have a negative impact on the health of the general public. Business owners must be responsible to the general public (as defined by law) for the good of and to protect the public.
These types of regulations are reasonable because the way food is cooked is typically transparent to the customer, not so with smoking.
Legal handling of foods and the law requiring gloves is no different then the restrictions on smoking they are health issues; and the business owner can’t pick and choose which law he wants to honor ~ gloves or non smoking!
Legal handling of foods and the law requiring gloves is no different then the restrictions on smoking they are health issues; and the business owner can’t pick and choose which law he wants to honor ~ gloves or non smoking!
We're not debating whether owners should follow the law or not, we are discussing the merits of the laws themselves.
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.
If you need, here is the first post that created this thread:
legal and illegal activities? who has the rights
Bad beans ;-)
