Don't forget to vote today, St Louis... (St. Louis: exemptions, restaurants)

[CarrieNeno]

In the county particularly, there are 2 important props on the ballot.

[STLMetro]

Please vote for the smoking ban, I hate having to wash my clothes twice after visiting my brother and going out to a bar.

[Marksman84]

Agreed! Vote "Yes" on Proposition N - even with its loopholes and exemptions, it is still a step in getting St. Louis in the right direction from an unhealthy, old-style blue collar mentality to a modern, healthy and sensible city.

[mklein49]

Same here. I went back and forth on this. But, my wife and I just both voted for the smoking ban.

[Fishtacos]

Originally Posted by Marksman84

Agreed! Vote "Yes" on Proposition N - even with its loopholes and exemptions, it is still a step in getting St. Louis in the right direction from an unhealthy, old-style blue collar mentality to a modern, healthy and sensible city.

Blue collar? Much of the previous smoking ban opposition has come from those who are so consumed with the freedom and rights of the individual, that they have failed to acknowledge that smoking to many/most, is a health issue instead.

[Marksman84]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marksman84
Agreed! Vote "Yes" on Proposition N - even with its loopholes and exemptions, it is still a step in getting St. Louis in the right direction from an unhealthy, old-style blue collar mentality to a modern, healthy and sensible city.

Originally Posted by Fishtacos

Blue collar? Much of the previous smoking ban opposition has come from those who are so consumed with the freedom and rights of the individual, that they have failed to acknowledge that smoking to many/most, is a health issue instead.

See if you can detemine the connective tissue here

Good news - with 40 percent of the precincts polling:

YES 63.55%
NO 36.45%



Time to butt out? Smoking ban breaks out to big lead | Political Fix | STLtoday (http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/11/time-to-butt-out-smoking-ban-breaks-out-to-big-early-lead/ - broken link)

[cadetduke]

I don't understand why people are pro violating property owners rights. If it was government buildings only then I would understand, but this is property owned by us, the people. If you don't like the smoke, then go to a smoke free bar/restaurant/whatever. This imposes on our freedom. I don't smoke, and even I can see why this is a bad thing.

If you want to get St. Louis "in the right direction from an unhealthy, old-style blue collar mentality to a modern, healthy and sensible city" then start banning fast food restaurants. Obesity is the problem here, not smoking.

[STLMetro]

Originally Posted by cadetduke

I don't understand why people are for violating property owners rights. If it was government buildings only then I would understand, but this is property owned by us, the people. If you don't like the smoke, then go to a smoke free bar/restaurant/whatever. This imposes on our freedom. I don't smoke, and even I can see why this is a bad thing.

If you want to get St. Louis "in the right direction from an unhealthy, old-style blue collar mentality to a modern, healthy and sensible city" then start banning fast food restaurants. Obesity is the problem here, not smoking.

I think you are missing the point of why this is legal to impose. Everyone has a right to do as they choose unless it infringes on others rights. The fact that you are smoking puts my health in danger, therefore infringing on my rights. Regardless of where I am, private or public, it is not legal to punch someone in the face without cause. In this regard, it is also illegal to force me to breath smoke if I choose not to. Whether I am in your business or not, you can not impede on my rights. You can do a lot of things on your own property, even ask me to leave. But if one person there does not want smoke in their lungs, you cannot impede on those rights.

You cannot ban bad food because when I consume a fatty burger, little tiny pieces of fat don't pop up and fly down other people's throats. If smoking only hurt the people who were using them, then there would be no basis for the ban. This is not the case, however.

[cadetduke]

Originally Posted by STLMetro

Everyone has a right to do as they choose unless it infringes on others rights.

Except that this infringes on property owners rights...

Originally Posted by STLMetro

Whether I am in your business or not, you can not impede on my rights.

Except that it's your CHOICE to enter those establishments, you aren't being forced...

Originally Posted by STLMetro

You cannot ban bad food because when I consume a fatty burger, little tiny pieces of fat don't pop up and fly down other people's throats. If smoking only hurt the people who were using them, then there would be no basis for the ban. This is not the case, however.

I brought this up because of what I put in quotes. He wants a healthier St. Louis and we're one of the fattest cities in the country.

[STLMetro]

Originally Posted by cadetduke

Except that this infringes on property owners rights...



Except that it's your CHOICE to enter those establishments, you aren't being forced...



I brought this up because of what I put in quotes. He wants a healthier St. Louis and we're one of the fattest cities in the country.

I don't know how to do the single quotes, so I just lumped them all together. I don't think this infringes on property owners rights as much as it upholds the individuals rights. Do private property owners get to discriminate against black people? No, because it violates a persons individual rights. It limits property rights because that property right infringed on individual right. In this country, individual rights trump property rights, for better or worse.

I can enter any establishment I choose and can expect that my individual rights will be upheld. You may kick me out, but if you allow me to enter, you may not take away any of my individual rights upon entering. The right to decide what enters my body (cigarette smoke) has been determined to be an individual right.

I believe he would also like people to eat healthier, but you cannot enforce it the same way as the smoking ban because of the way that smoke affects other people. It is an interesting topic to figure out how to make people eat healthier, but cannot be instituted the same way as smoking. You can declare some ingredients are public hazards like trans fats have been in the northwest, but it would have to be in that light instead of the current smoking strategy.