State-wide smoking ban (HB 670/SB 355) (Spring, Mercedes: spring break, sales, foreclose)

[ObamaRama]

Private property is a myth!

[austinrebel]

Originally Posted by terrilllr

I have grown quite tired of the argument that a place of business is not a public place and that government has no right to regulate.

I suppose if I own a business I can choose to not allow black people, gay people, women, Jews, etc. It is my right after all?

I suppose if I own a restaurant I don't have to refrigerate my meat or wash my hands after going to the restroom? I can have slime in the ice machine?

Smoking is a public health issue! There are no studies that say smoking or second hand smoke is good for you. There are THOUSANDS that say they seriously detriment your health. As was said earlier, this isn't rocket science people... ban smoking in public places NOW!

"There are no studies that say smoking or second hand smoke is good for you"

So you think that anything that is not good for you should be banned?

We'd have to ban alcohol, caffeine, meat, contact sports, non-educational toys, and anything too spicy. Reminds me of a science fiction movie I once saw.

[DerekTant]

I have grown tired of the belief that the end justifies the means.

How about this statement - "I suppose if I own a business I can choose to not allow black people, gay people, women, Jews, etc. It is my right after all?"

How dare anyone equate allowing smoking with discrimination?

Smoking is the pet peeve of a lot of people, but they shouldn't let the government circumvent personal freedom and responsibility to get the legislation they want.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

It's not an attack on liberty to make it illegal to put other people's health at risk.

Agreed. The ban on public smoking should be nationwide. Any new law should remove restrictions on smoking in bars - at least some bars, or allow the creation of smoking clubs.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

"There are no studies that say smoking or second hand smoke is good for you"

So you think that anything that is not good for you should be banned?

We'd have to ban alcohol, caffeine, meat, contact sports, non-educational toys, and anything too spicy. Reminds me of a science fiction movie I once saw.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by ObamaRama

Private property is a myth!

it really is.

It never is REALLY yours, it is constantly regulated, and restraints forever placed on it, they will tax it as long as you own it? why does everyone think just because their name is on the title it is their little kingdom?

Go ask my Uncle what happened when he wanted to cut down a dying Pecan tree on his land that was precariously hanging over his roof right before hurricane season started.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by DerekTant

I have grown tired of the belief that the end justifies the means.

How about this statement - "I suppose if I own a business I can choose to not allow black people, gay people, women, Jews, etc. It is my right after all?"

How dare anyone equate allowing smoking with discrimination?

Smoking is the pet peeve of a lot of people, but they shouldn't let the government circumvent personal freedom and responsibility to get the legislation they want.

I'm tired of people minimizing the damage that secondhand smoke does to people. How dare anyone relegate smoking to a "pet peeve"? Why should I be forced to inhale poisons and carcinogens because of someone else's self-destructive addiction?

When someone drinks a beer at a bar, it's arguably not terrible good for them. However, their drinking that beer does not impact MY health at all. Nor does their consumption of red meat, caffeine, etc.

However, if someone were to say "Hi, I'd like to start a fire using logs soaked in poisons and toxins right next to you, so the smoke blows all around you", no rational person would say yes. That's exactly what smoking is.

1) Restaurants are NOT private places. Their activities, menu, and practices are regulated already.

2) The state has the right to regulate matters of public health. Individual freedom does not give other people the right to endanger the health and well-being of those around them. Hence the reason driving while intoxicated is illegal, as is firing a weapon with city limits, etc.

3) I shouldn't have to wonder if going into a restaurant, a regulated public place, might be dangerous to my health.


No one is outlawing smoking. They are making it illegal to endanger others in a public place.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by austinrebel

"There are no studies that say smoking or second hand smoke is good for you"

So you think that anything that is not good for you should be banned?

We'd have to ban alcohol, caffeine, meat, contact sports, non-educational toys, and anything too spicy. Reminds me of a science fiction movie I once saw.

Yet again, you fail at correlation and causation, but are fantastic at making strawman arguments.

No one is outlawing smoking because it's bad for YOU. They are making it illegal to endanger the health of others by smoking around them.

[TexasReb]

GMOH? Even though I vehemently disagree with you on many issues, and have an issue with your screen name, I have found that in actually talking with you one on one, you are actually a fairly congenial and reasonable person (by California and yankee standards, of course! -- J/k a bit).

But anyway, I don't mean to reply for someone else, but your rejoinders could just as well been directed at me so far as the generic position goes, so that is my excuse for asking you to exchange with me on a few points you brought up.

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

I'm tired of people minimizing the damage that secondhand smoke does to people. How dare anyone relegate smoking to a "pet peeve"? Why should I be forced to inhale poisons and carcinogens because of someone else's self-destructive addiction?

First of all, if you are (as you seem to indicate) for an all out ban on smoking anywhere, at anytime, then just say so directly. Would it be a Prohibition type amendment?

But as to the bolded part, the real question is why do you put yourself in a position and circumstance in which you will inhale the said poisons and carcinogens?

When someone drinks a beer at a bar, it's arguably not terrible good for them. However, their drinking that beer does not impact MY health at all. Nor does their consumption of red meat, caffeine, etc.

Very true. And if it DID? Then you would just not drink, go into bars, or eat red meat. Why can't you apply the same set of personal choice to just not going into a bar, restaurant, bowling alley, that allows smoking?

However, if someone were to say "Hi, I'd like to start a fire using logs soaked in poisons and toxins right next to you, so the smoke blows all around you", no rational person would say yes. That's exactly what smoking is.

This general theme has been addressed many times. And it keeps getting more and more sophomoric and ridiculous. But ok, let's indulge this bit of lunacy. So what if? Scenario:

You are my neighbor and I come over to your house and ask your permission beforehand to burn some logs soaked in "poison" and there is a chance it might drift over into your area of control. You say no because it would affect your health, property, safety, etc. Fair enough. To say nothing of that if the chemicals used were illegal or even a known hazard, then I would be in violation of the law anyway.

However? If you gave permission aforehand? Knowing full well the dangers and no illegal chemicals were being used? Then you gave consent.

So, simple answer is? Just don't say yes. In the realm of smoking? Just don't agree by entering the place where the poisons are there and you know full well they are there.

1) Restaurants are NOT private places. Their activities, menu, and practices are regulated already.

... Again, this has been addressed many times as to to distinctions and public safety issues. But let me ask you. In your opinion, what ARE private places?

2) The state has the right to regulate matters of public health. Individual freedom does not give other people the right to endanger the health and well-being of those around them. Hence the reason driving while intoxicated is illegal, as is firing a weapon with city limits, etc.

....Are you just being deliberatly obstinate? I wouldn't blame you if so, really, given the dependence of your whole argument depending upon refusal to see obvious differences that have been taken care of quite a few times. BTW -- firing a weapon within city limits is not illegal if there are justifications for doing so.

3) I shouldn't have to wonder if going into a restaurant, a regulated public place, might be dangerous to my health.

...Nothing to wonder about at all assuming one is literate enough to read signs which say smoking is permitted. Why should a business owner have to make decisions potentially detrimental to their business and clientele because somebody can't read a simple sign?

No one is outlawing smoking. They are making it illegal to endanger others in a public place.

Ah contraire. Maybe YOU are not one of them (although lots of what you say telegraph that it may be your ultimate desire), but there are lots out there who would outlaw smoking, anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

Regardless, see all dozens of the posts above making a clear, common-sensical, and legal distinction as to what is truly public and what is traditionally private. If you don't get it, then nothing else will matter.

In a nutshell, what right to you have to to not be subjected to smoke which supecedes the right of the business owner to allow it? Please explain.

On a more personal level. If I own a business and I have found that my clientele prefer to smoke, and it is good for my business to permit it, then upon what ethical/constitutional grounds do you have which overides my decision to permit it within my establishment? Because it might affect your health and presumed right to not be inconvenienced? Sorry, but that is the refuge of one who refuses to take responsibility for their own choices and demand everyone else conform to their selfish desires. Translation is that you can't make wise health decisions on your own, so nanny must do it for you.

Anyway, I gotta eat supper and hit the sack. 5:30 comes awful early sometime! Will rejoin this weekend! Everyone have a good night! See y'all later.

[getmeoutofhere]

How am I being obstinate to assert that the state and city has a right to regulate restaurants and bars, when they clearly do?