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.
Yes, that great interstate commerce clause which has given the federal government the ability to trample on states' rights.
Ah yes, states' rights. Infamous code word for racism. The favorite term of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. While we're at it, let's forget the 20th century ever happened, undo the Civil War and revisit the nullification debates of the 1830's. Or just go back to Articles of Confederation.
Perhaps the federal authority simply expanded because the scope of interstate commerce expanded significantly over a century plus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeavingMA
We have all seen what a great job the state and federal government has done with the economy and other issues.
Compared to plenty of other states, the state government in Mass. has done a pretty decent job. The federal government has too, but should have done MORE, not less. The failings of the federal government in recent years are not due to "government," as a general matter, being incapable of doing anything but screw up the wise and noble private sector. They are because the federal government, under Bush and other recent presidents, completely avoided regulating the shenanigans of the private sector. And, to the extent they persist, it is because this administration has been too reluctant to stand up to (1) banks, oil companies etc. who don't want to be held accountable for their own deeds and kept in line; and (2) filibustering senators who'd rather see Obama fail than everyday Americans succeed.
In other words the problem is not enough federal oversight, not too much.
No, I've never talked to an owner about this. But I've heard people say they like the smoking ban. Besides, you smoke so you're probably friends with smokers. The owners you've talked to are probably smokers and that's why they don't like the ban. And just because an owner doesn't like the ban doesn't automatically mean they like smoking. They could be against smoking but fear losing business. The ban takes away that fear. Who would they lose business to if everyone has to ban smoking?
.
Just b/c im a smoker dosnt mean im only freinds with smokers. And here is an interesting tid-bit, two of the owners ive talked to are infact, non-smokers!!! Also,I never made the point that b/c an owner dosnt like the ban he likes smoking. Its not that he likes smoking, he dosnt like that the government is dictating his business and messing with his livelyhood. Here's the point ppl tend to miss, the fight against the ban has nothing to do with smoking at all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
Is there any evidence out there that smoking bans have been bad for business? I mean have any businesses shut down citing the smoking ban as the primary reason? I'd presume that smoking bans are GOOD for business. Most people aren't smokers. The vast majority are not, in fact. I know MANY people who avoided bars like the plague because they left a bar smelling like an ash tray (I hated it). Now, they go out far more because it's not a concern.
[City-data isn't a public site, it's private. By your logic, they have every right to sensor what any of us say. If you don't like it, you don't need to post here. God Bless America.
Yes irfox, there certainly is evidence that bans are bad for business but its somthing you actually have to look for. The mainstream media very rarely gives you the true owners testimony, facts, figures, losses, and so on. As one poster on here pointed out, there are several websites and organizations out there who will tell you the truth but you arnt going to just happen upon them. The current smoker to non-smoker ratio is 80% non, 20% smoker but is this really true? I go to the grocery store,smokers, pet shop,smokers, convenient store, smokers. would every store in every town in every state carry cigarrettes if there were so little smokers??? And by the way, you are right, city-data has every right to regulate what i say, I have no problem with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by holden125
Ah yes, states' rights. Infamous code word for racism. The favorite term of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. While we're at it, let's forget the 20th century ever happened, undo the Civil War and revisit the nullification debates of the 1830's. Or just go back to Articles of Confederation..
Where in the world do you get racism from that??? I dont know what nationality you are but as a white person, I think racism is dispicable and I, aloing with most others, am ready to move on and leave it in the past. I dont see ppl as what color they are, I se them as ppl period!
Do you honestly think there's a politician in office (or with any real chance of being elected) who would vow to overturn the smoking ban? I'm still trying to understand what you are trying to achieve here, other than rant on the internet.
Smoking bans are the wave of the future. Everywhere, across the planet. Do you travel much? This is hardly something confined to Massachusetts, or the US.
And I say this as a smoker, who finds it a pain in the ass to go outside to smoke.
Just b/c im a smoker dosnt mean im only freinds with smokers. And here is an interesting tid-bit, two of the owners ive talked to are infact, non-smokers!!! Also,I never made the point that b/c an owner dosnt like the ban he likes smoking. Its not that he likes smoking, he dosnt like that the government is dictating his business and messing with his livelyhood. Here's the point ppl tend to miss, the fight against the ban has nothing to do with smoking at all!
Yes irfox, there certainly is evidence that bans are bad for business but its somthing you actually have to look for. The mainstream media very rarely gives you the true owners testimony, facts, figures, losses, and so on. As one poster on here pointed out, there are several websites and organizations out there who will tell you the truth but you arnt going to just happen upon them. The current smoker to non-smoker ratio is 80% non, 20% smoker but is this really true? I go to the grocery store,smokers, pet shop,smokers, convenient store, smokers. would every store in every town in every state carry cigarrettes if there were so little smokers??? And by the way, you are right, city-data has every right to regulate what i say, I have no problem with that.
Where in the world do you get racism from that??? I dont know what nationality you are but as a white person, I think racism is dispicable and I, aloing with most others, am ready to move on and leave it in the past. I dont see ppl as what color they are, I se them as ppl period!
20% is an average. Some states/cities/areas have a higher percentage of smokers. And 20% means 1 in 5 people smoke. That's enough for stores to sell cigarettes. A lot of places sell diapers even though babies are a small percentage of the total population. Just because a store sells something doesn't mean everyone is buying it. Have you ever noticed that stores have a lot of cigarettes? Maybe the reason for that is because not very many people smoke (compared to the total population) so the store is in no danger of running out of cigarettes. There are certain items in stores that more people buy, and those items are in more danger of running out. There are fewer of those items in stores. If anything, the fact that stores have so many cigarettes on display for sale means not as many people are buying them.
If owners would go smoke free without a ban, we wouldn't need a ban. But very few places were smoke free before the ban. The only way to get places to go smoke free is to ban smoking. In 1963, it was typical for doctors to smoke in their office. Times have changed. It's the year 2010.
Where in the world do you get racism from that??? I dont know what nationality you are but as a white person, I think racism is dispicable and I, aloing with most others, am ready to move on and leave it in the past. I dont see ppl as what color they are, I se them as ppl period!
I wasn't talking to you there--someone else raised "states rights" in asserting that the federal commerce clause has been interpreted too broadly.
I'm definitely not accusing that person of being racist either -- I'm pretty sure that's not the case -- and I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I am saying that, for at least 50 years if not 150 years, "states rights" has been code for segregationist policies.
I think I'm done with this thread. I'd like to thank the person that gave me the link to the businesses that were hurt by the smoking ban (supposedly), but I don't see it as an issue. There's plenty (more) evidence that points to the contrary. If you choose to focus on one or two relatively biased sources instead of the majority of information out there, that's you're deal.
The big problem here is that you can't argue with someone who doesn't believe anything anyone else tells them. Conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with. If this guy really thinks that "big government" is out to get us, then he can look over his shoulder all his life. Personally, I'll enjoy going to smoke-free bars and restaurants.
Ah yes, states' rights. Infamous code word for racism. The favorite term of Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. While we're at it, let's forget the 20th century ever happened, undo the Civil War and revisit the nullification debates of the 1830's. Or just go back to Articles of Confederation.
Perhaps the federal authority simply expanded because the scope of interstate commerce expanded significantly over a century plus.
Compared to plenty of other states, the state government in Mass. has done a pretty decent job. The federal government has too, but should have done MORE, not less. The failings of the federal government in recent years are not due to "government," as a general matter, being incapable of doing anything but screw up the wise and noble private sector. They are because the federal government, under Bush and other recent presidents, completely avoided regulating the shenanigans of the private sector. And, to the extent they persist, it is because this administration has been too reluctant to stand up to (1) banks, oil companies etc. who don't want to be held accountable for their own deeds and kept in line; and (2) filibustering senators who'd rather see Obama fail than everyday Americans succeed.
In other words the problem is not enough federal oversight, not too much.
Racism is not a crime. I'm not a racist in the least, but racism itself is a way of thinking. I do not support slavery or anything that does personal harm to anybody. When someone hurts someone else or keeps someone from their God given rights then I have a problem.
States' rights wasn't just about slavery. South Carolina had seriously considered leaving the United States in the 1820's when their industry was hurt by tariffs imposed by Congress which was controlled by northern states.
The same reasons the southern states left was similar to many of the same reasons the United States separated itself from Great Britian.
Back to my point. I just don't think the government should intrude on businesses. You could argue that the law is discriminatory against smokers, and I don't believe one group is better than the other even though I don't like smoking in the least. I understood when I went out that some places would have a fair amount of smokers. It was my choice to go there or to go somewhere else, or just stay home. I would respect the owners just as anywhere else. I think at most it should be a city/town decision voted on by the people in that town.
My point with the interstate commerce is that the federal government has used this to control states in many matters or to blackmail states into doing things "their way".
Do you honestly think there's a politician in office (or with any real chance of being elected) who would vow to overturn the smoking ban? I'm still trying to understand what you are trying to achieve here, other than rant on the internet.
Smoking bans are the wave of the future. Everywhere, across the planet. Do you travel much? This is hardly something confined to Massachusetts, or the US.
And I say this as a smoker, who finds it a pain in the ass to go outside to smoke.
So what exactly would your solution be? Should we shut our mouths and just accept it b/c its popular? WOW! I can only imagine where we would be if Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King Jr. had this same indiffrence when they set out to abolish slavery or fight for civil rights, a sentiment I think even holden125 will agree with.
This, this is the problem with most americans today. They just simply dont care or dont care enough to do anything about it. Too wrapped up in their own affairs to take a little time to email, call, or write to their representatives. May I remind you that 50 yrs. ago, there were no smoking bans, but the ppl who want these laws are actually standing up and doing somthing about it. I will atleast give them that. No, there probly isnt any politicians who would vow to do that, and ill use city_data91's logic here, its b/c of fear. What am I trying to accomplish? If I can get even one person to look at this issue in a diffrent light, I'll have accomplished my goal!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by city_data91
If owners would go smoke free without a ban, we wouldn't need a ban. But very few places were smoke free before the ban. The only way to get places to go smoke free is to ban smoking.
According to you these owners have seen the light now that we have had bans for so long so why not get rid of the bans and see what happens???
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I think I'm done with this thread. I'd like to thank the person that gave me the link to the businesses that were hurt by the smoking ban (supposedly), but I don't see it as an issue. There's plenty (more) evidence that points to the contrary. If you choose to focus on one or two relatively biased sources instead of the majority of information out there, that's you're deal.
The big problem here is that you can't argue with someone who doesn't believe anything anyone else tells them. Conspiracy theorists cannot be reasoned with. If this guy really thinks that "big government" is out to get us, then he can look over his shoulder all his life. Personally, I'll enjoy going to smoke-free bars and restaurants.
Id be willing to bet youve never looked at evidence that supports your views, you just want to beleive its out there so you take it on faith. I would beleive you if you came up with some actual facts, but the best you can do is say that you like the ban b/c you dont want to stink when you leave a bar. If thats all you can come up with, Ill go ahead and chalk this up to a victory. By the way, Im not a 'conspiracy theory nut' either. You can think im crazy all you want, but when they get done with the smokers and business owners and move on to somthing you are against, ill be here to tell you you should have headed my crowds warnings
According to you these owners have seen the light now that we have had bans for so long so why not get rid of the bans and see what happens???
Even if they're against smoking, they might allow smoking out of fear if we got rid of the ban. They might fear losing business. The ban takes away that fear by creating a level playing field. How could they lose business if smoking is banned everywhere?
Fight the good fight, Sambo. It's totally up there with freeing the slaves, so be proud of your hard work (uh, on the internet).
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.
