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.
No, I want the government to regulate food production and restaurants so I don't have to worry about dying from food poisoning.
This reasoning is a typical non-sequiteur used by the anti-smoking zealots. For one thing, there is a big difference in public safety and so-called public health.
Not many people would disagree that government (on the most local level possible) has a role in regulating certain things the average person cannot be expected to discern for themselves. For instance, serving tainted meat, or conditions which are a fire hazard or the like.
On the other hand, government regulation in the name of protecting the "public health" is dangerously broad in its implications. In a truly free society, health is an individual concern, and if government is allowed to be the mother hen, then there is literally nothing that cannot be banned.
Also, I understand and agree with regulations that prohibit smoking in public buildings such as hospitals, courthouses, post-offices, police-stations, etc. These are places where people may have no choice but to enter and conduct business. No problem there at all.
So the real bottom line is that if a private place allows smoking, and it is known aforehand, then what prohibits the potential customer from going elsewhere? And? If they choose to enter it anyway? Then they do so at their own risk and nothing coerced them them to enter it. It is called being an adult and making your own responsible decisions.
The mention of old "Jim Crow" laws as a rationale for regulation is even more absurd. Because no one is banning a particular class of people. In other words, if a sign on the door says "Smoking Permitted" or "No Smoking Allowed"? It is not the same as saying "Smokers Not Allowed" or "Non-Smokers Not Permitted."
Quote:
I want the government to regulate where people can smoke so I don't have to smell it when I go to the mall, grocery store, a restaurant, a hospital, etc. I remember as a little kid going into hospitals where people were smoking in elevators! It took government regulation to get to where we are today.
See earlier on distinctions between the dots you attempt to connect. Anyway, the bolded part is pretty much the anti-smoking zealot position in a nut-shell. To wit: I am the center of the universe and my "rights" should supercede that of others to control their own property. It's all about me, me, me, and to hell with the rights of others.
Translation: You are not adult enough to be responsible for the benefits/risks of your own decisions. What a nation of crybabies and teat-suckers we have become!
Quote:
I think the real issue is all the "Ron Paul lovers" out there who can't deal with anyone telling them how or what to do, ever.
No, the real issue are those who need someone to protect them from every potential hazard in life whether or not the said hazard is obvious or not. Spill hot coffee on yourself? Oh gosh, I wasn't warned coffee is hot! Sue somebody!
BTW -- I quit smoking some 8 years ago and it was the best decision I ever made. It was a filthy and dangerous habit. And even when I smoked I didn't like to breath other peoples smoke.
BUT. some of us still believe enough in classical concepts of freedom and private property rights to let the business owner make the decision as to whether or not to allow/disallow/semi-restrict/etc on their own premises!
Then ask for a non-smoking room, this isn't difficult
So what happens during peak travel season? I will be denied a room because the only ones that might be available are smoking rooms. People who smoke cigarettes need to stop acting like crackheads looking for their next fix. It is so damn selfish to have subject people to your nasty habits cancer causing habits.
This reasoning is a typical non-sequiteur used by the anti-smoking zealots. For one thing, there is a big difference in public safety and so-called public health.
Not many people would disagree that government (on the most local level possible) has a role in regulating certain things the average person cannot be expected to discern for themselves. For instance, serving tainted meat, or conditions which are a fire hazard or the like.
On the other hand, government regulation in the name of protecting the "public health" is dangerously broad in its implications. In a truly free society, health is an individual concern, and if government is allowed to be the mother hen, then there is literally nothing that cannot be banned.
Also, I understand and agree with regulations that prohibit smoking in public buildings such as hospitals, courthouses, post-offices, police-stations, etc. These are places where people may have no choice but to enter and conduct business. No problem there at all.
So the real bottom line is that if a private place allows smoking, and it is known aforehand, then what prohibits the potential customer from going elsewhere? And? If they choose to enter it anyway? Then they do so at their own risk and nothing coerced them them to enter it. It is called being an adult and making your own responsible decisions.
The mention of old "Jim Crow" laws as a rationale for regulation is even more absurd. Because no one is banning a particular class of people. In other words, if a sign on the door says "Smoking Permitted" or "No Smoking Allowed"? It is not the same as saying "Smokers Not Allowed" or "Non-Smokers Not Permitted."
See earlier on distinctions between the dots you attempt to connect. Anyway, the bolded part is pretty much the anti-smoking zealot position in a nut-shell. To wit: I am the center of the universe and my "rights" should supercede that of others to control their own property. It's all about me, me, me, and to hell with the rights of others.
Translation: You are not adult enough to be responsible for the benefits/risks of your own decisions. What a nation of crybabies and teat-suckers we have become!
No, the real issue are those who need someone to protect them from every potential hazard in life whether or not the said hazard is obvious or not. Spill hot coffee on yourself? Oh gosh, I wasn't warned coffee is hot! Sue somebody!
BTW -- I quit smoking some 8 years ago and it was the best decision I ever made. It was a filthy and dangerous habit. And even when I smoked I didn't like to breath other peoples smoke.
BUT. some of us still believe enough in classical concepts of freedom and private property rights to let the business owner make the decision as to whether or not to allow/disallow/semi-restrict/etc on their own premises!
Sure..because I own my business that needs the PUBLIC to survive, I should subject them to whatever I please? Especially potentially hidden known dangers? That's not how we run things in this country. Somehow people believe that "Liberty" is somehow a license to do whatever the hell you please.
Smokers, step outside to smoke. If you find you need to light up while in bed, or are constantly smoking to the point where you'd be spending all evening outside, you have bigger problems than Wisconsin's law.
As a hotel guest, I don't sleep in a person's private dwelling.
In a sense, you do. A private business provides a service of renting out a room for the days/nights that you are free to choose or reject.
Besides, there are some health-police types out there who would restrict smoking in private homes as well. They are doing it in public parks around the country and in no way, shape, or form, could this type assault on personal freedoms be viewed as anything but the obcessions of control freaks.
I'll never forget the time I went on a business trip and reserved a non-smoking room in a very well known hotel chain known for business travelers. Got to the hotel with my co-worker, who had a different room. I was assigned a smoking room - even though my confirmed reservation was for non-smoking. I requested a different room, but was told they had no other rooms. My only other choice was another hotel 15 minutes away. My co-worker had the rental car. I was stuck.
That smoking room stunk horribly. The carpet, the drapes, every square inch of the room. It hit you as soon as you opened the door. The windows did not open. It smelled like a dirty ashtray was taped to my nose. All night long.
In a sense, you do. A private business provides a service of renting out a room for the days/nights that you are free to choose or reject.
Besides, there are some health-police types out there who would restrict smoking in private homes as well. They are doing it in public parks around the country and in no way, shape, or form, could this type assault on personal freedoms be viewed as anything but the obcessions of control freaks.
I believe hotels/motels fall under "public accomodations".
The issue of smoking in one's home is irrelevant. That is not the subject of this thread.
Sure..because I own my business that needs the PUBLIC to survive, I should subject them to whatever I please? Especially potentially hidden known dangers? That's not how we run things in this country. Somehow people believe that "Liberty" is somehow a license to do whatever the hell you please.
NYer75? I have been to ten county fairs and a few goat-ropings, and never encountered such illogic as you use (no matter the subject).
Did you not read anything I wrote earlier (or that others have not as well?). I clearly said -- clearly being the operative term -- that there is a legitimate role for government to regulate/control hidden type dangers that the average, reasonable, sentient, person, cannot be expected to discern for themselves. Such as potential food poisons, and fire hazards, and lack of proper exits in case of fire. And also in truly public buildings and offices.
Please spare me your righteous lecture about how "we" do things in this country. Your whole history of post themes indicates nothing but disdain and hatred for how things are done in this country.
Regardless, if YOU own a business and take the financial risks? Then yep, your right to run it as you see fit in terms of permitting and/or disallowing smoking is YOUR concern. Your potential customers are likewise free to choose whether or not to patronize your business.
In a sense, you do. A private business provides a service of renting out a room for the days/nights that you are free to choose or reject.
Besides, there are some health-police types out there who would restrict smoking in private homes as well. They are doing it in public parks around the country and in no way, shape, or form, could this type assault on personal freedoms be viewed as anything but the obcessions of control freaks.
I am guessing that most all hotel owners want to ban smoking in their hotels. Allowing smoking costs them more in insurance and cleaning.
I'll never forget the time I went on a business trip and reserved a non-smoking room in a very well known hotel chain known for business travelers. Got to the hotel with my co-worker, who had a different room. I was assigned a smoking room - even though my confirmed reservation was for non-smoking. I requested a different room, but was told they had no other rooms. My only other choice was another hotel 15 minutes away. My co-worker had the rental car. I was stuck.
That smoking room stunk horribly. The carpet, the drapes, every square inch of the room. It hit you as soon as you opened the door. The windows did not open. It smelled like a dirty ashtray was taped to my nose. All night long.
Bravo to MI and WI.
I also have been in this unfortunate situation. I would smell like old smoke and all of my clothes that I took along would smell. Hated it.
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.
