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.
We all know about the court rulings and etc. on "public accomodations". Many of your posts seem to presume the rest of us are ignorant of them. That is why I said earlier that some of the same are extremely condecending and didactic in their presentation. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but that is the way it so often comes across.
The main point is that that -- in the realm of the public accomodations rulings -- that some of them are outrageous violations of private property rights. Just because something is ruled by government, and ok'd by the court, doesn't necessarily translate into that it is a good idea, and will not reap unintended consequences. Sometimes those of your ilk use the "Public Accomodations" argument as if it came from a Burning Bush and is the Alpha and Omega. Geez...
As Mr. Bumble pretty much said in "Oliver Twist"; If the law says that, sir, then the law is an ass!
C'mon. This is just another one of those silly and totally inapplicable comparissons the anti-smoking zealots try to make and it doesn't hold water.
Of course it is not ok to "poop" on the floor of a motel room. For one thing, it is against the law on several levels and always has been! Depending on the circumtances, it could be part or all of Destruction of Property, Disorderly Conduct, Assault and/or Battery, etc, etc. To say nothing of that the place itself being guilty of neglecting public safety standards, if they didn't clean up the mess (there is a difference between public safety and public health regulations when the latter involves knowlege aforehand and free choice on the part of the consumer).
The better comparisson would be if a motel allowed people to dump cigarette butts all over the floor and empty the ash-trays on the beds and carpet. Right? And that would constitute the same violations of law mentioned earlier.
On the other hand, smoking per se is NOT illegal. If "you" want to stay in a place where smoking is not permitted and you are a smoker? Go somewhere else. On the other hand, if you don't like it smelling smoke? Do the same! Go elsewhere. Simple as that.
On a related tangent -- not so much talking to you, Katiana, but if the shoe fits, wear it -- what is striking a bit in this thread is how so many of those taking the "let's ban smoking (or some aspect of it) position" seem to have that supercilious attitude of lecturing others....yet they themselves are so blinded by the self-righteous/self-centered outlook, they can't see the forest for the trees....
I don't know why you get on my case about this "public accomodations" issue. Apparently a lot of people on this board don't understand the difference between a privately owned business and a private home. When you run a business, you have to follow certain regulations that do not apply in one's home. "Private" has a different meaning in this case. If the shoe fits, you wear it, if you don't get it.
the big bad "gov't" says ya can't smoke in a movie theater, either. Yell "fire!" in a theater and watch the reaction.
What does that have to do with anything? If the owner of the movie theatre bans smoking, then they have every right to do so. On the other hand, if someone owns a movie theatre and decides to allow it? What is the problem. A customer can go to one or the other. Why is government needed to make the decision? Isn't an adult free U.S. citizen capable of making the same?
The "fire is a crowded theatre" analogy is almost laughable in its attempt to draw a parallel. This one involved the limits of free speech and how it affected public safety. And it made sense. Now, again, what in the hell does that have to with adults making choices to smoke or not and/or finding places that allow/disollow them?
What does that have to do with anything? If the owner of the movie theatre bans smoking, then they have every right to do so. On the other hand, if someone owns a movie theatre and decides to allow it? What is the problem. A customer can go to one or the other. Why is government needed to make the decision? Isn't an adult free U.S. citizen capable of making the same?
The "fire is a crowded theatre" analogy is almost laughable in its attempt to draw a parallel. This one involved the limits of free speech and how it affected public safety. And it made sense. Now, again, what in the hell does that have to with adults making choices to smoke or not and/or finding places that allow/disollow them?
Nice try...but the analogy is perfect in this situation of public vs. private accomodations...I have yet to be in any theater ANYWHERE in our country that allows smoking. Adults HAVE choices, go to a public place where smoking is prohibited or go to YOUR private space where smoking is allowed. Bad try...but keep at it, eventually you'll get there.
I don't know why you get on my case about this "public accomodations" issue. Apparently a lot of people on this board don't understand the difference between a privately owned business and a private home. When you run a business, you have to follow certain regulations that do not apply in one's home. "Private" has a different meaning in this case. If the shoe fits, you wear it, if you don't get it.
My gawd!! Are you being intentionally obtuse, or just facitious? Or honestly -- LMAO -- believe you are so intellectually/morally superior to those with a different viewpoint, that you can do nothing but retreat into these ridiculous analogies/comparissons of yours?
Whatever, I "get it" perfectly. I also know about legislative and/or court rulings on Public Accomodations aspects in quite a few realms. So, obviously, do quite a few others. And what is equally obvious is that many on here are not capable of making adult decisions and taking responsibility for their own choices.
I can't say I am surprised, as so many today have grown up with the imparted message that they they are entitled from cradle to grave and Big Brother and Aunt Nanny protect them from all the hazards in the world. At all cost, spare them having to actually take responsibility for what they do and decide, huh?
But ok, EVERY SINGLE thing you have brought up has been addressed and refuted. Whether or not you agree with them or not, of course, is however you interpret it. Also, it is NOT about you disagreeing and presenting your case at all. That is your right and I respect it.
Rather, it is this almost....hell....I dont know....self-superior opinion of yourself..?. I am sorry if this sounds harsh -- because I truly don't think you are a hostile/bad person -- but that is honestly how it comes across. Many if not most of your posts have an undertone -- if not outright overtone -- of presuming to address others as they are clueless!
Now then, to sum it all up? You havent refuted a single thing anyone else provided to counter your own arguments. Hell, in fact, the thing about shliting on the floor is almost a joke in its logical implications. And you have provide no response to the questions of how many times have you flown and/or been forced to stay in a motel room that was smoking? Which are more prevelent nowdays? Smoking or non-smoking?
So I just have to ask again? WHAT is so wrong with allowing a business owner (bar, restaurant, motel, etc) to decide for themselves whether nor not to ban it completely, allow it completely, or restrict its use....so long as it is known aforehand to the potential customer.
Hey, it occured to me, just so you don't think I am not willing to walk the same walk? I quit smoking years ago, but my fiance still puffs away like a ruanaway frieght-train. It got so bad she herself decided to go on Chantix. I hope it works of course...
But there was once we had to go to Kansas on some family business, and the place we usually stayed was now non-smoking due to a newly passed city ordinance that banned smoking within the limits.
What did we do? I didn't care as I didn't smoke...but we just found another place in another small town that allowed smoking. Was it an inconvience? Sure it was. But the bottom line was we found a place more to the liking.
So why can't those on the opposite end of it do the same thing even if in reverse?
Nice try...but the analogy is perfect in this situation of public vs. private accomodations...I have yet to be in any theater ANYWHERE in our country that allows smoking. Adults HAVE choices, go to a public place where smoking is prohibited or go to YOUR private space where smoking is allowed. Bad try...but keep at it, eventually you'll get there.
Then you're not very old. Smoking used to be allowed in every theater I know of. That only disappeared because the law forbade it, forcing those theater owners who wanted to serve their smoking customers to toe the line.
Their right to run their business in the manner they saw fit was taken away, just as with the hotel operator's in WI and MI, because the anti's wanted to be saved the bother of finding another place to watch movies. In their zeal to protect themselves from the hazards of second hand smoke, and to force others to live the way they so obviously should, they trampled on the liberty of theater owners.
Apparently, some here think that's a good model for further restrictions on freedom. After all, it's for the public "good," right? And, who knows better what's "good" for us than the government?
There's simply no place in modern America for tolerance, compromise and good will when it comes to smoking. Like the leper's of old, smokers have to be forced out of sight and the government is perfectly positioned to deliver that great day.
Nice try...but the analogy is perfect in this situation of public vs. private accomodations...I have yet to be in any theater ANYWHERE in our country that allows smoking. Adults HAVE choices, go to a public place where smoking is prohibited or go to YOUR private space where smoking is allowed. Bad try...but keep at it, eventually you'll get there.
It is, huh? LMAO. Are you seriously believing this? What does a private business disallowing, allowing, or semi-permitting smoking have in common with hollering "Fire" in a crowded theatre?
And the public/private thing has been addressed many times; especially in terms of the anti-smoking zealots intentionally trying to blur distinctions for their own agenda.
I am sorry you are not adult/responsible enough to make your own choices and take responsibility for them, without needing your nanny to do it for you.
Your posts and points don't even make sense in terms of consistency....
Then you're not very old. Smoking used to be allowed in every theater I know of. That only disappeared because the law forbade it, forcing those theater owners who wanted to serve their smoking customers to toe the line.
Their right to run their business in the manner they saw fit was taken away, just as with the hotel operator's in WI and MI, because the anti's wanted to be saved the bother of finding another place to watch movies. In their zeal to protect themselves from the hazards of second hand smoke, and to force others to live the way they so obviously should, they trampled on the liberty of theater owners.
Apparently, some here think that's a good model for further restrictions on freedom. After all, it's for the public "good," right? And, who knows better what's "good" for us than the government?
There's simply no place in modern America for tolerance, compromise and good will when it comes to smoking. Like the leper's of old, smokers have to be forced out of sight and the government is perfectly positioned to deliver that great day.
Oh please, the government has nothing to do with this. If you want to blame someone then blame the non smokers who want nothing to do with the second hand smoke. As a former smoker I went out of my way to smoke without offending people.....because it is offensive. Yes your freedom is a right to smoke but not in my place please.
Oh please, the government has nothing to do with this. If you want to blame someone then blame the non smokers who want nothing to do with the second hand smoke. As a former smoker I went out of my way to smoke without offending people.....because it is offensive. Yes your freedom is a right to smoke but not in my place please.
Don't worry. I won't come to your house and smoke. But, please allow me to smoke in places where business owners don't mind. You go to places which ban smoking, and I'll go to places which allow it. What would be wrong with that?
Neither of us need government to dictate our choices, do we?
Don't worry. I won't come to your house and smoke. But, please allow me to smoke in places where business owners don't mind. You go to places which ban smoking, and I'll go to places which allow it. What would be wrong with that?
Neither of us need government to dictate our choices, do we?
You are absolutely right.....just as government needs to stay out of gay rights and abortion. They are our choices but yet some want to deny us of that. So what is the difference????
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.
-- what is striking a bit in this thread is how so many of those taking the "let's ban smoking (or some aspect of it) position" seem to have that supercilious attitude of lecturing others....yet they themselves are so blinded by the self-righteous/self-centered outlook, they can't see the forest for the trees....
