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.
I re-read the topic and I see where the problem is (so I think)? There are several issues being kicked around here. [Desertlovers] started a thread on City & State Smoking Bans and it grew into several sub-topics and discussions. All of which may nor may not have connection with the smoking ban.
A: Should a government entity be allowed to control what people are doing?
B: Should people be protected from smoking?
C: Are all businesses public?
D: Are there other human factors or acts that cause people trouble?
Breakdown the four issues and the answer to the topic may be found. Right now there are too many factors that are being dealt with and no headway being made other then pushing hot buttons.
A: I don’t like government control but there are times when it is necessary.
B: If you want to smoke do so! I don’t have any problem with you smoking. However I don’t want to be exposed to poor health issues and smoke.
C: Any business that is open for the general public is ~ “a public location”.
D: Yes many people have disgusting habits or actions that cause problems for others.
And finally is there a law that restricts people from smoking in public places? Yes. And should the general law biding public follow the law? My guess is yes. This is what makes up our society – people living in harmony and following rules and laws.
When the smoke clears everyone will see the answer!
This is like arguing religion, politics, birth control, guns, and more. And when we argue our rights under this government then we should be up in arms with all of the other rights that this administration has taken away from you and I. Sorry that is off topic!
A: I don’t like government control but there are times when it is necessary.
Yes, but only to protect the property rights of others from being infringed upon.
Quote:
B: If you want to smoke do so! I don’t have any problem with you smoking. However I don’t want to be exposed to poor health issues and smoke.
In a truly public place (defined in the next answer) one has the right to be protected from others' smoke. However on private property of someone else, you have no right to be protected. Simply leave.
Quote:
C: Any business that is open for the general public is ~ “a public location”.
Ownership determines whether a property is public or private, not by those who are invited to enter the property. Patronizing a privately owned business is a privilege, not a right. If a private individual owns a property then the property is private. If the taxpayers own the property, then THIS is public property. A public location is not the same as public property, inferring the taxpayers own the property.
Quote:
D: Yes many people have disgusting habits or actions that cause problems for others.
Yes. Adn as long as they don't infringe upon the property rights of others, they should be allowed to indulge.
Based on your comments within your post, I really wonder if you comprehend what logic really is? Let alone have a grasp of comprehension when reading.
And I really wonder why you just don't come out and state your support of a nanny government. They can decide what is right and best for all of us without bothering to ask us, remove any of our rights (you know, personal decisions) that they like so as to gain more control of us.
Just so you know, and you obviously missed this, I cited the "logic" of anothers statement and did not claim logic on my part. Talk about a lack of comprehension...by definition it has to be you.
I re-read the topic and I see where the problem is (so I think)? There are several issues being kicked around here. [Desertlovers] started a thread on City & State Smoking Bans and it grew into several sub-topics and discussions. All of which may nor may not have connection with the smoking ban.
A: Should a government entity be allowed to control what people are doing?
B: Should people be protected from smoking?
C: Are all businesses public?
D: Are there other human factors or acts that cause people trouble?
Breakdown the four issues and the answer to the topic may be found. Right now there are too many factors that are being dealt with and no headway being made other then pushing hot buttons.
A: I don’t like government control but there are times when it is necessary.
B: If you want to smoke do so! I don’t have any problem with you smoking. However I don’t want to be exposed to poor health issues and smoke.
C: Any business that is open for the general public is ~ “a public location”.
D: Yes many people have disgusting habits or actions that cause problems for others.
And finally is there a law that restricts people from smoking in public places? Yes. And should the general law biding public follow the law? My guess is yes. This is what makes up our society – people living in harmony and following rules and laws.
When the smoke clears everyone will see the answer!
This is like arguing religion, politics, birth control, guns, and more. And when we argue our rights under this government then we should be up in arms with all of the other rights that this administration has taken away from you and I. Sorry that is off topic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Yes, but only to protect the property rights of others from being infringed upon.
In a truly public place (defined in the next answer) one has the right to be protected from others' smoke. However on private property of someone else, you have no right to be protected. Simply leave.
Ownership determines whether a property is public or private, not by those who are invited to enter the property. Patronizing a privately owned business is a privilege, not a right. If a private individual owns a property then the property is private. If the taxpayers own the property, then THIS is public property. A public location is not the same as public property, inferring the taxpayers own the property.
Yes. Adn as long as they don't infringe upon the property rights of others, they should be allowed to indulge.
John~
Just finished doing some research on the word “public” and it seems that all of the states that I checked that have a non smoking ban defines the word public place the same. It’s not defined as a “tax payer support” building or property; public is not a government owned building.
<snip>
9. "Public place" means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including airports, banks, bars, common areas of apartment buildings, condominiums or other multifamily housing facilities, educational facilities, entertainment facilities or venues, health care facilities, hotel and motel common areas, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, shopping malls, sports facilities, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" unless it is used as a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.
<snip>
<snip>
B. Smoking is prohibited in all public places and places of employment within the state of Arizona, except the following:
4. Veterans and fraternal clubs when they are not open to the general public.
<snip>
And yet in Nebraska the law also reads: LB395
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Final/LB395.pdf (broken link)
Sec. 11. Public place means an indoor area to which the
public is invited or in which the public is permitted, whether or
not the public is always invited or permitted.
I think you are majoring on minors here given the fact that you are allowing a criminal government to operate under your control and superision (voters) you are allowing the construction of internment centers all over the USA, you are allowing your Southern States to lease their highways to the globlists of Spain, you are allowing the US Dollar to go the hell with constant decreasing purchasing power, you are allowing young americans to die in illegal and unconstitutional wars and use as connon fodder for Oil Monoplies, ect, and you are allowing yourself to be preoccupied while the fox is at the hen house door. Wake up America, take a look around while there is still time left and somk-um if you got them. Stay free and to your own thinking !!
Just finished doing some research on the word “public” and it seems that all of the states that I checked that have a non smoking ban defines the word public place the same. It’s not defined as a “tax payer support” building or property; public is not a government owned building.
<snip>
9. "Public place" means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including airports, banks, bars, common areas of apartment buildings, condominiums or other multifamily housing facilities, educational facilities, entertainment facilities or venues, health care facilities, hotel and motel common areas, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, shopping malls, sports facilities, theaters, and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" unless it is used as a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.
<snip>
<snip>
B. Smoking is prohibited in all public places and places of employment within the state of Arizona, except the following:
4. Veterans and fraternal clubs when they are not open to the general public.
<snip>
And yet in Nebraska the law also reads: LB395
http://uniweb.legislature.ne.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Final/LB395.pdf (broken link)
Sec. 11. Public place means an indoor area to which the
public is invited or in which the public is permitted, whether or
not the public is always invited or permitted.
I was using public "place" as a generic term. As I explained a public location, defined as a public place in your legislation, is not the same as public property.
prop·er·ty(prpr-t)
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.
b. A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
c. Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
d. Possessions considered as a group.
Only those who own or possess a property, or any possession for that matter, should have the right to dictate what legal activities are held, performed, or allowed. Simply because the government defines a particular group of buildings as "public places" does not transfer ownership of those places to the public and therefore should have no say in their operation.
And I really wonder why you just don't come out and state your support of a nanny government. They can decide what is right and best for all of us without bothering to ask us, remove any of our rights (you know, personal decisions) that they like so as to gain more control of us.
You must be a comedian... For you to imply that I would be in favor of a nanny government, that is just so funny. On that note, for your information, I am, as stated before, a believer of the Libertarian way of life, with various conservative thoughts. Again, you and others within this thread, are crying for YOUR nanny, crying that somebody is taking away your supposed 'right' to fill the air within a DRINKING and/or EATING establishment with a known health hazard. Also, again, as you are surely aware, the gov't has the right to legislate that which is best for the public good w/in such facilities - aka the ADA, food safety, etc. laws and regulations. I am not in favor of big gov't - I abhor what is being done currently in the name of 'security', but,,, that is a topic for a different thread. In any case, it is NOT about the gov't gaining control of us, it is about the air being more safer and carrying less of an odor within an establishment where the public is invited, required, and necessary.
Quote:
Just so you know, and you obviously missed this, I cited the "logic" of anothers statement and did not claim logic on my part. Talk about a lack of comprehension...by definition it has to be you.
Well, just so you know, your post was immediately following mine - plus the fact that you did not directly quote who you were replying to. I apologize for assuming that your post
Quote:
"Following the logic used to support the abolition of smoking due to the infringing on rights of non smokers, let us restrict breathing in the company of others. After all, what is exhaled is not clean, pure air. Others are infringing on my rights to clean air! Let's make it a law that everyone must wear a purifying device to clean the air that is exhaled.
Obviously, the statement made above is ridiculous but is used as an example of the lengths some will go to make others conform to their desires."
was not directed at mine. If you would care, maybe then you could clarify this by pointing at exactly which post that was 'made above' is ridiculous?
The point I think that's trying to be made, which seems to be shooting over your head at 40,000 feet, is this....
Alcohol, and those that consume it, are a much greater danger to me and my loved ones than a smoker. Yet, you can walk into many establishment and get served. Meanwhile, as a smoker, the push is to ban you from indoor spaces and put you outside on the street. Thus making it extremely uncomfortable to be a smoker.
The basis for the ban(s) is that cigarette smoking is unhealthy. The point of that post was, drinking is much worse, yet drinkers are subject to far less scrutiny, and far less restrictions than smokers. They can take my life into their hands, while the law prevents me from lighting up within X feet of the doorway to an establishment they may be getting intoxicated in.
When I light up a cigarette, I am still in my right mind. I know where I am, and what I am doing. When a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, half of them don't even know they're drunk. So while I am forcibly banned from just about anyplace indoors, even those places that would rather allow smoking. Meanwhile, Joe Sixpack can get loaded and, you know, DRIVE HOME!
In short, the level of restriction on smokers is disproportionate to other things that the government currently allows. The govt ALLOWS businesses to decide if they want to serve alcohol, do a byob, or go dry. Why can't they decide if they want smoking?
Do you see the point NOW?
~T
The matter is that we are debating the rights of gov't entities to ban smoking within various establishments - we are NOT debating the merits of vehicles and/or alcohol. To follow your reasoning, heck then lets debate the right of the federal gov't to 'blackmail' state gov'ts to impose their will of forcing us to wear seat belts w/in our privately owned vehicles...
As to the restrictions being forced on those that have a need to fill not just their own lungs with crap but those around those, be their other patrons and/or workers within these establishments, who said that smokers have a 'right' to contaminate others with the byproducts of their habits?
BTW, maybe your bs is shooting over my head at 40k feet, as I am staying w/in the confines of this debate - those of you that are bringing in other peripheral items to this discussion are the ones flying way out of the bounds, and need to come back to ground level so that this discussion can stay on track, on the merits of this particular subject.
So, if you desire to open up a debate on the ills and negatives regarding drinking, driving, and so forth, then maybe another thread regarding such would be a better venue for that, not a thread that is discussing smoking bans.
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.
Public is public? Not government owned!
For you to imply that I would be in favor of a nanny government, that is just so funny. 
