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.
(owners rights)
Several pages back, I was trying to stay focused on the “rights of a business owner” to help simplify the discussion on the smoking ban. I don’t see how a local government can allow some business owners “the right to smoking” and then restrict others “to a nonsmoking” environment within their place of business. Are we not all subject to the same laws? It would be ok for you to have a business with a license to allow smoking and then they tell me I can’t have one because there is a need for a nonsmoking license in the location that I want to open. This isn’t protecting the rights of both owners.
It’s simply all businesses follows the same laws, and this includes all of the laws that are imposed on an owner. Don’t ask my business to provide those items that are required for “special needs” people and then say the other place of business down the street choose to not provide service for those who have a lifestyle that might require “special needs” under the law. This isn’t providing equal rights under the law for the owners.
(lifestyle)
It’s easy to understand your lifestyle but this smoking ban was a law for smoking. You’re lifestyle doesn’t change because you step outside on a patio to smoke.
Under any part of this thread, customer rights, owner rights, lifestyles, health issues, and more, it would appear that someone isn’t getting their wishes or needs met for one reason or another. Maybe that’s why when the voters spoke at the ballot box the laws were provided in accordance with those who spoke out. (I understand that there is the one area and maybe another that the city council voted not the people) However to my knowledge everywhere that the smoking ban is established – the voters chose what they wanted.
Maybe there are many too people with a lifestyle that would like a smoke free area where they can enjoy drinking, bands and music, restaurants and more.
If the smoking ban isn’t constitutional – why has it not been overturned yet? There are many locations across the country that have had it for years and no one has attempted to overturn it. I’m sure that the somewhere a state has had their legal minds working on what can and can’t be used as a law there.
I don’t believe that homogenizing the law as you said it an answer. It places a restriction on one and not the other. Laws can then be written where you pay the tax and become restricted and I don’t have to pay tax or follow the ordinance. I don’t see how they (two businesses) can coexist. The closest thing I can think and it’s not truly coexisting is a county that I know of can not sell alcohol it’s a dry county, yet the other neighboring countries can sell alcohol. Is the law fair in this example if you wanted to sell alcohol in a dry county? I see that the law is a double edge sword – but aren’t all laws?
(owners rights)
Several pages back, I was trying to stay focused on the “rights of a business owner” to help simplify the discussion on the smoking ban. I don’t see how a local government can allow some business owners “the right to smoking” and then restrict others “to a nonsmoking” environment within their place of business. Are we not all subject to the same laws? It would be ok for you to have a business with a license to allow smoking and then they tell me I can’t have one because there is a need for a nonsmoking license in the location that I want to open. This isn’t protecting the rights of both owners.
I don't remember seeing anyone say that some businesses would be forced to be smoking or non-smoking establishments. I believe that what people are saying is to let the free market economy decide. There is a demand for both types of establishment, and businesses, by necessity, cater to demand. If there is, in fact no evidence of demand for either a non-smoking or smoking establishment, then that's a vote of the people which is more accurate than an official legislative vote. The market would show business owners which type of establishment to provide, rather than the government. It's not a matter of the government choosing which business should provide certain services.
Quote:
Under any part of this thread, customer rights, owner rights, lifestyles, health issues, and more, it would appear that someone isn’t getting their wishes or needs met for one reason or another. Maybe that’s why when the voters spoke at the ballot box the laws were provided in accordance with those who spoke out. (I understand that there is the one area and maybe another that the city council voted not the people) However to my knowledge everywhere that the smoking ban is established – the voters chose what they wanted.
Yes, however, voting in some areas is not representative of people's actual wishes due to ambiguous wording, deceptive education on the part of special interest groups and general apathy toward the democratic process on the part of those who will be affected (while those who tend to vote en masse tend to vote according to their personal values, regardless of whether or not they're actually affected by the law). In Arizona, we have propositions which can be written by regular joes as long as they get enough people to sign that it should be put up for a vote. Other than checking signatures, our executive branch leaves the process completely in the hands of the people. While I love the idea of being able to shape our own laws, that puts the rest of us in a dangerous position because people who are very passionate about a certain topic can and will warp the facts to fit their agenda. This leaves only those who have extensive time to carefully review the wording in the proposed legislation to know what's really in there. Since we have a number of propositions to vote on each election, it's nearly impossible for those who actually do go out to vote to really have a solid understanding of what they're signing their name to. I wouldn't get rid of this system, but I would like more checks and balances regarding voter education so that the laws are clear before it's too late to change your mind. To make matters worse, we frequently have multiple propositions dealing with the same subject, so unless everyone is a lawyer or legislator, or has the time and analytical mind to peruse all of the wording, it's downright confusing. Also, the proposed laws almost always have extra items which could cause someone to vote for or against it because of those items, regardless of the overall intent of the law (earmarks). So, it's just not as simple as going out to vote for or against a smoking ban. It's deceptive, complicated and generally lacks any kind of state government feedback or checks and balances.
Quote:
If the smoking ban isn’t constitutional – why has it not been overturned yet? There are many locations across the country that have had it for years and no one has attempted to overturn it. I’m sure that the somewhere a state has had their legal minds working on what can and can’t be used as a law there.
For many reasons:
1. People are busy trying to feed their families in this downturned economy to organize rallies, talk to lawyers etc, to protest the removal of freedoms.
2. Same reason we have many unconstitutional federal laws: because the legislative system has too much power, puts PR spins on public education, earmarks bills, tries to diffuse protests, has a hand in mass media, the people are apathetic or just don't realize that constitutional freedoms are disappearing...I could go on
Quote:
I don’t believe that homogenizing the law as you said it an answer. It places a restriction on one and not the other. Laws can then be written where you pay the tax and become restricted and I don’t have to pay tax or follow the ordinance. I don’t see how they (two businesses) can coexist. The closest thing I can think and it’s not truly coexisting is a county that I know of can not sell alcohol it’s a dry county, yet the other neighboring countries can sell alcohol. Is the law fair in this example if you wanted to sell alcohol in a dry county? I see that the law is a double edge sword – but aren’t all laws?
If other countries want to have a socialist approach to businesses, that's their choice. Here in the US, it's supposed to be a free market economy, which is why businesses should have the choice to serve one clientele or another. They should have a right to conduct business in a way that they can follow market trends, supply and demand. Government should not be restricting businesses from practicing standard business methods.
As I said earlier, if there is a genuinely overwhelming demand for non-smoking establishments, then that demand would force businesses to follow that trend. If not, then they should have the right to follow another trend.
if there is a genuinely overwhelming demand for non-smoking establishments, then that demand would force businesses to follow that trend. If not, then they should have the right to follow another trend.
Perfect comment. I don't understand why people don't get this (and I am a non-smoker)
Castaway ~ It is for you and others like you, that I post so passionately about freedom of choice for bar/restaurant owners. It makes no sense to me why it should be any other way. Like I have said over and over, it is not right (IMO) for the majority to take away the rights of the minority (restaurant/bar owners - it is a private establishment which chooses to serve the public). I don't think smoking bans should ever be allowed up for a vote of the people without the exclusion of private businesses. Public businesses are a different story. Just because a bar/restaurant serves the public, does not make it a public establishment. It is privately owned. I think this is a basic fact being overlooked in this debate. We should never consider it our right to take away the right of a business owner to cater to their clientele.
Thanks. This is not rocket science ,yet, people want to make things more complicated than they really are.
Thanks. This is not rocket science ,yet, people want to make things more complicated than they really are.
I agree. I also believe we need to be more tolerant of each other. We need to re-learn, as a nation, not to act like petulant children who simply must have our way at the expense of others.
Do you think that phasing the smoking ban in would be a more viable solution?
There are many things and practices that are 'grandfathered' in. Allow bars or restaurants to continue operating as smoking establishments (if they choose). When ownership changes hands or it is a new business then make the ban effective. New ownership will understand what the rules are. They will know what they are getting in to.
The way I see it, it would not effect a small established business as hard. Change takes time. To change the rules abruptly will cost many in the end.
Having said that, I still think that it should be up to the owner of a private establishment when it comes to legal activities.
I think bottom line is, there is no reason why there can't be smoking and non-smoking restaurants. Where smoking has been banned, it has been banned in all restaurants and bars. I think this is a mistake. I believe the R&B's should be allowed to decide for themselves who they wish to cater to. I don't believe we as a people should even have the choice to ban what legal activities occur inside a private establishment. I believe it should be taken to court that it is unconstitutional to vote in a ban including R&B's. We are taking away the right of choice from private business owners whenever a ban is approved. There would be plenty of both types (smoking and non) for people to patronize if given the choice. No, I don't think the current bans should stand and we should "phase in" R&B's when they change ownership, for the reasons I have mentioned here and elsewhere in this thread.
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.
I also believe we need to be more tolerant of each other. We need to re-learn, as a nation, not to act like petulant children who simply must have our way at the expense of others.
Changing the rules!
