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 don't prefer the use of 'MOST' people in the subject matter. I suspect that gathering data from MOST people would be close to an insurmountable task. Perhaps MOST people in somebodies survey or poll, but then we have to determine the actual validity of the finding of said poll. A losing argument at the outset.
I quit smoking in '94. One day, just poof and it went away. Never wanted to smoke again. Don't even remember what it was to smoke.
But I agree with Houston3, if someone else wants to smoke it's none of my business. Now, a smoke free work place is a good idea. I tend to avoid cigarette smoke wherever it may be.
But I would support a restaurant or bar or other place of entertainment making its own decision regarding smoking. If a patron doesn't want to go to a smoking club then so be it. Don't go. Why would the government be making that decision for you? But these are meant to be places where people can go to relax and/or enjoy themselves. Smoking may be a part of that. I do appreciate some odors that are related to cigarette smoking mixing with foods or perfumes. So I would prefer a smoking club.
You and I are friends, HTLove-- and have been allies on lots of topics -- but with all due respect, your counter-points are a little weak. To wit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
You make very strong points but they are not actually grounded in fact.
1. It has long been established that business places are not private places. Places of business are semi- public in that you may enter without permission, but you may be charged a fee or be asked to leave for a variety of reasons.
Point is though, that "you" are equally free NOT to enter nor patronize them....unlike in truly public offices/buildings where you may not have such an option (renewing a drivers licence, getting your license plate, etc). I can see why smoking can be banned in these places. No problem at all.
But, you don't have to eat, drink, or be merry, in bars, restaurants or bowling alleys privately owned. To say (as many seem to) that your "right" to enter them and not be subjected to second-hand smoke, is to essentially say the business belongs to the government and not the business owner who takes the risk, puts up the money, and knows better (if s/he wants to stay in business) how to run the operation better than some politician and/or busy-body bureaucrat who has nothing better to do than harass people with petty-power.
Quote:
2. Because it is more public than private the government can place regulations on things concerning the public good. One of the most widely known limitations on freedom of speech is the Oliver Wendell Holmes example: "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" if there is no real fire.
there is nothing illegal in the words themselves. They are not vulgar words. You can use it in your home, but you can't in a crowded theater because of the harm that MAY be caused.
Again, a non-sequiteur. I earlier made (whether accepted or not) the distinction between public safety and the new-found nanny-state concen for "public health" (which hell, don't think there are not zealouts who would support bans on wearing too much perfume in restaurants...).
Shouting "Fire" in a public theatre would certainly violate public safety concerns. And yeah, cross Free Speech rights.
On the other hand? SMOKING in a public theatre, if it were known beforehand smoking was permitted? It violates no rights because the offended party knew in advance what they were getting into. Thus, the two situations are unanalagous.
If some screwball hollers out "FIRE! FIRE...my god, this place is burning and we better get outta here!!!"...no one can prepare for that nor know ahead of time it would happen. And the culprit should rightfully be arrested, at best, for creating a public disturbance, and, in worst case scenario, for some degree of homicide (if a public panic followed which lead to trampling deaths), and certainly not be able to appeal on Free Speech grounds.
But, if they go into the place they knew ahead of time permitted smoking? Then hey, whose fault is that if they are inconvenienced by somebody else's smoke? This is no constitutional right to be protected in any case.
Quote:
Thus if the government can regulate speech, something that is constitutionally protected, then sure they can regulate smoking- something that is already regulated and has no specific constitutional protection
The constitutional protection comes with the very foundation of our freedoms. That is, the basic premise that ones right to control ones own private property is the very essence of the said freedoms.
And note too, I did NOT say government had no authority in regulating its own buildings and such. I said it should have NO say in regulating that of the private business owner in matters like the one at hand.
The difference is that smoking affects not only the people doing, but people around. While someone may have the right to hurt themselves, they don't have the right to hurt other people.
Just because something is private property doesn't give the owner carte blanche. If it's a business for the public, then that gives government some right over what takes place in there.
You are right. Which is, once again, why I mentioned earlier the difference between public safety and public health. Seemingly though, you don't recognize/appreciate the difference.
Government does (and generally should) have a role in regulating those things the average person cannot be expected to to discern for themselves. That is, for example, using rotted meat for tacos, or cheap wiring systems which have the potential to cause a tinderbox type fire.
On the other hand? It is NOT (or shouldn't be) the business of government to tell the private business owner how they should regulate something like smoking. For the simple reason the customer/patron know ahead of time they will be entering an environment that might not be healthy. But that is THEIR choice to make. If they "hurt themselves" by going into a place that allows smoking, then THEY are the ones who bear the responsibility for doing so.
I swear, I do not know what it is a about this simple concept that eludes so many people in this day and age. It is truly scary that classic notions of freedom and private property rights are so dismissed today...
Point is though, that "you" are equally free NOT to enter nor patronize them. Unlike truly public offices/buildings where you may not have such an option (renewing a drivers licence, getting your license plate, etc). I can see why smoking can be banned in the latter. No problem at all.
the ban is not simply protecting patrons, it is protecting employees too. should the employees just find another job too because the place decides to allow smoking???
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
But, you don't have to eat, drink, or be merry, in bars, restaurants or bowling alleys privately owned. To say (as many seem to) that your "right" to enter them and not be subjected to second-hand smoke, is to essentially say the business belongs to the government and not the business owner who takes the risk, puts up the money, and knows better (if s/he wants to stay in business) how to run the operation better than some politician and/or busy-body bureaucrat who has nothing better to do than harass people with petty-power.
saying that a person does not have the right to do eat some where is the weakest of weak points. The overriding point is that the government has regulated thing for flimsier reasons, public health is an extremely good reason to regulate.
Quote:
Again, a non-sequiteur. I earlier made (whether accepted or not) the distinction between public safety and the new-found nanny-state concen for "public health" (which hell, don't think there are not zealouts who would support bans on wearing too much perfume in restaurants...).
public health regulation isn't new. It is something that has been around from the beginning, and arguable in a number of clauses. As for perfumes, that may make some one sneeze, but they don't flair up emphysema and they are not connected to cancer.
Quote:
Shouting "Fire" in a public theatre would certainly violate public safety concerns.
yes, just like cigarette smoke
Quote:
On the other hand? SMOKING in a public theatre, if it were known beforehand smoking was permitted violates no rights because the offended party knew in advance what they were getting into? Then the two situations are unanalagous.
knowing in advance is besides the point. the real point is that the government has a right to regulate where safety is concerned, appreciation of the risks is irrelevant. My point from the beginning was whether or not the government can regulate, and the answer is yes.
Quote:
If some screwball hollers out "the place is burning and we better get outta here"...no one can prepare for that nor know ahead of time it would happen. And the culprit should rightfully be arrested, at best, for creating a public disturbance, and, in worst case scenario, for some degree of homicide (if a public panic followed which lead to trampling deaths), and certainly not be able to appeal on Free Speech grounds.
But, if they go into the place they knew ahead of time permitted smoking? Then hey, whose fault is that if they are inconvenienced by somebody else's smoke? This is no constitutional right to be protected in any case.
The constitutional protection comes with the very foundation of our freedoms. That is, the basic premise that ones right to control ones own private property is the very essence of the said freedoms.
And note too, I did NOT say government had no authority in regulating its own buildings and such. I said it should have NO say in regulating that of the private business owner.
so government should not regulate paints containing lead in business places catering to young children? what about asbestos? what about prohibition against children in drinking places or gambling places?
you arguing based on they don't have to go if they don't want to smell smoke. that is a silly point. When it comes to public health, strong rights go out the window let alone silly rights like smoking at your seat. They are not even prohibiting smoking itself, they are just saying take it outside.
smoking is not a fundamental right. It is a limited privilege that can be taken away in the blink of an eye
I quit smoking 336 days ago, but it's none of my business what someone else does....
People need to stop telling others what they can and cannot do, but that's the liberal way, isn't it!!!!!
And that's my opinion...
I don't care if people smoke as long as I don't have to smell it. If people want to smoke elsewhere, where innocent people aren't effected why would anyone else care. Its when a smoker lights up and the rest of us are effected by it. I have asthma and its literally hard to breathe. You make the mistake of thinking it doesn't effect us when we are there, having to smell it. No one wants to live breathing in second hand smoke...
On the other hand? It is NOT (or shouldn't be) the business of government to tell the private business owner how they should regulate something like smoking. For the simple reason the customer/patron know ahead of time they will be entering an environment that might not be healthy. But that is THEIR choice to make. If they "hurt themselves" by going into a place that allows smoking, then THEY are the ones who bear the responsibility for doing so.
I swear, I do not know what it is a about this simple concept that eludes so many people in this day and age. It is truly scary that classic notions of freedom and private property rights are so dismissed today...
I think you think the concept is eluding some because you think they are arriving at a conclusion via one path when in actuality they are coming from another path.
humans are flawed. you can't trust their choices. the law is not based on "oh they had a choice to go somewhere else" (by the way in some cases people didn't. people could start up smoking anywhere before), the law there is to protect the general public.
given the choice to take a few swigs, many kids under 21 would drink, given the choice many already intoxicated people would take another drink.
and again. Places of business are not private places. if you want to invite people to patronize your place you have to follow the public safety rules.
I don't care if people smoke as long as I don't have to smell it. If people want to smoke elsewhere, where innocent people aren't effected why would anyone else care. Its when a smoker lights up and the rest of us are effected by it. I have asthma and its literally hard to breathe. You make the mistake of thinking it doesn't effect us when we are there, having to smell it. No one wants to live breathing in second hand smoke...
I know, why do people think we can just go another place? why do smokers have the right to inconvenience us when we are having a nice dinner?
the ban is not simply protecting patrons, it is protecting employees too. should the employees just find another job too because the place decides to allow smoking???
Yep, they sure should. No one has a "right" to a job. If one doesn't want to be around smoking and smokers in the workplace? Then fer gosh sakes, don't apply for a job where it is permitted.
And actually, HTlove, you are taking it from a negative direction when you speak of the "rights" of an employee when it comes to an place which "decides to allow smoking."
In reality, it goes the opposite way. That is, the place BANS smoking (by free-choice or government regulation). Bottom line is it is more likely to be the smoker who is restricted when new rules are put into effect. And yep, same applies. If a smoker suddenly becomes restricted by new policy (hopefully being the decision of the business owner)? Then hey, go find a job where you still have the right to smoke.
See? I am not unfair on this position!
Quote:
saying that a person does not have the right to do eat some where is the weakest of weak points. The overriding point is that the government has regulated thing for flimsier reasons, public health is an extremely good reason to regulate.
It is? How so?
But you are correct, government has regulated things for flimsier reasons. How does that justify another flimsier reason?
Ok, lets take that up. You say public health is an extremely good thing to regulate? At what point does it stop? At what point does a special interest group's agenda become more important than private property rights and the free-choices of others in the name of "public health"?
There is literally nothing that cannot be regulated/banned under the altruistic auspices of "public health." Fried chicken? Hamburgers. Hey, guess what (this is hypothetical, not personal) I have asthema and and allergic to colonge/perfume. I want an ordinance limiting the dabs people can put on their necks in restaurants.
There is no logical stopping point...
Quote:
public health regulation isn't new. It is something that has been around from the beginning, and arguable in a number of clauses. As for perfumes, that may make some one sneeze, but they don't flair up emphysema and they are not connected to cancer.
I don't know whether they do or not...but apparently according to these researched sources, they are a problem:
Yes, I agree that is stupid. But do you not see the point here? There is no logical reason, if government begins to get into the arena of "public health" in a way which resticts private property rights, that it cannot ban the use of perfume. After all, the "evidence" of harmful affects is there...
Quote:
knowing in advance is besides the point. the real point is that the government has a right to regulate where safety is concerned, appreciation of the risks is irrelevant. My point from the beginning was whether or not the government can regulate, and the answer is yes.
No, it isn't beside the point. To cut the melon, it is key to the whole disagreement. You believe government can regulate in the name of "public health". I say that such a term is dangerously broad.
And to follow, it is not a matter of public safety. If you choose to enter a place where you know ahead of time permits smoking? Then...well, what? It is governments responsibility that you didn't read the signs?
Quote:
so government should not regulate paints containing lead in business places catering to young children? what about asbestos? what about prohibition against children in drinking places or gambling places?
As I said, difference between public safety and the abstract concept of "public health" in the realms of private business.
Kids in drinking and/or gambling places? This one too is an inapplicable example. For one thing, it is a long recognized and accepted standard of an "age of majority." Has little to do with this issue.
Quote:
you arguing based on they don't have to go if they don't want to smell smoke. that is a silly point. When it comes to public health, strong rights go out the window let alone silly rights like smoking at your seat. They are not even prohibiting smoking itself, they are just saying take it outside.
You are right, that is exactly what I am arguing. If you don't want to smell smoke, then don't go into places it is permitted. Hell, I might LIKE to smell perfume...so might go to a Los Vegas house of ill repute! LOL (to the literal minded....I am just being absurd to make a point). I dont HAVE to go there...
What is silly about such common sense? Sounds like you are getting a little silly yourself. What give YOU the right, because you don't like to breath smoke, to presume the right -- thru government coersion -- to tell the business owner how to control their own business?
Quote:
smoking is not a fundamental right. It is a limited privilege that can be taken away in the blink of an eye
Huh? Whoever said smoking was a fundamental right? A privilige? Who is responsible for granting that "privilidge" and who controls where this so-called "privilidge" is permitted or not? Government?
Wearing perfume is not a fundamental right, either. It can be taken away in the blink of an eye as well. So what is your point?
To sum it up, your position seems to be that your self-defined "rights" to be protected against a subjectively perceived health hazard you knew existed ahead of time should supercede that of the private property owner to run his/her business in the way they see fit.
Mine is that you have no "rights" of that sort. If the sign outside says "Smoking Permitted"? then go down the street to one that says "Smoking Not Allowed".
Last edited by TexasReb; 02-03-2011 at 04:57 PM..
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.
To wit: 
