U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
Old 11-23-2011, 04:26 PM
10,167 posts, read 17,849,167 times
Reputation: 5780


Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
But that is your position. Business owners should be free to run their business their way, right? Either they should have to obey the laws or they shouldn't. Which is it? It's a fairly simple question... you've stated that business owners should be free to run their business their way, which in turn means they shouldn't have to obey because various codes and such that might negatively impact their business because that is not running it their way.

You can't have selective enforcement...if you're for businesses having to obey laws rated to public health, then this is one of them.

The business owners presented their cases and the anti-smoking groups presented theirs and laws were passed. They've been appealed in many places and upheld. More than a few "zealots" obviously believe smoking is a danger to both the smoker and anyone who is around that person. It's not some liberal conspiracy.
To start, deflect as you might try, you lied about my position in terms of the proper role of government. I never took the position nor particulars you attributed to me earlier. You know it, I know it, and so does everyone else now. But ok, I said I would drop that one and I will...unless you bring it back up. Word to the wise, as they say. To continue...

You really don't see it, do you? Either that or we are just totally talking past each other. To be fair, that is always possible and often is.

At the same time, you and I have gone round and round over this many times in the past and based on that past experience, IMHO, your so-called "simple question", is really just attempting to steer the debate into a ditch. With all due respect -- and I honestly do repect your intelligence and knowledge on many subjects -- this is not just an inch deep subject.

We all KNOW what the law says, and court precedents. We all KNOW that "the people" can use the law to stamp out what have traditionally and classically beforehand been recognized as private property rights. One of those being that a business owner should (operative term here) retain the default right to allow/disallow the sale/consumption/use of a legal product upon/within their own premises...provided they have the proper permits (if applicable) to do so.

This has nothing at all to do with Jim Crow laws (as you have tried to introduce into the equasion in the past) or obvious disregard for reasonable public safety standards, which common sense itself dictates. That is ludicuous.

The question is (at least it is for me and seems a few others), is not what the law permits and the method used to swing it, but the deeper question of are such laws compatible with traditional understanding of private property rights?

On a related tangent? Why should it bother you -- you personally -- that there are some businesses out there that permit smoking within the physical confines of their establishment? Are you required to go into them? Is anyone? How does it harm you personally, if you have the option to stay out of them, and the harm you seek to avoid is clearly known aforehand?

Can you please answer that?

Last edited by TexasReb; 11-23-2011 at 05:05 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 11-24-2011, 09:32 AM
243 posts, read 229,304 times
Reputation: 166
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere View Post
You can't have it both ways. Either private business owners get to make decisions for themselves, or they are subject to regulations that are lawfully passed by the very people they elected.

These aren't some phantom "zealots" that can just pop up and make a law - it has to be passed same as health codes, etc. Obviously, since it's been proven time and again that both smoking and secondhand smoke is bad for you, it's a matter of public health.
There is a big difference between business regulations based on common sense and regulations that are based on Social Engineering. Smoking Bans are Social Engineering. Their purpose is to force smokers to quit by eliminating places for them to smoke. This is "Help" in the minds of the anti-smokers.

Austin is planning to ban smoking outside in Austin parks. No one can seriously believe that second hand smoke outside is an acute danger. The purpose of the proposed outside smoking ban is to again "help" smokers quit by eliminating another place for them to smoke. Any other reason is just an excuse. It's just more Social Engineering.

The idea that businesses can be used for the purposes of Social Engineering is a dangerous one.

Last edited by austinrebel; 11-24-2011 at 09:41 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top