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.
You still don't answer the simple question, HT. What is the problem with business owners making their own decisions about whether or not to allow (or disallow) smoking on their own premises? Why can't you (or me or anyone else), just choose to go elsewhere if we don't like to be around smoking and smokers?
That seems a very fair and simple and direct question. But no one wants to answer it. What right do "you" have to tell someone else what they can or can't allow so long as it is legal and you don't have to be subjected to it if you don't want to be? I don't understand....
The big deal with this smoking issue is not about smoking. It is about about how the government is increasingly taking over every aspect of our lives. Many of us believe the government has overstepped its bounds for years. The smoking ban itself just seems to be a natural next step in the way it has been operating already. That is why the opposing point of view has no problem with it. To them, we are the weirdos who are opposed to public health, progression, etc.
We have been trying to ask the opposition,"Where is the line?" In my opinion, their answers to our questions (or lack thereof) indicate that they want to blur the line.
The big deal with this smoking issue is not about smoking. It is about about how the government is increasingly taking over every aspect of our lives. Many of us believe the government has overstepped its bounds for years. The smoking ban itself just seems to be a natural next step in the way it has been operating already. That is why the opposing point of view has no problem with it. To them, we are the weirdos who are opposed to public health, progression, etc.
We have been trying to ask the opposition,"Where is the line?" In my opinion, their answers to our questions (or lack thereof) indicate that they want to blur the line.
Where is the line, people?
You summed it up very well, Derek. To repeat my own outlook posted earlier, I believe these people fall into two broad classes (which can naturally overlap a bit):
1. Those who know full well that using the law to stamp out smoking is not about smoking at all. Rather, they use it as part of a larger agenda -- under the guise of protecting "our children" or "public health" or whatever -- to stamp out classical freedom and private property rights. They are the radical left (not to be confused with a true liberal) and they are ruthless, coldly-calculating, and manipulative. And they are shameless liars. NEVER underestimate them and their capacity for using any vehicle necessary to advance their ideology.
2. The naive and selfish: Many of this type actually mean well and are sincere. A goodly percentage fall under the heading of what Lenin once contemptuously labeled the "useful idiots." Some have just grown up in a society and environment (and the public school system doesn't help much) where every message they get -- and a lot of times from their indulging parents as well -- screams "Its all about ME and MY rights". They have not the slightest comprehension of what classical ideals of freedom really means and entails. Some others have a savior-complex and cannot fathom why other folks are not open to their "message" of protecting the heathen from their own follies.
You still don't answer the simple question, HT. What is the problem with business owners making their own decisions about whether or not to allow (or disallow) smoking on their own premises? Why can't you (or me or anyone else), just choose to go elsewhere if we don't like to be around smoking and smokers?
That seems a very fair and simple and direct question. But no one wants to answer it. What right do "you" have to tell someone else what they can or can't allow so long as it is legal and you don't have to be subjected to it if you don't want to be? I don't understand....
That is not the issue at hand, but I already gave the answer to Horselady.
1. Even though it is their own premises, they do not have a carte blanche right to do anything, regulation occurs in every area of life even in privacy (which you have a specific right to). Smoking is not a right, it is not protected, why should it not be regulated being so dangerous.
2. The right to regulate where public matters are concerned (and businesses are public places you keep acting like it is private asking why can't they do this in their own premises- show me one governmental document that shows that a business is a private place and I will fully support your view) cannot be left to business owners because left with the choice members of the public will suffer. Look what happened when business owners were free to decide who could eat at lunch counters.
The fact of the matter is Reb, you and Horselady have no case. A bank, a restaurant, a candy shop, a hotel, a shoe store, etc are just as public as City Hall. Once you invite the public to patronize your premises (and I am paraphrasing from an actual supreme court case I read), your premises no longer remains private and you are responsible for the welfare of those patrons.
a bar is not your bedroom. The government won't tell you that you can't light up in bed watching Matlock, but they can tell you that smoking in closed quarters is dangerous, and that since you invited customers to come patronize your place then you better ensure that these customers are not subject to that harmful smoke.
again, you cannot tell customers to go somewhere else to eat because they are allergic to smoke. That is pushing the discrimination boundaries. Unless the primary business is smoking (a smoking shop or something that happens to sell food also) then that argument is pure BS.
You can fault a non smoker for going into a smoking shop to buy a burger and not wanting to be assaulted with smoke but you can't fault a non smoker from wanting a meal at his favorite restaurant and not wanting to be assaulted with smoke. Posting a sign on the door of a restaurant does not change it into a smoking house, its primary business is food.
The big deal with this smoking issue is not about smoking. It is about about how the government is increasingly taking over every aspect of our lives. Many of us believe the government has overstepped its bounds for years. The smoking ban itself just seems to be a natural next step in the way it has been operating already. That is why the opposing point of view has no problem with it. To them, we are the weirdos who are opposed to public health, progression, etc.
We have been trying to ask the opposition,"Where is the line?" In my opinion, their answers to our questions (or lack thereof) indicate that they want to blur the line.
Where is the line, people?
Stop the paranoia, no one is trying to get you and your cigarettes
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
You summed it up very well, Derek. To repeat my own outlook posted earlier, I believe these people fall into two broad classes (which can naturally overlap a bit):
1. Those who know full well that using the law to stamp out smoking is not about smoking at all. Rather, they use it as part of a larger agenda -- under the guise of protecting "our children" or "public health" or whatever -- to stamp out classical freedom and private property rights. They are the radical left (not to be confused with a true liberal) and they are ruthless, coldly-calculating, and manipulative. And they are shameless liars. NEVER underestimate them and their capacity for using any vehicle necessary to advance their ideology.
2. The naive and selfish: Many of this type actually mean well and are sincere. A goodly percentage fall under the heading of what Lenin once contemptuously labeled the "useful idiots." Some have just grown up in a society and environment (and the public school system doesn't help much) where every message they get -- and a lot of times from their indulging parents as well -- screams "Its all about ME and MY rights". They have not the slightest comprehension of what classical ideals of freedom really means and entails. Some others have a savior-complex and cannot fathom why other folks are not open to their "message" of protecting the heathen from their own follies.
again no one is trying to stamp out smoking. You can smoke anywhere you want, just not anywhere in the public. Just like you can shoot of guns as much as you like, just not in a public place where people can get hurt.
There is no "right" to tell someone they can't smoke or allow it on their own property. Until tobacco becomes illegal, then that is that. Is that what you are pushing for? If so, just say so.
Regulate public health? C'mon, GMOH...are you that big a whiner? Cant you make choices for yourself? Why cant you just avoid places that allow smoking?
Sure there is. The government can place restrictions on things that are legal. Tried to buy allergy medicine recently? Alcohol is legal, but there are plenty of restrictions on who, where, and when you can buy it.
And the government gets to tell people what they can and cannot do on their own property all the time.
Have you even looked at the bill? I don't care so much about restaurants, but it makes it illegal in almost all public places, some of which it's not as simple as choosing not to go.
You still don't answer the simple question, HT. What is the problem with business owners making their own decisions about whether or not to allow (or disallow) smoking on their own premises? Why can't you (or me or anyone else), just choose to go elsewhere if we don't like to be around smoking and smokers?
That seems a very fair and simple and direct question. But no one wants to answer it. What right do "you" have to tell someone else what they can or can't allow so long as it is legal and you don't have to be subjected to it if you don't want to be? I don't understand....
Because the interest in public health supersedes the right of the business owner to make that decision. The same reason there are cleanliness standards and health and safety codes.
Based off your argument, there should be no regulation of businesses at all because there isn't a "right" to. After all, you can just avoid restaurants that have rats in the kitchen, right?
Because the interest in public health supersedes the right of the business owner to make that decision. The same reason there are cleanliness standards and health and safety codes.
Based off your argument, there should be no regulation of businesses at all because there isn't a "right" to. After all, you can just avoid restaurants that have rats in the kitchen, right?
if the standard was whether it was a privately owned company or a publicly held company to determine whether the government oversees public health then we might as well be living in Somalia.
Because the interest in public health supersedes the right of the business owner to make that decision. The same reason there are cleanliness standards and health and safety codes.
No, it doesnt.
Good gawdamighty, GMHO, don't you see the clear and present danger (and I used that phrase intentionally and for ironic effect) of what you are advancing here?
Upon what grounds, if "public health" is going to be the business of government, will you have to object when a zealot special interest group decides to tell a business that they can no longer serve fried foods, or have salt shakers on the table because both have been proven to be detrimental to "public health."
LOL Sometimes I think you are one of those who -- as I think AustinRebel posted earlier -- just like to argue. I can't honestly believe you believe some of this crap!
Quote:
Based off your argument, there should be no regulation of businesses at all because there isn't a "right" to. After all, you can just avoid restaurants that have rats in the kitchen, right?
I never said that...nor did anybody else. That's bullsh*t and you know it. Everyone on this side of the question have clearly stated there are some justifications for government regulations in certain areas. And the thing about rats is one of them. But if it has to be clearly spelled out to you once again? Ok...here it is:
If the kitchen of a restaurant is so dirty it attracts rats, then (since most customers are not invited back into the cooking area) this is a filth and public safety danger that cannot be obviously discerned. On the other hand, if a sign says "SMOKING PERMITTED" then you enter at your own risk.
*grins reflectively* Hell, same as with a sign that says "WE HAVE RATS IN OUR KITCHEN*....I suppose one would take the same type chance!
Sure there is. The government can place restrictions on things that are legal. Tried to buy allergy medicine recently? Alcohol is legal, but there are plenty of restrictions on who, where, and when you can buy it.
Oh c'mon...these examples are non-sequiturs to the max.
Quote:
And the government gets to tell people what they can and cannot do on their own property all the time.
Correct. And that is what many of us are very concerned about.
Quote:
Have you even looked at the bill? I don't care so much about restaurants, but it makes it illegal in almost all public places, some of which it's not as simple as choosing not to go.
No, I havent. You got me there. I need to. But I am really just discussing/debating it in a larger context. But yeah, you are right, I need to go actually read it.
Good gawdamighty, GMHO, don't you see the clear and present danger (and I used that phrase intentionally and for ironic effect) of what you are advancing here?
Upon what grounds, if "public health" is going to be the business of government, will you have to object when a zealot special interest group decides to tell a business that they can no longer serve fried foods, or have salt shakers on the table because both have been proven to be detrimental to "public health."
You all like to keep throwing that out, but there is a gigantic and glaring difference - the fat guy sucking down fried chicken may be disgusting, but he is not actively damaging my health.
I understand that Glenn Beck likes to stir you people into frenzies with his scare tactics, but that comparison simply doesn't work. This isn't them banning something because it's harmful to the person doing it. It's because it's harmful to the people around that person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
I never said that...nor did anybody else. That's bullsh*t and you know it. Everyone on this side of the question have clearly stated there are some justifications for government regulations in certain areas. And the thing about rats is one of them. But if it has to be clearly spelled out to you once again? Ok...here it is:
If the kitchen of a restaurant is so dirty it attracts rats, then (since most customers are not invited back into the cooking area) this is a filth and public safety danger that cannot be obviously discerned. On the other hand, if a sign says "SMOKING PERMITTED" then you enter at your own risk.
*grins reflectively* Hell, same as with a sign that says "WE HAVE RATS IN OUR KITCHEN*....I suppose one would take the same type chance!
But you keep asking where the line is...well, the same question back at you. Smoking is a danger to public health. There is no "right to smoke". The government has a right to enact laws that make public places and restaurants free of danger to the health of the public.
This is just an arbitrary line you've drawn in the sand because you want to take a stand against the government.
The entire basis for your argument is that, as private property, the business owner should be able to do what they please and expect people to deal with it. But it is not private property, it is a highly regulated business. They do not have the right to do whatever they want.
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.
