Bans in general

[TechMetalMan]

Look, here is the thing:

In my opinion I think it is okay that there are a bunch of non-smokers would would rather be in a non-smoking environment. Personally, I don't like to be surrounded by cigarette smoke while I eat.

However, I think it is wrong for a government (whether it be local, state, fed) to ban smoking in ALL places. I think it should be up to the business owner. There is a demand for both smoking and non-smoking establishments. In theory that would mean that some businesses would cater to smokers while others would cater to non-smokers.

If this did NOT happen then I say this:

It is not a right for smokers to eat out and smoke at the same time.

also

It is not a right for non-smokers to eat out without smoke.

If you don't like the way the places are set up (whether smoke free or smoking allowed) then eat at home.

 

[lenguamor]

Par, respectfully, this is the critical flaw in the argument and I vehemently disagree.

We live in a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

In a Republic, the government's job is to recognize and protect the rights of the MINORITY. In a Democracy, you'd be hanged with a vote of 51 out of 100 on a jury. You sure you want to live in that place? The government of our republic is responsible for recognizing each of us as soverigns. Unfortunately the liberals have turned that idea on its head because it undermines their political power when Americans don't need as much government.

Polygamy is banned because the 'right' of marriage belongs to the government in this case. See my explanation here: CLICKY so if your argument is that it doesn't make sense; it doesn't have to, because the right to recognize a marriage is the purview of the state or church.

There are always things that arenn't going to make sense, but trying to draw moral or ethical equivalents between marriage (which is sanctioned by the State) and a violation of personal rights and liberties which are innately ours, is a nonsequitur.

Where I'm concerned, a nonsmoker should have no right to eat in my restaurant. If I desire to own a business that caters to smokers, that's my right to do so. If you're worried about the health risk, go to another place to eat. Likewise, you don't have a RIGHT to work at my place of business, so I don't want to hear the whining about your on-the-job health risks.

For those who are about to chime in with a bunch of legalese mumbo-jumbo about civil rights and places of public accommodation, a person can choose whether or not to smoke, but they can't choose whether or not to be black, latino, indian or otherwise.

As to "we" protecting "our" children from smoke, who is 'we', and why do I need someone else raising my son or daughter? Where do any of us come off telling another parent how to raise their children? The more we entertain and permit government's acts of "protection" the more we, as individuals and parents, become irrelevant. Welcome, Nanny State. This is the nightmare that Orwell was talking about.

Anyway, I could go on, but I have to run and eat some red meat for dinner.

This is flawed at its core.

Laws are necessary because with or without them, there are always people who will do evil, harmful, or just plain stupid things. But at least with laws in place, the majority comply, and the rest of us are reasonable safe from them.

Smoking laws are necessary because without them, as was demonstrated over many years and continues to be proved in every state that doesn't have smoking laws - without them, people don't act with consideration - or at the very least, with common sense.

Smoking laws are necessary because without them, you still have brain-dead morons who subject their children to the toxic fumes of cigarettes.

Smoking laws are necessary because without them, my personal space and yours isn't respected in a public place by the vast majority.

Smoking laws are necessary because without them, owners of businesses won't step up and make their restaurants and bars both safe and enjoyable for everyone.

And it's precisely the mindset that you evince in your post that makes smoking laws necessary.

Because regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about their rights, your rights end where mine begin. And mine begin at the air that I breathe.

Anyhow, you're swimming upstream; in every instance where the populace of a state or municipality has had a choice between two smoking laws, one tougher than the other - the tougher law has been voted in.

Obviously, there are plenty of people - even smokers, like me, who think that limits have to be enforced.

Because the folks lighting up simply won't police themselves.

 

[lenguamor]

Look, here is the thing:

In my opinion I think it is okay that there are a bunch of non-smokers would would rather be in a non-smoking environment. Personally, I don't like to be surrounded by cigarette smoke while I eat.

However, I think it is wrong for a government (whether it be local, state, fed) to ban smoking in ALL places....

That's a damn good point Trent.

I asked that of the owner of my favorite B&M, who was part of a coalition of businessmen trying to get the legislature to draw a less-severe law than the sweeping one that we got. (approved by 64% of the voters, BTW)

Why couldn't we have had a law that contained provisions for cigar bars and smoking lounges, so people would have a choice?

He said that the groups which represent the health associations, acting on behalf of the servers, etc. in bars and restaurants had fought so long and so hard - and been thwarted at every turn by the tobacco (read: cigarette) industry for so long, that they wanted the toughest law they could get.

Was there an element of vindictiveness there? You bet.

Will the pendulum swing a bit in the other direction soon to have the law make more sense? You bet.

But because of those who opposed any smoking law, in any form whatsoever, we got what we have.

Eventually, reason will win out; it only makes sense that if a place is primarily dependent on tobacco for its business, like a hookah or cigar bar, then it should be able to operate per the scope of its business.

But no, a run-of-the-mill bar doesn't fit into that category, no matter how some will whine and moan

 

[TideRoll]

What we are talking about here is essentially an example of what De Tocqueville called the Tyranny of the Majority, and it is not a good thing.

I don't smoke cigarettes and do not care to eat around cigarette smoke or even cigar smoke. That said, if I build a cafe and I pay the taxes and the bills and it is my business perhaps you can point me to the the place where the government derives the moral authority to tell me I cannot allow patrons to engage in an otherwise legal activity like smoking on my premises. If I don't want to be around smokers, then I am free to go to an establishment that does not allow it by their own choice. The market, which is infinitely more suitable at deriving solutions to this kind of thing, will determine the will of the people. It might even result in a more efficient and flexible outcome, but then again, the folks who rely on the government to try to fine-tune the otherwise legal actions of others are not usually the ones who appreciate the superiority of market economics vs. capricious government authority.

When my local town decided to pass a no-smoking ordinance that applied to privately-owned premises, they overstepped their authority and abused the private property rights of business owners all around town. Then again big government liberals never have given a damn about private property when it interferes with their self-appointed mission of taking care of all of the great unwashed who are too stupid to agree with them. Simply because a bunch of ninnies in a community can bunch together and get a law passed does not make it correct, regardless of the illegitimate sense of empowerment it may give them. If someone doesn't want to be around smokers, they should go where smoking is not allowed rather than tell everyone that they cannot do something because it offends their sense of smell. Your right to tell others what they can do with their private property does not start at the end of your nose, folks. It rightfully rests in your pocketbook and in your feet.

Let's cut the crap. If the oh-so-ballyhooed second-hand smoke is so evil, why is smoking even legal? Go ahead and ban it entirely if it is so bad as to require mass intrusion by the government on previously untouched areas of property rights. "Well, let's not act too rashly," the government types tell us. We all know it is the tax revenue they don't want to lose, and that tells us that it really isn't about health after all.

 

[lenguamor]

...That said, if I build a cafe and I pay the taxes and the bills and it is my business perhaps you can point me to the the place where the government derives the moral authority to tell me I cannot allow patrons to engage in an otherwise legal activity like smoking on my premises. If I don't want to be around smokers, then I am free to go to an establishment that does not allow it by their own choice. The market, which is infinitely more suitable at deriving solutions to this kind of thing, will determine the will of the people. It might even result in a more efficient and flexible outcome, but then again, the folks who rely on the government to try to fine-tune the otherwise legal actions of others are not usually the ones who appreciate the superiority of market economics vs. capricious government authority....

The same way the government tells businesses they must provide access for the disabled; the same way the government tells businesses they must allow all people to do commerce, regardless of race or color.

The list goes on and on, but these arguments being ranted here are eternal - they have been shouted and bellowed by every person affected by a decree by which he was affected. So rant on, I guess.

 

[BagfullofPings]

Let's cut the crap. If the oh-so-ballyhooed second-hand smoke is so evil, why is smoking even legal? Go ahead and ban it entirely if it is so bad as to require mass intrusion by the government on previously untouched areas of property rights. "Well, let's not act too rashly," the government types tell us. We all know it is the tax revenue they don't want to lose, and that tells us that it really isn't about health after all.

Thank you!!

 

[lenguamor]

The "If cigarette smoke is so bad why is it legal" argument ignores some basic truths - not perceptions, but truths.

If alcohol is so harmful, why is it legal? Why enact laws against drunk driving instead of banning the alcohol itself?

But it's funny, I don't hear anyone arguing against DUI laws.

Cigarettes aren't banned for the same reason that other elements proven to be harmful aren't banned - alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame...the list goes on and on - MONEY. Too much of it is being made on these products.

Given a choice between regulating a thing and regulating behavior, the government will always choose the latter.

 

[TideRoll]

The "If cigarette smoke is so bad why is it legal" argument ignores some basic truths - not perceptions, but truths.

If alcohol is so harmful, why is it legal? Why enact laws against drunk driving instead of banning the alcohol itself?

But it's funny, I don't hear anyone arguing against DUI laws.

Cigarettes aren't banned for the same reason that other elements proven to be harmful aren't banned - alcohol, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame...the list goes on and on - MONEY. Too much of it is being made on these products.

Given a choice between regulating a thing and regulating behavior, the government will always choose the latter.

Given the choice between asserting more power or giving more freedom to the citizenry, government will always choose the former, at the expense of the latter.

Your list is interesting. The next thing the self-appointed health fascists have targeted have been sweets, and let's not forget transfats, which apparently are the next worse thing to venereal warts and nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent. I can certainly see where it is the governments business to tell me how to eat.

You are correct in one thing, and that is the reason the government regulates rather than bans items which might be hazardous in some cases, but the money we are talking about is the money the government makes on taxing them. And as far as the theory that second hand smoke is as harmful as some of the fanatics assert, bunk.

You have no more right not to be offended than I do. That is part of the price we pay for living as we do. Most people will support smoking bans in eateries because usually only smokers are not bothered by their own smoke, and it has little to do with health perceptions despite what some will assert. As I say, I, too, hate it. That said, the better alternative is to allow the market to determine the outcome. Left unfettered from bumbling meddling it would have.

The point is the steady and increasing erosion of personal choices and rights previously reserved for entities other than the government, based on the often dubious premise that it is for our own good. It is not the job of the government to protect people from themselves. If you want a system that even an idiot can benefit from, only an idiot will benefit from it.

 

[TTgirl]

Laws are necessary because with or without them, there are always people who will do evil, harmful, or just plain stupid things. But at least with laws in place, the majority comply, and the rest of us are reasonable safe from them.

In my town you used to be able to take your dog for a walk on the beach. But then there came reports of piles of dogsh*t on the beach, so a law was passed prohibiting dogs on the beach.

Back when I had a bigger dog, I used to like to take him on the beach to run, and I always picked up after him. But thanks to a couple of stupid people who thought they were too important to touch dogsh*t, I can't take a dog on the beach any more.

Stuff like this drives me nuts because the underlying message ends up being that ALL of us are a case of stupidity or inconsideration or criminality waiting to happen. I don't happen to think that's a productive attitude to cultivate.

 

[lenguamor]

In my town you used to be able to take your dog for a walk on the beach. But then there came reports of piles of dogsh*t on the beach, so a law was passed prohibiting dogs on the beach.

Back when I had a bigger dog, I used to like to take him on the beach to run, and I always picked up after him. But thanks to a couple of stupid people who thought they were too important to touch dogsh*t, I can't take a dog on the beach any more.

Stuff like this drives me nuts because the underlying message ends up being that ALL of us are a case of stupidity or inconsideration or criminality waiting to happen. I don't happen to think that's a productive attitude to cultivate.

But it's reality!

What is everyone bemoaning? The fact that now they've applied the same criteria and solutions to this as to everything else?

There's a road near my house which leads to downtown. It goes down a steep hill; about 3/4 of the way down, there's a crosswalk. Stupidest place ever for a crosswalk, and not that I've ever seen a single soul use it in 12 years.

Regardless, the speed limit there was 40 until recently. Local kids in their rice rockets would speed down the hill. So instead of targeting the offenders, they changed the speed limit to 30.

So now, without ever having contributed to the problem myself, I find myself restricted to 30 MPH.

Is it fair? No. Does it happen exactly the same way for everything? You bet.

So, change the world and then maybe the smoking laws will follow. But you can't expect that this will change, when the American government's mentality is to take the easy way out every time - in everything.

 

[Hammerhead]

This is flawed at its core.

Laws are necessary because with or without them, there are always people who will do evil, harmful, or just plain stupid things...

Because regardless of what you or anyone else thinks about their rights, your rights end where mine begin. And mine begin at the air that I breathe...

Because the folks lighting up simply won't police themselves.

Talk about flawed at its core, clearly you have no comprehension of the difference between public and private.

You DON'T have the right to breathe the air in MY f*cking restaurant, any more than you have the right to breathe the air in my f*cking living room. Because of people like you, we wind up with a government that passes laws destroying our collective and personal freedom because it caters to the lowest common denominator of stupidity.

Frankly, I'd much prefer to set a higher bar. Why not pass a law that gives the business owner the ability to call the police and have a customer thrown out if he refuses to comply with the establishment policy, while also protecting him from harrassment civil lawsuits by the ambulance chasers in the ACLU in the process?

Congratulations. Your social policy lacking faith in a free market system and your fellow man has just guaranteed that our nation will be turned into a society of social retards because nobody ever learned how to have regard for someone else's space without having the Nanny State tell us how to do it.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason our culture is descending into the discourtesy you lament, is that we've lost the ability to set our own norms because guys like you are rolling over for every stupid law, creating a genetic soup of those very miscreants you fear?

Please do us all a favor and don't ever run for office.

 

[adamh_25_]

I may be wrong and I've had a few brewskies so I'm not trying to make people mad in this post....if i do, please remove it mods.....

I agree with everyone here. Telling people not to smoke in restaurants is bad enough, but the gov. keeps going farther.

I'm a youngin and am not married nor have any kids, but saying No Smoking in restaurants is just being ignorant. Cigar smokers do not NEED to smoke, we just prefer to because its like chocolate.....its good chit and we want to.

So if we cannot smoke because it bothers people, maybe they should ban little kids from restaurants and other facilities where they might annoy people too. Its going back to the whining thing. If people try to whine about our smoke bothering them, then we should wine about yelling and screaming kids at Olive Garden or the movies.

Some cigarette smokers that were misled back in the olden days, and some now, NEED to smoke....and the Govt. is saying NO. So the poeple that have little kids that yell and scream and make "noise polution" shouldnt bring them in. It bothers me yadda yadda yadda. Its the same sh*t, just a different day.

I'm with you, if the restaurants, bars, whatever want to allow smoking, throw up a warning sign and let it go. If you dont like smoking, dont go.

Here in Springfield, there are plenty of bars that are going or have gone out of business because of all of this....its rediculous. If they had the chance to tell people that they allow smoking im sure they'd be fine...

Ugh:sb

Ok im done being pissed.........:ss


I really do not mean to offend anyone...just these new rules and regulations have been pissing me off for quite a while. I love CS and cigars and I'm just moving my smoking elsewhere.....I'll hit up the NS bars occasionally, but my hometown bars where everything is allowed is the best way to go anyway.:cb

Adam

 

[lenguamor]

Talk about flawed at its core, your post is not only blatently stupid, but condescending, and revealing at the same time.

You DON'T have the right to breathe the air in MY f*cking restaurant, any more than you have the right to breathe the air in my f*cking living room. Because of people like you, we wind up with a government that passes laws destroying our collective and personal freedom because it caters to the lowest common denominator of stupidity.

Frankly, I'd much prefer to set a higher bar. Why not pass a law that gives the business owner the ability to call the police and have a customer thrown out if he refuses to comply with the establishment policy, while also protecting him from harrassment civil lawsuits by the ambulance chasers in the ACLU in the process?

Congratulations. Your social policy lacking faith in a free market system and your fellow man has just guaranteed that our nation will be turned into a society of social retards because nobody ever learned how to have regard for someone else's space without having the Nanny State tell us how to do it. Did it ever occur to you that the reason our culture is descending into discourtesy is that we've lost the ability to set our own norms because guys like you are rolling over for every stupid law, creating a genetic soup of those very miscreants you fear?

Please do us all a favor and don't ever run for office.

Typical. When you can't debate on the facts, attack the debater.

It's the first sign of a weak mind, and of a coward. When you can't win on merit, yell louder, be insulting.

Better you should debate the topic, not resort to attack.

 

[adamh_25_]

Typical. When you can't debate on the facts, attack the debater.

It's the first sign of a weak mind, and of a coward. When you can't win on merit, yell louder, be insulting.

Better you should debate the topic, not resort to attack.

How 'bout we all have a cigar and kick back and relax....enjoy the finer things in life:cb.

Adam

 

[adamh_25_]

"If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
Then we'd see the day when nobody died

And I'm singing

Amen I, Amen I, I'm alive
Amen I, Amen I, Amen I, I'm alive"

...

 

[pnoon]

"If everyone cared and nobody cried
If everyone loved and nobody lied
If everyone shared and swallowed their pride
Then we'd see the day when nobody died

And I'm singing

Amen I, Amen I, I'm alive
Amen I, Amen I, Amen I, I'm alive"

...

Alcohol. The cause AND solution to all of life's problems.
-Homer Simpson

 

[adamh_25_]

Alcohol. The cause AND solution to all of life's problems.
-Homer Simpson

HAHA.....such a wise old sole....and now that I'm coming down from my buzz....should I delete my first post?....could offend...what do you think?

Adam

 

[Hammerhead]

Typical. When you can't debate on the facts, attack the debater.

It's the first sign of a weak mind, and of a coward. When you can't win on merit, yell louder, be insulting.

Better you should debate the topic, not resort to attack.

Heh...

Well, by way of a confession, I did edit my comments before seeing your posts of my own volition. However, what is the debate, if not the debater?

FWIW, I found your comments condescending, I said so, and not being the coward you think I am, I called you on the substance of what you said. If I misunderstood, then you have my apologies.

Since you're new here, please feel free to ask around if I'm "cowardly" in any way with regard to debating the merits, principles and substance of any issue.

That said, I'm sorry you were offended by my directness, but if anyone's post is lacking in foundation, you have not substantiated any basis for your point that this law was necessary, other than the rhetorical "your rights end...". While that's a sound basis for a debate, it fails in the execution, because you do not acknowledge the difference between private and public places.

Why couldn't we have had a law that contained provisions for cigar bars and smoking lounges, so people would have a choice?

Americans already had that choice before legislators passed laws because some people think we just can't decide for ourselves.

To get freedom for yourself, you must give freedom to someone else, even if you sometimes don't like what's done with it.

 

[lenguamor]

HAHA.....such a wise old sole....and now that I'm coming down from my buzz....should I delete my first post?....could offend...what do you think?

Adam

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and to state it in the spirit of this community. I don't see anything wrong with your first post, IMHO.

 

[pnoon]

Heh...

Well, by way of a confession, I did edit my comments before seeing your posts of my own volition. However, what is the debate, if not the debater?

FWIW, I found your comments condescending, I said so, and not being the coward you think I am, I called you on the substance of what you said. If I misunderstood, then you have my apologies.

Since you're new here, please feel free to ask around if I'm "cowardly" in any way with regard to debating the merits, principles and substance of any issue.

That said, I'm sorry you were offended by my directness, but if anyone's post is lacking in foundation, you have not substantiated any basis for your point that this law was necessary, other than the rhetorical "your rights end...". While that's a sound basis for a debate, it fails in the execution, because you do not acknowledge the difference between private and public places.



Americans already had that choice before legislators passed laws because some people think we just can't decide for ourselves.

To get freedom for yourself, you must give freedom to someone else, even if you sometimes don't like what's done with it.

I think we're done here. I see no more value coming from this "debate".