If you love liberty, vote NO on this smoking ban poll for business owners

[donnay]

Just trying to make the point. Your rights only extend to the point where they infringe on the rights of others.

Governments have no rights, then why do they continuously infringe on peoples rights?

 

[Sematary]

The employee's choice of where they work -- and besides, who made you God to control the business owner as well as the employee?
Guess you believe in legislating morality as well.

I'm relatively new to Dr. Paul, but even I understand property rights.
I'm amazed you could have hung around here since 2007 and not be more enlightened.
My last post on the matter. Wish you well.

So, if you leave near a trash burning facility (within a couple miles say) and it occasionally blows ash into the air, wish settles on your car and destroys the finish (this happened in Maine). You're ok with that? After all, They have property rights, right? They can do whatever they want even if it affects the people around them? Or maybe the town or states says - hey, wait a minute, you can't do that. You're affecting the people around you. According to you - the answer is to make all the people move.

 

[Sematary]

Governments have no rights, then why do they continuously infringe on peoples rights?

I never claimed that government's have rights. Nor do I condone 99% of what they do, but they do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens.

 

[otherone]

but they do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens.

You're not getting it. Skiing is dangerous...government should close the ski slopes?

 

[tod evans]

Um, when the patrons are the smokers and the employee is required to serve them, that isn't exactly an option now, is it?

A person has a "right" to work where they want just as a customer has a right to patronize any establishment they choose.

Where this whole theory goes awry is when any group of people try to legislate the behavior of either the business owner or his patrons.

I'm certain there are groups trying to pass legislation to outlaw tobacco.....These same groups scream when other groups try to pass legislation on their bedroom behavior or other matters of personal responsibility.

Personally I find people who spike and dye their hair offensive.........but I would never attempt to legislate against their right to use "cancer-causing" chemicals.

The audacity of people who attempt to legislate others consumption of tobacco is shameful.

 

[otherone]

Or maybe the town or states says - hey, wait a minute, you can't do that. You're affecting the people around you. According to you - the answer is to make all the people move.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT. Easy-peasy

 

[tod evans]

So, if you leave near a trash burning facility (within a couple miles say) and it occasionally blows ash into the air, wish settles on your car and destroys the finish (this happened in Maine). You're ok with that? After all, They have property rights, right? They can do whatever they want even if it affects the people around them? Or maybe the town or states says - hey, wait a minute, you can't do that. You're affecting the people around you. According to you - the answer is to make all the people move.

Once damage has occurred you have the "right" to seek redress.

Legislating against potential damage is nonsense.

 

[Sematary]

You're not getting it. Skiing is dangerous...government should close the ski slopes?

Different scenario. Does your skiing infringe on the health of others? You totally have the right to endanger your own health and well being if you so choose. You don't have the right to ski down the slope and wilfully injure other skiers, correct? So you're analogy is only half done.
You have a right to smoke if you so choose. I did for almost 30 years. I never had a problem with the concept of establishments being required to be smoke free because I KNEW that smoking was obnoxious to some people and they had a right in a public place to be free of MY habit.
If the government came in and said, we won't allow you to smoke in your home/apartment, whatever - that would be different. That IS a private place. A bar or restaurant is NOT a private place.

 

[Sematary]

Once damage has occurred you have the "right" to seek redress.

Legislating against potential damage is nonsense.

There is nothing potential about it. The risks of second hand smoke are well documented. But I'll tell you what. If you allow a non-smoker who gets lung cancer to sue every establishment they frequent based on the idea that they GOT lung cancer from inhaling the proven toxic smoke of others, then I will agree with you. But, as we all know, that isn't going to happen. It is nearly impossible to prove that. OR, you could allow an asthmatic who goes into an establishment and has a horribly negative reaction to the smoke to sue, sure. I'm down with that. Why not? But that doesn't happen either, and won't. The fact is, second hand smoke is dangerous. There is no such thing as a "non smoking area" because smoke doesn't respect boundaries and an establishment that caters to the "public" is NOT a "private" place.

 

[otherone]

A bar or restaurant is NOT a private place.

No one FORCES you to go skiing. No one FORCES you to enter ANY establishment. I find strip clubs to be offensive.....I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ONE. Drunks are obnoxious..I don't have to go to a bar. I can't stand loud techno music....I don't go to clubs.....see the pattern?

 

[Sematary]

No one FORCES you to go skiing. No one FORCES you to enter ANY establishment. I find strip clubs to be offensive.....I DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ONE. Drunks are obnoxious..I don't have to go to a bar. I can't stand loud techno music....I don't go to clubs.....see the pattern?

I see a problem with your analogy. How would you feel if EVERY bar or restaurant had strippers and techno music. How would you feel then? See the pattern?

 

[tod evans]

A bar or restaurant is NOT a private place.

A bar or restaurant IS the private property of the owner though, isn't legislating "smoking" similar to legislating the music played or menu served?

How about legislating the waitresses dress code?


I vote for NO more legislation.

 

[otherone]

I see a problem with your analogy. How would you feel if EVERY bar or restaurant had strippers and techno music. How would you feel then? See the pattern?

C'mon...REALLY? In a free market, business stays in business by offering goods and services that are demanded by customers.

 

[donnay]

I never claimed that government's have rights. Nor do I condone 99% of what they do, but they do have a responsibility to ensure the safety of their citizens.

Then I guess you are all for the Nanny state eh?

Government's duty is to protect our rights not infringe upon them. There are three branches of government for a reason.

 

[Sematary]

A bar or restaurant IS the private property of the owner though, isn't legislating "smoking" similar to legislating the music played or menu served?

How about legislating the waitresses dress code?


I vote for NO more legislation.

A bar or restaurant is not "private" if it is open to the public. At that point the establishment owner made a choice. They can remain private and limit their clientele or they could go public and open their establishment to everyone. That was a choice that they made.
And, like the other guy, your analogy about the music is horrible. It is based on the assumption that different establishments have different rules. But in reality, in states where smoking is allowed in public venues, ALL establishments allow smoking because they don't want to drive away their smoking customers, regardless of the impact that smoking has on the rights of non-smokers. Your analogy assumes there is another option. If you allow topless waitresses and play rock music all day or techno and I don't like that, then I can go somewhere else. In the case of smoking, there is no other option and that is where the analogy goes awry.
What we've discovered in the Northeast (because we had this discussion already) is that ALL establishments who cater to the public are on an equal footing now and no one has lost any business. The smokers don't really give a shit if they have to go outside to smoke. Nor do they mind waiting till their meal is done and they have exited the establishment.

All the people here who are arguing against this type of legislation are basing it on "property rights" while completely ignoring the rights of the majority of the population. If you want a "private" establishment, then feel free to create one. It works well in Massachusetts. The VFW and other "private" establishments are free to allow smoking if they so choose, and they do. But, as soon as they cater to the general public, they have to play by different rules - and that is a choice that they make.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

My only problem with smoking is when people smoke right in front of an entrance. I.E. when I used to go to college, everyone who smoked would smoke right to the entrance of the main buildings, which pissed me off because I couldn't walk to class without getting smoke in my face. Forcing me to smoke with them =/= freedom.

 

[donnay]

I see a problem with your analogy. How would you feel if EVERY bar or restaurant had strippers and techno music. How would you feel then? See the pattern?

Feelings are not rights.

I wouldn't patronize the places, and if I really wanted to I would start my own cigar bar with big band music. In a truly free market I would have this right, but we do not have a truly free market.

 

[donnay]

My only problem with smoking is when people smoke right in front of an entrance. I.E. when I used to go to college, everyone who smoked would smoke right to the entrance of the main buildings, which pissed me off because I couldn't walk to class without getting smoke in my face. Forcing me to smoke with them =/= freedom.

That's because of the regulations that relegated those smokers to the designated areas. Don't blame the smokers, blame those who made up those rules!

 

[Sematary]

Then I guess you are all for the Nanny state eh?

Government's duty is to protect our rights not infringe upon them. There are three branches of government for a reason.

Look, I'm all for intelligent discussion and disagreement on issues but going straight to a fallacious argument like the Non Sequitur you just displayed here does not help to move the discussion further. It only serves to show that you don't want to have an intelligent discussion. I have presented my case clearly and without resorting to attacks on other posters. Your implication that I would like a nanny state because I believe that non smokers have rights is duly noted and equally unappreciated.

 

[tod evans]

So if we follow this logic, instead of smokers infringing on the "rights" of non-smokers we should permit non-smokers to infringe on the "rights" of smokers.

And while doing this we'll disregard the property owners "rights" to determine if he wants or doesn't want either type of clientele.

Anytime legislation is passed "for the good" of one group another groups "rights" are infringed upon.

Next argument will be the ol' fail-safe; "It's for the children".

A bar or restaurant is not "private" if it is open to the public. At that point the establishment owner made a choice. They can remain private and limit their clientele or they could go public and open their establishment to everyone. That was a choice that they made.
And, like the other guy, your analogy about the music is horrible. It is based on the assumption that different establishments have different rules. But in reality, in states where smoking is allowed in public venues, ALL establishments allow smoking because they don't want to drive away their smoking customers, regardless of the impact that smoking has on the rights of non-smokers. Your analogy assumes there is another option. If you allow topless waitresses and play rock music all day or techno and I don't like that, then I can go somewhere else. In the case of smoking, there is no other option and that is where the analogy goes awry.
What we've discovered in the Northeast (because we had this discussion already) is that ALL establishments who cater to the public are on an equal footing now and no one has lost any business. The smokers don't really give a shit if they have to go outside to smoke. Nor do they mind waiting till their meal is done and they have exited the establishment.

All the people here who are arguing against this type of legislation are basing it on "property rights" while completely ignoring the rights of the majority of the population. If you want a "private" establishment, then feel free to create one. It works well in Massachusetts. The VFW and other "private" establishments are free to allow smoking if they so choose, and they do. But, as soon as they cater to the general public, they have to play by different rules - and that is a choice that they make.