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

[Sematary]

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.

I'm calling you out on this one. You would not be able to patronize ANY place because they all permit the same behavior that would prevent your from frequenting their establishments. Your argument amounts to - people who are offended by second hand smoke can suck it because I don't care about THEIR RIGHTS - only my own. YOU may be able to get the funds together to open your own cigar bar but that isn't exactly a realistic option for the majority of people - say about 99.999999999% of them.

So, now, being one of those, you are essentially unable to go out and eat or drink at a bar. You have asthma, or some other lung disease, or you are simply highly offended by the smell of second hand smoke. Your hosed. You can't do anything about it. You can't take your kids out to eat. You can't go to the bar with your friends. So where are YOUR rights at that point?

This isn't real difficult. If you don't want to live by rules that the legislature sets for the GENERAL PUBLIC, then DON'T OPEN YOUR DOORS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

 

[Sematary]

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".

No one is infringing on the rights of smokers to smoke. They are more than free to do so. There is only the requisite that it not be done in a public venue such as a restaurant. You also have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to endanger the public by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

 

[tod evans]

All the people here who are arguing against this type of legislation .

Yesterday I spouted off with my opinion of "legislation" here.

Spend two minutes.

 

[donnay]

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.

You see you haven't. You keep on saying that someone who opens a business, doesn't have private property rights--you are wrong. The way business is to work in a free market (of which we do not have) is, you open up a business, it is your private property, you have a right as a private business owner to allow smokers or not. Not government.

Trying to make the point that in a truly free market, the people would be the regulators, not government.

I am more concerned about people having the flu and sneezing and coughing on me--because the flu does kill people. However, I do not seek government to quarantine these people. I take on the responsibility of eating well and keeping my immune system good. It's all about personal responsibility and private property rights!

 

[otherone]

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.// 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 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.

You're pretty much wrong on the above accounts. In NJ, many businesses opted to become non-smoking long before the ban, because consumers demanded it. As a former smoker, I can tell you straight up that the first thing I would look for when sitting in a restaurant or at a bar was an ashtray. No tray meant no smoking.

 

[donnay]

No one is infringing on the rights of smokers to smoke. They are more than free to do so. There is only the requisite that it not be done in a public venue such as a restaurant. You also have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to endanger the public by yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

I encourage you to take the time to watch all of these!

 

[Sematary]

You see you haven't. You keep on saying that someone who opens a business, doesn't have private property rights--you are wrong. The way business is to work in a free market (of which we do not have) is, you open up a business, it is your private property, you have a right as a private business owner to allow smokers or not. Not government.

Trying to make the point that in a truly free market, the people would be the regulators, not government.

I am more concerned about people having the flu and sneezing and coughing on me--because the flu does kill people. However, I do not seek government to quarantine these people. I take on the responsibility of eating well and keeping my immune system good. It's all about personal responsibility and private property rights!

Where are your property rights lost? If you wish to cater allow smoking in your establishment then you have the option of making your establishment private. Then, the people who choose to join your private establishment are aware that smoking is allowed and probably have become a member of your establishment BECAUSE you allow smoking. NOW you have true choice. People who don't smoke and don't want to be around it have an actual choice to frequent some other establishment other than yours. In the current situation, those people don't have that option, which means the free market is NOT working because there are not establishments that cater to non smokers. In Massachusetts, Ct., etc... we have both. I stay out of places that allow smoking (private clubs - such as the VFW) and go to places where smoking is not permitted. I have a choice. The owner of those establishments ALSO have a choice - to either open their doors to everyone or to open their doors to people select clientele. That is true free market option for the patrons. Before the laws were changed, those options weren't available.

 

[Sematary]

I encourage you to take the time to watch all of these!

They don't impact this discussion. I've seen them. The source of the problem here is what constitutes choice and when does a business owner DECIDE to make his establishment public or private. I guarantee you, if I drove into a state right now that doesn't have laws limiting where people can smoke, that I would be unable to find a restaurant that would fulfill my desire to be in a non smoking atmosphere. There is no choice there. I have to eat. But if I go into an establishment with smokers then I am going to have a severe asthma attack. What an option.
I understand the counter arguments, I simply believe they are wrong.

 

[Sematary]

You're pretty much wrong on the above accounts. In NJ, many businesses opted to become non-smoking long before the ban, because consumers demanded it. As a former smoker, I can tell you straight up that the first thing I would look for when sitting in a restaurant or at a bar was an ashtray. No tray meant no smoking.

I don't live in NJ and I can guarantee you, there were no such establishments here. Now I have options. Before, I did not. My RIGHT to a meal without choking on the second hand smoke of others has been guaranteed. Again, and I reiterate - your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

There are two things here.

1. Property owners have the RIGHT to remain private and NOT open their doors to the public.
2. Smokers have rights but those rights END when they infringe on the rights of non smokers.

I'll use another analogy. I own a couple of apartment buildings. My tenants have the right to play loud music or do whatever they wish as long as it is legal. But, when that behavior infringes on the rights of other tenants in the building to peaceful enjoyment of THEIR apartment then that right ends.
This is EXACTLY the same. People have the right to smoke. I would never deny that. But non smokers have the right to enjoyment of meals or drinks in an environment free from deadly, noxious fumes.

This same exact discussion comes up anytime a state considers this legislation. Then it passes and NOBODY cares any more because the impact is NOT what people believed it would be. Smokers could give shit and non smokers are happy and the owners of restaurants and bars are happy because it doesn't cost them anything - it actually improves their business. So, essentially, it's much ado about nothing.

 

[otherone]

My RIGHT to a meal without choking on the second hand smoke of others has been guaranteed. Again, and I reiterate - your rights end when they infringe on the rights of others.

lol. The guy on the park bench next to yours is smoking...so you can't enjoy your ham sandwich. You move. If a bunch of kids start hanging out swearing loudly next to you, you move. If some screaming infant is sitting next to you, you move. Your entire assumption, that all business would be smoking establishments if allowed, is FALSE.

 

[Sematary]

lol. The guy on the park bench next to yours is smoking...so you can't enjoy your ham sandwich. You move. If a bunch of kids start hanging out swearing loudly next to you, you move. If some screaming infant is sitting next to you, you move. Your entire assumption, that all business would be smoking establishments if allowed, is FALSE.

It isn't an assumption. Proven fact. I live here. Believe me, I know.
I still don't understand (and I didn't when I was a smoker either) why people feel the rights of smokers trump the rights of non smokers.

 

[The Gold Standard]

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.

The "majority of the population" DOES NOT HAVE RIGHTS. Individuals have rights. You have NO expectation of rights on someone else's property. The property owner grants you privileges, which are up to his or her discretion and you are welcome to stay or leave. If you are offended by naked women do you go to a strip club and throw a fit and demand the state go in and clothe the women?

 

[The Gold Standard]

And if you worried about every restaurant allowing smoking, or having strippers and techno music, open one that doesn't. There is obviously a market.

 

[Republicanguy]

I personally agree with a smoking ban in public buildings. It does conflict with freedom, yes. But I don't mind that. No I'm not a smoker.

 

[otherone]

I still don't understand (and I didn't when I was a smoker either) why people feel the rights of smokers trump the rights of non smokers.

Neither have 'rights' in this case. They have 'privileges'. The only Rights being violated are the Property Rights of business. Why do you, living in say, New Bedford, have any say in what some tiny, hole-in-the-wall, whiskey joint does in North Adams....or Hawaii, or Singapore?
You believe it's the job of the state to provide you with a safe environment to eat. You believe it's the job of the state to provide a 'level playing field' for business by unilaterally banning smoking for all establishments.
These are Positive Rights.
I don't believe in Positive Rights.
It's not the state's job to lower the hoop so little guys can dunk.

 

[tod evans]

It isn't an assumption. Proven fact. I live here. Believe me, I know.
I still don't understand (and I didn't when I was a smoker either) why people feel the rights of smokers trump the rights of non smokers.

Neither "trumps" the other......however, the property owners "right" to decide whether or not to permit smoking on or in his property should "trump" the states ability to legislate one way or the other.

 

[tod evans]

I personally agree with a smoking ban in public buildings. It does conflict with freedom, yes. But I don't mind that. No I'm not a smoker.

What constitutes a "public building"?

A pub for instance is not usually publicly owned and I would think ownership would determine if any domain could be construed as "public".

If the state is going to deem these buildings "public" then the state should petition the public to purchase the building from its rightful owner.

 

[Jingles]

Businesses should be allowed to do what they wish with their own property. It's really that simple...

 

[Republicanguy]

What constitutes a "public building"?

A pub for instance is not usually publicly owned and I would think ownership would determine if any domain could be construed as "public".

If the state is going to deem these buildings "public" then the state should petition the public to purchase the building from its rightful owner.

Well, we can define them as being public because they are where people gather. It doesn't make them public because I type that, but we could look at it that way.

I really just don't like the thought of people smoking in a building near me like a Restaurant as an example. I agree with this "Positive Right".

 

[donnay]

Where are your property rights lost? If you wish to cater allow smoking in your establishment then you have the option of making your establishment private. Then, the people who choose to join your private establishment are aware that smoking is allowed and probably have become a member of your establishment BECAUSE you allow smoking. NOW you have true choice. People who don't smoke and don't want to be around it have an actual choice to frequent some other establishment other than yours. In the current situation, those people don't have that option, which means the free market is NOT working because there are not establishments that cater to non smokers. In Massachusetts, Ct., etc... we have both. I stay out of places that allow smoking (private clubs - such as the VFW) and go to places where smoking is not permitted. I have a choice. The owner of those establishments ALSO have a choice - to either open their doors to everyone or to open their doors to people select clientele. That is true free market option for the patrons. Before the laws were changed, those options weren't available.

You need to learn what private property rights mean. If I open a business and have a sign: Joe's Bar & Grill "smoking permitted." Then that tells a non-smoker that this establishment has smoking. Your choice would be not to enter if smoke bothers you. It is clearly up to the owner (Private Property Rights) to have a business that caters to smokers, just as it is his right to make it non-smoking.

Do you BBQ at all?