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

[phill4paul]

So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

Then obviously we need to ban gas engines. Al Gore assures me that dilution is not the solution and we are harming ourselves and our environment by using them.

 

[angelatc]

And you can stay home with your pollution since you are unable to keep it to yourself when out in public.

I don't smoke, so now you're just wrong on yet another level.

Well, you're guessing wrong. I'm 50 and many of the people who believe as I do....that I have a right to expect you to keep your pollution to yourself.....are in their 60's and older.


It is more about the fact that smokers can't keep their pollution to themselves than it is about property rights. Smokers violate my property rights by blowing smoke into my face.

That's just wrong again. Your property rights aren't violated unless somebody is smoking on your property, unless of course, you think you own the world.

 

[angelatc]

So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

Again, proving that Tod has no respect or interest in private property rights.

 

[Tod]

Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

 

[phill4paul]

Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

Yep. Just as I don't think Hooters should be forced to hire overweight males w/ man-boobs as waiters.

 

[Danke]

Again, I would have absolutely no problem with smokers if they could keep their smoke to themselves. They are free to smoke all they want so long as they don't allow their pollution to affect me. What is so hard to understand about that?

So smokers are coming over to your house and smoking?

 

[specsaregood]

Nope.

Uhm, absolutely they should.

 

[angelatc]

This.

Smoking pollutes the air. Pollution is an offence on my body. A smoking ban can therefore be thought of as self-defence.

Perfectly consistent.

You don't have a right to breathe the air inside these establishments though - that's the whole concept of private property.

This is just more of the liberal infiltration into the forums. It's unfathomable that this conversation is even happening, much less getting support. There is no valid liberty position for banning smoking on private property.

In fact, if you can't make your case without using the word "me!" then you should really rethink it.

 

[Tod]

Again, proving that Tod has no respect or interest in private property rights.

Actually, in posting that, I fully expect that Anti-Federalist would say, "Of course I mind!!! You have no right to put poison in my drink!" and to that I would reply, "Finally, we are getting somewhere! I have no right to pollute your stuff and I wouldn't think of doing it because I, unlike smokers, actually respect your right."

 

[angelatc]

Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

Sure. Employers should have the right to hire and fire anybody they want. Same argument - private property rights.

 

[phill4paul]

Uhm, absolutely they should.

Yep. Corrected that. Read the question wrong.

 

[angelatc]

Actually, in posting that, I fully expect that Anti-Federalist would say, "Of course I mind!!! You have no right to put poison in my drink!" and to that I would reply, "Finally, we are getting somewhere! I have no right to pollute your stuff and I wouldn't think of doing it because I, unlike smokers, actually respect your right."

But that's making the assumption that you own the world. Again, you have no right to be inside somebody else's restaurant, and therefore have no right to breathe their air.

You have no right to pollute someone else's property, but you shouldn't get any say in what other people choose to do on theirs.

If I'm allergic to peanuts, should I have the right to make sure no restaurants serve peanuts? After all, peanut dust is a pollutant to me in that case, and one that will harm me more immediately and irreparably than occasionally being exposed to smoke will ever harm you.

Or am I just screwed out of those "rights," because the majority doesn't share my affliction?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So you wouldn't mind if I put some arsenic in your drink every morning? It occurs naturally too.

That's my point.

In NH there is arsenic in the well water.

You shine it on and accept it.

That's the problem with freedom, sometimes you have to tolerate some dumb shit, to paraphrase Ron Paul.

The mitigation of every risk in life to zero, and safety uber alles will surely be the death of freedom.

Everybody needs to get over their red ass about every little thing in life and chill the fuck out.

A whiff of smoke from some tiny shreds of smoldering plant leaf ain't gonna kill you, any more than your car exhaust or ass gas or stinky perfume or frying bacon smoke will kill me.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Actually, in posting that, I fully expect that Anti-Federalist would say, "Of course I mind!!! You have no right to put poison in my drink!" and to that I would reply, "Finally, we are getting somewhere! I have no right to pollute your stuff and I wouldn't think of doing it because I, unlike smokers, actually respect your right."

LoL - you guessed wrong.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Here's another tidbit for discussion....

Do you think an employer should have the right to tell smoking employees that they have to quit as a condition of their employment?

Depends on the contract.

I actually think that voluntary collective bargaining has a place in this.

I would happily join a collective bargaining contract that stated that while actively working you have the right to do that, but have no right while not "on the clock".

 

[angelatc]

So smokers are coming over to your house and smoking?

ON a side note, in my quest to be a gracious hostess, I always encourage people to smoke in my house even though none of us actually smoke. People running in and out is annoying, especially when we're playing cards.

 

[Tod]

I don't smoke, so now you're just wrong on yet another level.






That's just wrong again. Your property rights aren't violated unless somebody is smoking on your property, unless of course, you think you own the world.

If I'm wrong, you get to suffer the consequences of clean air.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Many locales are banning smoking in apartments and townhouses now, so you basically can't smoke in your own home.

Going back to the smell of frying bacon, let's say I'm a devout Muslim or Orthodox Jew.

That smell is an offense to me, it is wafting the molecules of forbidden meat right into my nose.

Do I have a right to tell you you can't cook a BLT in your own kitchen anymore?

 

[Tod]

But that's making the assumption that you own the world. Again, you have no right to be inside somebody else's restaurant, and therefore have no right to breathe their air.

You have no right to pollute someone else's property, but you shouldn't get any say in what other people choose to do on theirs.

If I'm allergic to peanuts, should I have the right to make sure no restaurants serve peanuts? After all, peanut dust is a pollutant to me in that case, and one that will harm me more immediately and irreparably than occasionally being exposed to smoke will ever harm you.

Or am I just screwed out of those "rights," because the majority doesn't share my affliction?

It simply comes down to the fact that smokers are not considerate of the people around them and that is why the people around them have no qualms about forcing them to be considerate. Don't like it? Too bad, so sad. That is the way the world works.

 

[Philhelm]

The reason people are so willing to toss the property rights out the window is merely because smokers are so willing to be inconsiderate of non-smokers, plain and simple. That a smoker would even consider lighting up indoors is to me the height of boorishness, but yet they do it (did it here in Ohio) all the time. A whole lot of people have had secondhand smoke blown their way for far too long. Get up and leave? I'm half-way through my dinner and when I started there were no smokers. Did the smoker ask if I minded? No, they never do. Their stupid addiction should be their problem and non-smokers shouldn't have to suffer alongside. To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Don't blame the non-smokers for this, blame the smokers for being such boors.

^This is how we lose liberty, piece by piece. Everyone has their own little pet issue to crusade against, and when the dust finally settles, nobody can do anything. The only correct answer is to let the property owner decide.