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

[phill4paul]

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

You are wrong. And what is suffered is the loss of personal property rights and freedom of association.

 

[Danke]

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.

And you are not very considerate of property rights.

 

[Tod]

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.

Actually, it is well-known that regularly inhaling tobacco smoke causes all kinds of health problems and lots of people die from it. I knew lots of them.

With regards to the arsenic, I wasn't talking about trace amounts, but enough to kill you. I suspect you aren't suicidal, so despite your protestations to the contrary, I'll assume your answer would be very much as I suggested.

 

[tod evans]

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.

My business is a smoking facility, if you choose not to patronize it because of that, then fine.

When the state or county passes legislation banning smoking in businesses open to the "public" then out will come the "private" business label with a penny membership fee.

There are more and more local eating and drinking establishments that have gone the "private-club" route to avoid burdensome regulations.

If non-smokers want their own "clubs" cool..........just don't bitch when smokers do too.

 

[angelatc]

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

The consequences of losing my property rights aren't offset by that. I'm not bothered by smoke. I'm bothered by do-gooder nanny-staters.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

This is why we fail (and I'm guilty of it too).

This is the narcotic of the state.

It is just too easy to say "pass a damn law, I'm tired of ____ doing such and such or so and so."

Freedom means minding your own damn business and not poking your nose into everybody else's.

 

[donnay]

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

Did you know too much arsenic causes lung cancer?

Smoking Helps Protect Against Lung Cancer
http://web.archive.org/web/20050214135605/http://vialls.net/transpositions/smoking.html

 

[Anti Federalist]

Actually, it is well-known that regularly inhaling tobacco smoke causes all kinds of health problems and lots of people die from it. I knew lots of them.

With regards to the arsenic, I wasn't talking about trace amounts, but enough to kill you. I suspect you aren't suicidal, so despite your protestations to the contrary, I'll assume your answer would be very much as I suggested.

Trace amounts of tobacco smoke won't kill you either.

Will you be banning my wood stove?

 

[phill4paul]

My business is a smoking facility, if you choose not to patronize it because of that, then fine.

When the state or county passes legislation banning smoking in businesses open to the "public" then out will come the "private" business label with a penny membership fee.

There are more and more local eating and drinking establishments that have gone the "private-club" route to avoid burdensome regulations.

If non-smokers want their own "clubs" cool..........just don't bitch when smokers do too.

Unless, the non-smoking Nazis choose to disallow that as they have in N.C. ALL establishments including private membership clubs, with the exception of SOME non-profits, are considered PUBLIC establishments.

 

[tod evans]

This is why we fail (and I'm guilty of it too).

This is the narcotic of the state.

It is just too easy to say "pass a damn law, I'm tired of ____ doing such and such or so and so."

Freedom means minding your own damn business and not poking your nose into everybody else's.

You must spread some rep. before giving to AF again....

 

[angelatc]

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.

Yeas, by all means. The government should mandate behaviors that are considered "inconsiderate." Like eating peanuts around me, if I'm allergic to them. Therefore, peanuts should be banned from all private property. Including your house. I mean, what happens if I get invited in by your spouse or your child? Your property might pollute me.

Seriously, the only argument you're left with is "too bad, so sad?" That's pathetic.

 

[Tod]

And you are not very considerate of property rights.

Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Just one of those natural laws, like gravity. Whine and moan about it all you like, but it will still be true. In the case of smoking, people who insist on blowing smoke in non-smoker's faces (failing to govern themselves) will have laws written prohibiting such behavior (be governed).

Obviously, the best solution would be for a smoker to refrain from smoking where others object, but for years they have failed to follow that basic tenet of civility. Now they are paying the price of such self-indulgence (and, curiously enough, reaping benefits).

 

[DamianTV]

Unless, the non-smoking Nazis choose to disallow that as they have in N.C. ALL establishments including private membership clubs, with the exception of SOME non-profits, are considered PUBLIC establishments.

Nobody forces people to go to public establishments. Gong to a Hospital, understandable, you dont really have a choice. Smoking Ban in Hospitals are acceptable, but telling someone else what they can and can not do on or with their own property is Socialism.

And just because it is "Public" does not mean you or anyone else has an Exclusive Right to it.

 

[angelatc]

Unless, the non-smoking Nazis choose to disallow that as they have in N.C. ALL establishments including private membership clubs, with the exception of SOME non-profits, are considered PUBLIC establishments.

Yes, that's what I was going to post. Several states have "compromised" by allowing private clubs to still allow smoking, only to close that loophole in the next session. Divide and conquer.

As far as I know, all clubs are private. So that fact that some of them charge a membership fee for admittance is a moot point anyway.

 

[angelatc]

Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Just one of those natural laws, like gravity. Whine and moan about it all you like, but it will still be true. In the case of smoking, people who insist on blowing smoke in non-smoker's faces (failing to govern themselves) will have laws written prohibiting such behavior (be governed).

Obviously, the best solution would be for a smoker to refrain from smoking where others object, but for years they have failed to follow that basic tenet of civility. Now they are paying the price of such self-indulgence (and, curiously enough, reaping benefits).

The best solution is to respect private property rights, which you have no interest in doing. Why is that? Why do you think you have the right to go into a private restaurant and demand that everybody behave as you want them to?

 

[oyarde]

Tobacco is a plant.

My heating stove burns wood, a plant.

Will you ban my wood stove?

Please do not give these whackos any ideas

 

[angelatc]

Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Another truism - exerting public law on private property is fascism. Even if you're happy about it, it's evil.

 

[Philhelm]

Truism of the day: People who won't govern themselves will be governed.

Just one of those natural laws, like gravity. Whine and moan about it all you like, but it will still be true. In the case of smoking, people who insist on blowing smoke in non-smoker's faces (failing to govern themselves) will have laws written prohibiting such behavior (be governed).

Obviously, the best solution would be for a smoker to refrain from smoking where others object, but for years they have failed to follow that basic tenet of civility. Now they are paying the price of such self-indulgence (and, curiously enough, reaping benefits).

Where does the property owner's wishes come into play? You don't have a right to be on their property to begin with.

 

[angelatc]

Where does the property owner's wishes come into play? You don't have a right to be on their property to begin with.

He refuses to address that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Please do not give these whackos any ideas

It's already been posted and they already have that idea.

Just give it time.

It's the logical end to these smoking bans.

I'd really like an "anti" to address that bacon cooking question.