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

[vechorik]

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20120308/OPINION01/203080312

 

[angelatc]

Good luck with that. The smoking Nazis won't go away - every time they lose the vote, they just bring it up again and again. I wish the Republicans were as persistent as the leftist special interest groups.

 

[phill4paul]

It has NOTHING to do with how many do not smoke or how many want to ban smoking. The argument should come down to only one thing. Property rights. Unfortunately, angelatc is correct. The 'public' believes that if your personal property is 'open' to the public it is therefore their property.
Good luck. At one time tobacco was king in N.C. Then a bunch of northern libs moved here and took away private property rights.

 

[_pauladin_]

I voted. I'm surprised at how many "yes" votes there are, though. Don't people get that all this would do is hurt the businesses, hurt the customers, and increase law enforcement costs? Everyone loses.

 

[vechorik]

I voted. I'm surprised at how many "yes" votes there are, though. Don't people get that all this would do is hurt the businesses, hurt the customers, and increase law enforcement costs? Everyone loses.

People don't see the property rights issue at all.
Smoking is bad. Let's ban it is all they can see. No deep thinkers. Not enough education of the Constitution.
This smoke-free ban is already in effect in many cities. This current push is to make it a state-wide law.

 

[_pauladin_]

People don't see the property rights issue at all.
Smoking is bad. Let's ban it is all they can see. No deep thinkers. Not enough education of the Constitution.
This smoke-free ban is already in effect in many cities. This current push is to make it a state-wide law.

People definitely don't get personal liberty, but I was writing from a free market perspective, which should be a little more obvious to people.

Businesses under a smoking ban:
- Lose smoking customers
- Get hit with fines

Customers under smoking ban:
- Smokers either stay home or can't smoke
- Quality suffers to cover businesses' lost money, and/or
- Prices go up to cover businesses' lost money

Law enforcement under smoking ban:
- State has to hire more cops and bureaucrats to enforce the ban, and/or
- State has to take resources away from useful law enforcement to enforce the ban

 

[Tod]

Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

 

[oyarde]

How can anyone who is of right mind think govt should determine if a business allows smoking or not ??

 

[pcosmar]

Won't load the poll for me.

But I expect that we are outnumbered by idiots.
Democracy fail.

 

[DamianTV]

It has NOTHING to do with how many do not smoke or how many want to ban smoking. The argument should come down to only one thing. Property rights. Unfortunately, angelatc is correct. The 'public' believes that if your personal property is 'open' to the public it is therefore their property.
Good luck. At one time tobacco was king in N.C. Then a bunch of northern libs moved here and took away private property rights.

What they are really trying to do is to claim your Body as Property. This is nothing more than Socialism 101. To say that I can put something that you own up for sale up on the Internet, but you gave no permission for anyone to sell your stuff. They seem to believe that the "Public" has a "Right" to expect someone else to be a "productive member of society". That they have a "Right" to tell you what to eat because "they" have to pay for "your health benefits". Or if "they" can tell you that you are "allowed" to smoke, drink, eat sugar, salt, bacon, etc.

This is no longer a Country of Rights of the Individual, it is about everyone else claiming "Rights" to what that individual will either cost or benefit them. This has become a Nation of Priviledges. This is Socialism 101 in a Nutshell. Er, no wait, Nutshells are known to the State of Califiornia to cause cancer in Laboratory Animals, better use a Geneticly Manipulated FDA Hybrid Nut that is considered "safe", by "them", them, being the Socialist Public.

 

[angelatc]

Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

The majority doesn't have the right to breathe any air inside property that they don't own.

It's about the concept of private property. Non-smokers have every right to avoid restaurants that allow smoking, but they should not have the right to tell business owners what they can and cannot allow on private property.

The rest of your post is bullshit. In Michigan, small bars and pubs are going belly up, and they say it's because of the law, which was enacted here only a couple of years ago. Only the big corporate owned entities are surviving.

 

[donnay]

Big Pharma wants you to Quit Smoking

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229868-Big-Pharma-wants-you-to-Quit-Smoking


Where is the 'War Against Cell Phones'? WHO guilty of hypocrisy

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...r-Against-Cell-Phones-WHO-guilty-of-hypocrisy

Anti-smoking propaganda: Decrease in smoking causes oral cancer?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/2...ganda-Decrease-in-smoking-causes-oral-cancer-

Nicotine's effect on appetite identified

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/229864-Nicotine-s-effect-on-appetite-identified

 

[phill4paul]

Here in Ohio a non-smoking ban was enacted a few years back and practically everyone I know loves it and says it should have been done years ago. While it is true that a minority have lost their "right to smoke", the majority has regained the "right" to breathe cleaner air and the poor property owner caught in the middle no longer has to be the bad guy telling one group or the other to stuff it. A lot of property owners like that. Additionally, a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't have visited a business because of the smoke now do.

And here in N.C. it is much the same. Much the shame. Smoking is relegated to non-profit private businesses only. So even if a for profit private business with its own membership wanted to create a smokers establishment is is disallowed.
Before the smoking ban took place there were already businesses that catered to non-smokers. Ironically, after the change these establishments went out of business. I myself have pulled about $6k out of the local community because of this. Truth is that it doesn't matter. Non-smokers have made up for it. At what price to freedom of association though?

 

[Tod]

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.

 

[Anti Federalist]

You have a duty to the State to remain as healthy as possible, for war service, war production and financial gain of the banking elite that rule you.

All of you smokers are reported.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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.

So then you would have no problem with a "smoking only" or "smoking permitted here" establishment, alongside establishments where smoking is prohibited?

 

[FrancisMarion]

My municipality has not passed an ordinance on this thankfully. Isn't there also funds that come down from larger gov't that is contingent on these type of bans?

 

[angelatc]

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.

Blah blah blah. When I grew up we could smoke in elevators and movie theatres. Nobody gave a crap, and asthma and allergies were practically non-existent. Your generation is whiny, selfish, and endlessly needy - they're the real boors. And I'm not just saying that. Your use of the word indicates that you don't actually understand the fine nuances of real etiquette, which means that a host is obliged to cater to all the whims and desires of all his guests, while his other guests don't criticize the behavior of anybody else. And for the record, asking someone to step outside to smoke is actually the epitome of boorishness.

To me it is entirely understandable that given a chance to outlaw smoking indoors the majority of people would jump at the chance.

Sure, that's why democracy sucks. You've avoided the real issue, which is why the actual property owner and the minority don't have any rights.

 

[donnay]

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.

That sounds like group-think to me.

How about posting laws for those who wear stinky perfume next?

 

[pcosmar]

All of you smokers are reported.

Got a Light?