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

[liberty2897]

I'm not.

Cutlerzzz,

Sorry, didn't mean to direct that at you specifically. I'm guilty of letting events of the past few days get to me. Time to move on and get back to furthering the cause of liberty.

 

[Anti Federalist]

////

 

[rockerrockstar]

Personally I like the smoke bans because I don't smoke. I think of it in terms that it gives me the right to go out in public and not breath in another persons smoke. If they want to smoke they can go outside. It is freedom until that freedom invades another persons freedom or heath. I think that these smoke bans are justified.

I don't know anything about the failed state wide ban that could have been too much.

 

[kezt777]

Personally I like the smoke bans because I don't smoke. I think of it in terms that it gives me the right to go out in public and not breath in another persons smoke. If they want to smoke they can go outside. It is freedom until that freedom invades another persons freedom or heath. I think that these smoke bans are justified.

I don't know anything about the failed state wide ban that could have been too much.

They can go outside where? Even outdoors in wide open spaces, there are smoking bans going into effect. There is also a town in California where a couple is trying to get the council to consider having her neighbours stop smoking outside on their own patio because the smoke goes in their yard and she and another family member have asthma. Who knows if that will go through, but even the fact it's being considered boggles my mind.

I had a premature infant, and when we brought him home he only weighed 3 lbs 9oz. We rarely took him outside because even a mild sickness could end him up in hospital again or worse - our neighbours have a firepit. There were nights when I had to shut all the windows, even though it was sweltering hot in the house, because the wind kept shifting and blowing it straight in our bedrooms. I did not go over and yell at them because they cannot control the wind anymore than I can. I could have asked them to just put it out, but it's their yard and I choose to live in a city, so I have to put up with neighbours. at the same time, to add fun to the game, the neighbour on the other side decided to let his teenage son's band practice in the garage. It was an awful racket, VERY VERY loud at times (and we listen to metal, so us saying it was loud MEANS it was seriously loud lol), but again I didnt say anything. It was afternoon or evening, before the watershed time for 'be quiet', and I was a teenager once too and probably drove my neighbours crazy at times.

Back to smoking, there are bans going into second and third readings in my city for banning smoking in all public parks. If people start pushing that you cannot smoke in your own backyard because it blows into the neighbour's yard and/or house, what's next for smokers? I understand that it's not fun but as someone else stated in this thread or another earlier, there are many who go out in public while sick, and pass their germs around, but they don't or can't get banned because it is hard to prove. Having a ciggy in your hand is pretty obvious so they can go after you. There are bans in effect right now to fine people for smoking in their own cars if their own children are present. And even if they are not, but there is evidence in the car of a child, such as a car seat (even if empty). I can't even keep track of all the rules now. there are many people who are allergic or sensitive to perfumes - how far should regulations go to thwart that? Some people have a physical reaction to it - wheezing, asthma, watery eyes, sneezing, even rashes... so perhaps no one should give off any odor whatsoever when they go outside of their homes?

that's all I caution - that it can open doors for other regulations, bylaws, and laws to come in. Start with one group and it sets a precedent for another soon afterward.

 

[vechorik]

Personally I like the smoke bans because I don't smoke. I think of it in terms that it gives me the right to go out in public and not breath in another persons smoke. If they want to smoke they can go outside. It is freedom until that freedom invades another persons freedom or heath. I think that these smoke bans are justified.

I don't know anything about the failed state wide ban that could have been too much.

Jeeesh! -- Once again, what gives you the right to come on MY PROPERTY (home or business) and demand what YOU want? Doesn't that interfere with MY rights? I'm sick of non-smokers trying to rule the world. Yes, smoking is bad. That still doesn't give you the right to rule over MY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

 

[donnay]

They can go outside where? Even outdoors in wide open spaces, there are smoking bans going into effect. There is also a town in California where a couple is trying to get the council to consider having her neighbours stop smoking outside on their own patio because the smoke goes in their yard and she and another family member have asthma. Who knows if that will go through, but even the fact it's being considered boggles my mind.

I had a premature infant, and when we brought him home he only weighed 3 lbs 9oz. We rarely took him outside because even a mild sickness could end him up in hospital again or worse - our neighbours have a firepit. There were nights when I had to shut all the windows, even though it was sweltering hot in the house, because the wind kept shifting and blowing it straight in our bedrooms. I did not go over and yell at them because they cannot control the wind anymore than I can. I could have asked them to just put it out, but it's their yard and I choose to live in a city, so I have to put up with neighbours. at the same time, to add fun to the game, the neighbour on the other side decided to let his teenage son's band practice in the garage. It was an awful racket, VERY VERY loud at times (and we listen to metal, so us saying it was loud MEANS it was seriously loud lol), but again I didnt say anything. It was afternoon or evening, before the watershed time for 'be quiet', and I was a teenager once too and probably drove my neighbours crazy at times.

Back to smoking, there are bans going into second and third readings in my city for banning smoking in all public parks. If people start pushing that you cannot smoke in your own backyard because it blows into the neighbour's yard and/or house, what's next for smokers? I understand that it's not fun but as someone else stated in this thread or another earlier, there are many who go out in public while sick, and pass their germs around, but they don't or can't get banned because it is hard to prove. Having a ciggy in your hand is pretty obvious so they can go after you. There are bans in effect right now to fine people for smoking in their own cars if their own children are present. And even if they are not, but there is evidence in the car of a child, such as a car seat (even if empty). I can't even keep track of all the rules now. there are many people who are allergic or sensitive to perfumes - how far should regulations go to thwart that? Some people have a physical reaction to it - wheezing, asthma, watery eyes, sneezing, even rashes... so perhaps no one should give off any odor whatsoever when they go outside of their homes?

that's all I caution - that it can open doors for other regulations, bylaws, and laws to come in. Start with one group and it sets a precedent for another soon afterward.

In the state of Maine they already passed laws that if you have minor children in your car and you smoke you will be fined if caught. They always use the children as an excuse to clamp down on peoples liberty! Both my parents smoked when I was a child and I was not a sickly child. What makes children sick are the FDA approved vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

 

[Sematary]

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.

I live in Ct, right on the Mass. and RI borders. ALL these states have smoking bans in rest. and bars, etc...
They got it right. It didn't hurt anyones business because EVERYONE is playing by the same rules. That's number one.

Number 2 is this - the EMPLOYEES of those businesses DO have a right to work in an environment that is not dangerous to their health and second hand smoke is most definitely a danger to their health.

Third - as a patron and an asthma sufferer, I can assure you that if anything, the smoking bans INCREASED business. Smokers are not put off by these bans - in fact, you never hear a peep about it here and non-smokers can actually go to a restaurant or bar and ENJOY their meal or drinks. I could never go to a restaurant or bar before they changed the law because I couldn't breath. Now I can, and I am damn happy about it.

Somehow this argument got framed into an argument about liberty and property rights but somewhere in that discussion, the people (the majority of the people) who don't smoke, get left out of the discussion. How about THEIR RIGHTS? How about THEIR LIBERTY? I have a right to enter a PUBLIC establishment and NOT choke on the dangerous gases emitted by a proven dangerous product. Mass. dealt with this by making it so that "private" clubs could allow smoking. So, if a bar wants to allow smoking, it is private. You must join and you know when you join that smoking is permitted and you make that CHOICE.

This whole idea that smokers have all the rights to pollute and destroy the quiet enjoyment of other patrons is a bullshit argument. Likewise, the business owner has the responsibility to provide a safe environment for all of his patrons.

I've also heard the argument that non-smokers could "choose" to not go into that establishment but that is a bullshit argument as well. BEFORE the Northeast states changed their laws, you would be extremely hard pressed to find an establishment that didn't allow smoking - in all actuality, except in a few urban areas, it was impossible. So everyone here who is fighting tooth and nail to save the rights of smokers to injure other people through their actions, perhaps you should start considering the rights of the people around them.

 

[vechorik]

..........therefore, the Constitution doesn't allow YOU to run MY life!

 

[vechorik]

.......................
Number 2 is this - the EMPLOYEES of those businesses DO have a right to work in an environment that is not dangerous to their health and second hand smoke is most definitely a danger to their health.

OSHA demands that smoking is done in certain SMOKING AREAS -- has been since the 1970's.
Employees can work anywhere they want -- just stay out of SMOKING AREAS

 

[tod evans]

For you "pro-legislation" folks;

From whom do you draw your authority to attempt to legislate my behavior on my property?

Better yet, why would you want to?

 

[Sematary]

They can go outside where? Even outdoors in wide open spaces, there are smoking bans going into effect. There is also a town in California where a couple is trying to get the council to consider having her neighbours stop smoking outside on their own patio because the smoke goes in their yard and she and another family member have asthma. Who knows if that will go through, but even the fact it's being considered boggles my mind.

Think about that for a minute. Dr. Paul has said on NUMEROUS occasions that we don't need the EPA because civil suits would prevent polluters from invading the property rights of others (people and towns/cities and states). Isn't this EXACTLY the same? If the neighbor is having THEIR property rights invaded by "pollution" from their neighbors. Not that I agree with this particular instance, but isn't the argument identical?

 

[Sematary]

OSHA demands that smoking is done in certain SMOKING AREAS -- has been since the 1970's.
Employees can work anywhere they want -- just stay out of SMOKING AREAS

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

 

[Sematary]

For you "pro-legislation" folks;

From whom do you draw your authority to attempt to legislate my behavior on my property?

Better yet, why would you want to?

They are not legislating YOUR behavior on YOUR property. They are regulating behavior by all people in a PUBLIC place, for the specific reason that smoking is DANGEROUS to others.

 

[vechorik]

They are not legislating YOUR behavior on YOUR property. They are regulating behavior by all people in a PUBLIC place, for the specific reason that smoking is DANGEROUS to others.

Businesses are NOT a public place -- Businesses are PRIVATE PROPERTY (mine surely is), just as my home is private property.

Courthouses, and PUBLIC places -- want to ban smoking? I won't say a word, but when it comes to PRIVATE property, don't tread on me!

 

[Sematary]

Jeeesh! -- Once again, what gives you the right to come on MY PROPERTY (home or business) and demand what YOU want? Doesn't that interfere with MY rights? I'm sick of non-smokers trying to rule the world. Yes, smoking is bad. That still doesn't give you the right to rule over MY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

then don't open your property to the public because people who wish to patronize your business for whatever reason, don't want to have THEIR RIGHTS stepped on my people who don't seem to understand that their behavior IS violating the other persons rights.

 

[Sematary]

Businesses are NOT a public place -- Businesses are PRIVATE PROPERTY (mine surely is), just as my home is private property.

Not if you open it to the public. As soon as you open it to the public it is no longer "private". If you want your property to be "private" then close the doors.

 

[vechorik]

Think about that for a minute. Dr. Paul has said on NUMEROUS occasions that we don't need the EPA because civil suits would prevent polluters from invading the property rights of others (people and towns/cities and states). Isn't this EXACTLY the same? If the neighbor is having THEIR property rights invaded by "pollution" from their neighbors. Not that I agree with this particular instance, but isn't the argument identical?

Sure, it's the same. You gonna sue a smoker next door? Go for it. Hope I'm on the jury.

 

[Sematary]

Sure, it's the same. You gonna sue a smoker next door? Go for it. Hope I'm on the jury.

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

 

[vechorik]

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

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.

 

[otherone]

Not if you open it to the public. As soon as you open it to the public it is no longer "private". If you want your property to be "private" then close the doors.

Actually, you have it backwards. A private individual is not compelled to enter another individual's property. I cannot stand the foul stench coming from "Yankee Candle" at the mall...so I don't go in there. I don't HAVE to. It's called 'freedom'.