The Facts About The Smoking Ban. If you're a business owner or not, this is a must read!

The Facts Online ^ | 11-01-03 | Dave Hitt

[CSM]

"Well, I think the government has the right to ban it - I just think it is dumb and that there is a middle ground that comes close to satisfying both sides."

Well, I think having children is dumb and there is a middle ground. We should liscence people to have children. They add costs to the rest of society, they create sick people, they add to the costs of health care. Ban Children!

Or how about:

Having guns represents a potential danger to others. Guns should be banned and you should be required to get a liscence for any gun you would like to own. Only approved sheeple will be allowed to have a liscence.

[TheOtherOne]

For completeness, here is what I wrote:

Many here are crying about a regulation - as though there are not regulations on all types of businesses and the like. If half of these people believed what they said they would fight liquor licenses and most other regulations. That is not what they are fighting, they are fighting the ban on smoking. Well, I think the government has the right to ban it - I just think it is dumb and that there is a middle ground that comes close to satisfying both sides.

[CSM]

"no, but you can't stop me from driving my car on my 500 acres I own....damn, you can't stop my 13 year old kid from driving there either."

If you support these bans then you would support the majority deeming that your underage kid driving on your private property is also able to be stopped because the "majority" says to stop.

[CSM]

"Did cinfl ever give you the name of the second restaurant!!

It amazes me how some people can be so ignorant!! At least us smokers are not afraid to give the facts, we don't wiggle around them or tell lies!!!"

No, cinny never replied to my inquiry. He never provided the number he used to "call" the one restaurant he posted. He never provided the name of the second restaurant he claims to have contacted. Posting a "claim" to purposefully mislead other individuals lurking or participating on a thread is better termed LYING!

This act of lying has given a ton of credibility to the opposite side of his argument both here and on the WOD threads. CinFla has lost all credibility and from this point on I will consider any poster in agreement with him to have the same level of credibility, ZERO. I will also assume that any poster disagreeing with him is telling the truth!

[CSM]

OK, for completeness:

Since regulations already exist, and the general public doesn't care, let's add as many regulations to the sheeple's lives as we can get away with. If we can convince them it is for the "general welfare" of the public, then they won't mind. Let's erode as much of the individual's liberty as we possibly can!

[Phantom Lord]

You could be right about the all you can drink place. It might not be common practice for the bars in your area. In Buffalo, it was very very common. But it was for the college bars catering to underage kids. So thats a whole different world.

[maryz]

The answer is as simple as the houses we grew up in. Insulation was unknown until the 50's.

Geez -- you'd better let all those researchers who are stymied by the dramatic rise in asthma know that you've figured it out! They're still theorizing about and investigating things like cockroach droppings (true) and overvaccination preventing proper development of the immune system (true), and probably lots of other things.

[xrp]

No, cinny never replied to my inquiry.

CinFla has lost all credibility

He's a liberal DU troll who constantly argues with others on FR. He has more interest in others' lives than his own and will stop at nothing on his insane quest to control all other Americans by using government force. He is one of the most dangerous breed of American.

[xrp]

Well, I think the government has the right to ban it

In other words, "I think the government has a right to use lethal force to make private business owners run their business a certain way. I favor government interference in business."

[TheOtherOne]

"I think the government has a right to use lethal force"

Huh? What are you talking about?

[xrp]

Government is the only institution in America that is empowered to legally use lethal force to accomplish its goals. Waco and the Branch Davidians is an example. Drug raids are examples. Defy the government enough, even if you aren't being violent (like drug users) and government will come kicking in your doors with MP5s drawn.

[TheOtherOne]

Obviously, you're another FR Totalitarian who thinks that the Constitution gives rights, rather than protecting God given rights and limiting government and what YOU, the totalitarian, are able to use government to do to other Americans.

What is it that you think prevents the States or cities from enacting anti-smoking legislation? Please enlighten me. Cite where you are protected from a State law or City ord.?

[TheOtherOne]

Government is the only institution in America that is empowered to legally use lethal force to accomplish its goals.

Do you believe this crap?

[xrp]

Name another institution that is legally empowered to accomplish its goals by use of force.

[Gabz]

If they were ever to do one on taverns, bingo halls, and places that cater to blue collar or rural clientele, the results would be so glum even they (who are experts at lying with numbers) would be hard pressed to hide the real damage their hate-inspired legislation causes.

Very well said Dave!!!!

Except for bingo halls, you are describing to a "T" the type places I frequent. I'll check with a few of my owner friends to see if they will permit me to give give you their info - I hope they do because the numbers are devastating.

Glad to see you!!!!

[lockjaw02]

It is not an over-reaction.

Anytime anyone retorts "good, I hope you enjoy no rights because you want no compromise" indicates to me that someone believes his own personal preferences are superior to anyone elses. Again, if you don't own a business, you shouldn't have any right whatsoever to vote to impose such rules on business owners. Our forefathers thought carefully about that when they constructed the Constitution. Can you imagine if 20% of the people are property owners and the other 80% can vote to have them "donate" property to "the society"? What if I used all my wages to buy income property and you used all yours for gambling in casinos. Should you have the right to vote for laws to force me to give you free rent because you're now destitute? Well, why should you force business owners to suffer economically to give you something?

Well, I think the government has the right to ban it - I just think it is dumb and that there is a middle ground that comes close to satisfying both sides.

There is no middle ground. The anti-smokers have not honored past compromises and they have proven they will not be appeased. This is like the steady and continuous encroachment of the white man on the indians. I can't believe we have freepers who advocate not honoring treaties between the US federal government and the various Indian nations. I gave examples of the continual encroachment, from separate smoking areas to ventilation standards at considerable expense to business owners, yet a few years later government, at the urging of anti-smoking lobbyists, comes back and says no good, butts out everywhere. That constitutes a taking of property without just compensation. In your "arguments" now, you still fail to even address a single one of Phantom Lord's or my arguments against licensing.

And you want no government inspections of restaurants and no minimum sanitary regulations, etc. Well, sounds nice on paper - I prefer some government regulations to none.

I didn't say anything like that at all. Even though this is not a health and safety issue, but a social issue, I do disagree with many other health and safety issues that restrict free choice, such as helmet laws and seat belt laws. If this were a health and safety issue for employees, then the ban in NY would exempt owner operated places with no employees outside the family. Even your California ban is not all inclusive and there are bars run by sole proprietors who are exempt. Funny how the anti-smokers never disclose that fact.

Might I suggest you read up on the Constitution and its implications towards private property rights. Now that doesn't mean I espouse an "anything goes" mentality. There are reasonable restrictions limiting things that effect other adjacent properties, such as discharging wastes into public waterways, or those where toxins leach into underground aquifers. But smoking on the premises of a business owner affects no one but those who choose to patronize his business. These laws are an unacceptable encroachment on private property rights.

[CSM]

I agree! Now I have documented a lie to post on any thread that he sets foot in!

[E Rocc]

55% said laughter could cause an attack.

Be careful the statists will use this as an excuse to try to ban laughing. (they of course have an ulterior motive as they are the type of people who are laughed at more than they laugh).

-Eric

[Gabz]

I am happy I don't live in New York anymore,

Me too!!!

I was born and raised in Brooklyn, but more and more I've found I rather not to mention that tidbit of info. When I meet new folks here in Virginia and they ask me where I'm from I simply say I moved here from Delaware.

[CSM]

Another example is speeding tickets. Try not to pay it, a warrant is issued and if found you will be taken into custody. Try to run and see what force is used. Being cited for a smoking violation is exactly forcing the business activity by the barrell of a gun.