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]

"Coach House was closed because of the smoking ban and put on the market for sale."

Was the number that I tried changed or did I call the wrong location?

[TheOtherOne]

I don't think there is any institution empowered to accomplish its goals by use of force, including the government

[CSM]

"I guess the fact someone buys a NEW liquor license doesn't mean there's a NEW demand for MORE non-smoking bars and restaurants,...."

The damand isn't for "more" non-smoking bars and restaurants. It is for more bars and restaurants, there is no choice for non-smoking, it is mandated.

From you posted article:
"Under state law, a county can only have one on-sale general liquor license for every 2,000 people, and one off-sale general liquor license for every 2,500 people."

If the population growth was not occuring the liquor liscense issuances would not be increasing.

"In California a license is a commodity that can be sold. In other words a business closing can sell their license and NEW licenses or record #'s of applications for them wouldn't be necessary...Would they."

No, but it is still unacceptable that any business owner is faced with government intervention driving the decision to close up shop.

"AND as to growth, I thought everyone is leaving California."

I never made this claim.

[CSM]

Everything the government does is enforcable by force only. What happens if you don't pay your taxes? The money will be taken by force. If you don't have the money you will be arrested. If they can't find you voluntarily, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. If you are found you will be arrested. Try to run after found and you will end up with the barrell of a gun pointed at your head!

If that isn't force, then what is?

Name one goal/law the government will not enforce by force?

[TheOtherOne]

No, but it is still unacceptable that any business owner is faced with government intervention driving the decision to close up shop.

I am sure you are against all the 'tort reform' laws impacting the legal businesses right? Or are you fine with regulation that doesn't affect you?

[TheOtherOne]

Funny, you don't seem to be talking about lethal force like you orginally did. That is what I have been disputing. Don't try to change your point now.

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

Are you claiming the government uses lethal force to collect taxes?

[CSM]

"I am sure you are against all the 'tort reform' laws impacting the legal businesses right? Or are you fine with regulation that doesn't affect you?"

You have to be lacking the cognitave ability to connect dots. Tort reform laws do effect me. The frivolous lawsuit filed by Banzhaf resulted in the MSA. The cost of the MSA is passed on directly to the consumer. Therefore, frivolous lawsuits are just another tax to take from the citizens pockets and put it in the government bank account.

If he is successful in his law suits against the fast food industry, you can expect the cost to be passed along to the customer, that customer will be affected.

You don't think the cost of frivolous lawsuits are passed on to hospital patients, then to insurance companies, then to all of the individuals paying premiums?

I think the whole thing can be solved with a "loser pays" system. I would like to see the loser pay the total cost caused by the lawsuit plus some mark-up. We would then see less silliness and more companies would defend themselves rather than settle.

[CSM]

What is the point of pointing a gun at someone? Is it not to threaten that person's life? How much more lethal can you get than threatening a person's life?

If that person makes a threat back, then their life will be taken. Seems to be lethal to me, what is your definition of lethal?

[TheOtherOne]

My point was, that one mans onerous regulation is a benefit to someone else - as you just claimed with regard to 'tort reform'. My father's business, as a moral plaintiffs attorney, would be hurt by tort reform - you may benefit. It is the same way with most regulations. Funny, you just refuse to see that there is any legitimate reason to regulate smoking in public buildings but you have no problem encouraging legislation against some lawyer or other business where your interest lay with regulation. There is a word for that.

[cinFLA]

As I explained in another post "cinnie" is correct the Coach House is open and serving lunch -

Thank you.

[CSM]

"Funny, you just refuse to see that there is any legitimate reason to regulate smoking in public buildings but you have no problem encouraging legislation against some lawyer or other business where your interest lay with regulation."

Do you actually read. I never said that there is no legitimate reason to regulate smoking in public buildings. That hasn't been discussed at all on this thread. In fact, I completely support smoking bans in public buildings. Of course, a public building is owned by the public. It is necessary for any memeber of the public to access that building. It is proper, and expected, that the public can decide the use of that building. The public makes the decisions by electing their representatives, the reps then decide the use of the building.

You seem to think that privately owned buildings are somehow public buildings. Members of the public have access to private buildings, but that is by invitation only and it is not necessary for all members of the public to access that privately owned building. It is proper, and expected that the private property owner decide the use of his building. He is restricted from doing that by the public reps.

How is encrouging a "loser pays" system supporting legislation? It could be accomplished by ways outside of legislation, where did I say legislation was necessary to accomplish it? In addition, your father would most likely have his business improved under your proposal. More people would defend themselves rather than settle. He could also set his fee based on the premium as well as the hourly rate.

The examples I provided were only examples of how the risk free frivolous law suits effect everyone.

[TheOtherOne]

How is encrouging a "loser pays" system supporting legislation? It could be accomplished by ways outside of legislation, where did I say legislation was necessary to accomplish it?

Please explain how this is done without legislation. I am very curious.

[CSM]

Ah, I see, now I am obliged to explain away your assumptions about my statements. OK, try counter claims and suing for the lost productivity, expenses, and other costs. If the legal beagels starting having to answer in court for these things they may be more willing to consider the reasonableness of a claim before filing suit.

Look at that, we just created more business for your father.

[Sodbuster]

I can't wait until they tax fatty. This is the next logical step for the health/safety nazis. As you are all aware, fast food is unhealthy and therefore (obviously) should be taxed. I imagine it will go something like this:

$0.50 tax on a burger, add $0.05 for cheese and/or bacon
$0.25 tax on fries
Add a $1.00 if you super size your order.

You get the idea. I'm sure our elected representative will be able to develop a convoluted system that is fair and equitable to all (except business owners, but they are responsible for our poor health in the first place, aren't they?).

An alternative would be to weigh in at tax time and have everyone pay by the pound at the end of the year. While this system would seem to be fair, as it is based solely on the weight of the taxpayer, the cost to ensure the health of the taxpayer would be much too visible. It would be better to go with the first option and tax the burger joint who would pass the cost indirectly on to the consumer.

I'm joking, but you may want to write this down. It could happen.

Ex-smoker in CA

[TheOtherOne]

OK, try counter claims and suing for the lost productivity, expenses, and other costs. If the legal beagels starting having to answer in court for these things they may be more willing to consider the reasonableness of a claim before filing suit.

Either the laws give us that right now, or you are seeking to have them changes. Which is it? To allow the counter claims you refer to wouldn't we need legislation or where else would someone get a cause of action? Why do you want 'tort reform' if no legislation is necessary? How do you think you get the right to countersue....legislation.

[xrp]

I don't think there is any institution empowered to accomplish its goals by use of force, including the government

Explain that to the Branch Davidians at Waco. Explain that to Elian Gonzalez. Explain that to all the people whose houses have been broken into by law enforcement officers, with "probably cause" of course. Explain that to law abiding Americans who have been executed by their government in drug raids.

[CSM]

"probably cause"

At first I thought that was a typo, but then the irony hit me!

[TheOtherOne]

Explain that to the Branch Davidians at Waco. Explain that to Elian Gonzalez. Explain that to all the people whose houses have been broken into by law enforcement officers, with "probably cause" of course. Explain that to law abiding Americans who have been executed by their government in drug raids.

Those are examples of abuse of power of government. Those are not examples of people empowering a government to do those things. Just because a police man shoots an innocent man with a gov't gun, does not mean we empowered him to do so. It is an abuse of power.

[CSM]

I am not a lawyer, I have very little knowledge if the law currently allows for counter claims. It would only be logical that it is allowed today. If the ability to sue for anything exists today, then logically a counter claim is allowed. I think that the ability to recover is probably more difficult than just filing a claim and hoping for a settlement. If the legal professionals want to avoid legislation, they should be willing to take on more counter claims.

If counter claims are not currently allowed, under the law, then I would advocate legislation allowing for fairness. I don't think this is supporting regulation, instead I think it is giving both sides the same caliber guns! It frees the tied hands of the private party that is being sued, it doesn't tie the hands of either party.

I see you just blew off the public vs. private property and lethal force aspects of my posts. Do you concede those points?

[xrp]

Those are examples of abuse of power of government.

So what happens if I ransack your house or shoot you? Is that simply 'abuse of personal power'? No, it is a violation of a right to private property and personal liberty. I can be punished for that. Who in government was punished for the deaths of the 80-odd Branch Davidians? Who in government is punished when innocents are executed in botched drug raids? Who in government was punished when Elian was seized?