Colorado: Bar owners still fuming

Steamboat Pilot & Today ^ | June 25, 2006 | Dave Shively

[Zon]

Zon: People that support government forced smoking bans violate the rights of people that chose to allow smokers on their property. That they enlist government agents to do their muscle/dirty work is besides the point that they chose to violate another man's rights.4

If that's the case, where's the lawsuit? It should be a slam dunk case if what you say is true.

I suppose you'll pretend you didn't read the bold sentence above. I doubt there has ever been a successful "slam dunk" lawsuit against the government. When you enlist the full force of government to do your dirty work against people you gain an unfair advantage. That's why you enlist the government to do what you could never do on your own or you would be sued in a New York minute.

Environazis also enlist the full force of government to violate private property rights. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it.

[philman_36]

It's sad but this board has become infested with nanny state do gooders who don't give a damn about property rights.
When hundreds and thousands view and only a couple of dozen respond it's hard to tell what the make-up of the unspoken is.
The nanny state do gooders have to speak out on this board or folks like YOU might be listened to.
Can't have that happening now, can we.

[Moonman62]

You're claiming that smoking in a business is a right. I'm saying it isn't.

Filing a lawsuit against the government is easy, more so for the smaller governments implementing these regulations. Smokers claiming to be helpless victims incapable of fighting the issue in the courts is laughable.

[Zon]

You're claiming that smoking in a business is a right. I'm saying it isn't.

You misconstrued what I said. Business owners have property rights that include who may access the property and what activates are allowed on their property. If a business owner doesn't want people to smoke on their property then the customer must abide the property owner's rights. There is no such thing as smokers rights than there are Christian rights, or female rights or Hispanic rights or black rights etc. Inalienable rights do not differentiate. You do -- erroneously.

Filing a lawsuit against the government is easy, more so for the smaller governments implementing these regulations.

I assume you intentionally misconstrued what I wrote: :"I doubt there has ever been a successful "slam dunk" lawsuit against the government." Of course it's easy to file a lawsuit against anybody and even easy to go to court. Being successful is not, especially against the government.

You shot your credibility by your intentional misconstruing of what I said.

[Moonman62]

There have been smoking regulations for private business owners for decades. Where's the successful lawsuit claiming their property rights have been infringed?

I'll give you credit for admitting that smokers don't have the right to smoke in a business. They can only smoke there if it is permitted by the owner and the law.

[Ditto]

Because the Colorado Clean Air Act does not apply to casinos...

That's because second hand smoke does not cause cancer in establishments where the state gets a hefty percentage of revenues, but it does cause cancer on outdoor decks where the state doesn't make that much money. < / sarcasm >

[Zon]

They can only smoke there if it is permitted by the owner and the law.

The law violates private property rights -- violates inalienable right. I stand by what I wrote in post 4.

You enlist government agents to initiate harm/force against innocent business owner's that have harmed no one. People that support government forced smoking bans violate the rights of people that chose to allow smokers on their property. That they enlist government agents to do their muscle/dirty work is besides the point that they chose to violate another man's rights. They claim a right greater than business owners' property rights. They're lower than pond scum, IMO.

Let's see how many more pond scum dwellers show themselves by responding.