I agree, at least to the extent that I feel it should be up to the property owner to decide not the government.
They were free to not patronize the establishment, they were not entitled to lobby the government to encroach upon the owner's property rights.
Well they are entitled to lobby the government to ban smoking in public areas, just not private ones.
Though in this case it really didn't seem like much of the public was lobbying the government. It was more like the government and some small groups lobbied the public, and the public voted for it.
Usually, our rights get restricted because a small group lobbies the government, and the government seeks to extend it's authority, and it passes because far too much of the public is apathetic.
In this case, at least here in Ohio, the groups lobbied the public, and the ban was enacted by popular vote through a ballot issue.
The people literally forced the government to enact the ban that they have been unable to get through the legislature.
I think it was a foolish thing to do. I think we will regret allowing our property rights to be restricted in this way. I however doubt it was unconstitutional. The states have the authority to do a lot of stupid things, and in this case the people of the state voted for it.
Though I smoke neither cigars nor pipes, I've always liked their scent.
I used to kind of like the smell of pipe smoke, until I worked with someone who smoked a pipe at work, and the smell was so strong it made me nauseous. That was back when it was still considered acceptable to smoke in offices at some businesses.
I solved the problem by asking to work with someone else. After a number of people did the same he was asked to smoke outside on breaks.
So "bitter feelings" are a justification for an appeal for government control. I hate the color scheme in my neighbor's garden, I awake every morning consumed by bitterness. The government should fix it for me.
Well, when you have problems that are creating bitterness between people, and those people can't work it out among themselves, they usually do take it to the government.
How much the people are willing to accept the intrusion of the government in their lives, is directly related to how much other peoples actions are bothering them.
Actually, any support they got was from government lovers, no matter how they described themselves.
Everyone but complete anarchists wants the government to regulate something. In this case they wanted the government to regulate something, and in fact pretty much forced the government to regulate something, you didn't want regulated.
Get out of here - why haven't you brought up this point before?
I didn't bring it up before because I generally agree that having the government regulate smoking on private property is a bad idea, but I didn't really think that my personal dislike for smoking was a all that relevant of a point.
I support the rights of a lot of people to do things I disagree with. I'd give an example, but I don't want to equate smoking with something more heinous like true hate speech. The point is that I can support the right of employers to decide something even if I disagree with what the decide.
I ended up mentioning it because I got a bit tired you acting like you have the unalienable right to smoke regardless of how it effects others.
I opposed the smoking ban, because the government's solutions to problems is usually worse than the problem.
However, the government does, at least at the state and local levels, have the authority to make some regulations on work environments. Smoking I don't see how the smoking ban here in Ohio is unconstitutional. It was put in place by popular vote, and while many people feel it is overly restrictive, most people seem pretty happy with the results.
Feelings of victimhood run deep, but they're self-inflicted.
That could be said about smokers as well.
A free society is messy; thumb-sucking appeals to government to engineer a personal utopia are the hallmark of "progressives."
True, but most people think there is something in between complete anarchy and progressive utopia.
I'd like the line drawn much closer to the anarchy side of things, but not too close.
I suspect there are a number of things you want the government to regulate as well. Maybe immigration for example. Are you content to let the government regulate if someone from a foreign country can be employed in a store on private property?
There's not a single word here that would prompt me to say, "There goes a freedom lover, someone who understands!"
Well, I'm not an anarchist. So I suspect that we are going to have some differences of opinion on what the role of government is even if we do both generally believe in small government.
And like I have said consistently throughout this, I did vote against the smoking ban, because I felt it was an unreasonable restriction on the rights of property owners.
What about annoying fat women on cell phones wearing bikinis at the beach?
Noise pollution, second hand radio waves and an eyesore. Where’s my Congressman?
What would be the limit to your "extent?"
Though in this case it really didn't seem like much of the public was lobbying the government. It was more like the government and some small groups lobbied the public, and the public voted for it.
Actually, as I believe you've acknowledged, smokers are in a minority.
So, the "small groups" who rely on the government for their sinecure gang up on the demonized minority to ensure that their sinecure endures yea unto etermity.
Usually, our rights get restricted because...
Rights can't be resticted. Simple enough.
In this case, at least here in Ohio, the groups lobbied the public, and the ban was enacted by popular vote through a ballot issue.
"Popular vote = mob rule.
I agree with your take on this, that it was wrong. I disagree that it was not unconsitutional.
Years of case law versus constitutional law arguments in the courts have eroded original intent.
For crying out loud, how difficult is it to trace the erosion?
How much the people are willing to accept the intrusion of the government in their lives, is directly related to how much other peoples actions are bothering them.
Good Lord, this is truly a measure of how weak some of us have beome.
I'd give an example, but I don't want to equate smoking with something more heinous like true hate speech.
You actually think there's something called "hate speech?" So you're in favor of the concept of "thought crimes" then I assume.
Smoking I don't see how the smoking ban here in Ohio is unconstitutional. It was put in place by popular vote,
Tyranny of the majority.
and while many people feel it is overly restrictive, most people seem pretty happy with the results.
Yes, as long as "most people" are pretty happy with results, we've got the validation of mob rule.