Posted on 03/30/2004 7:27:23 AM PST by ijcr
Another person who wants to be free to sell poisoned food.
And your right to not breath smoke ends where someone else's building begins. Excercise your right to stay home and breath the fresh air in your own home.
Why hasn't the rate of diseases supposedly caused by smoking decreased as the rate of smoking has decreased?
Why hasn't the EPA set exposure limits for ETS?
Politics.
You are part of the beginning of the end.
Another person who wants to be free to sell poisoned food.
What the heck does that mean Professor?
FMCDH
And they told me I'd never amount to anything!
Another person who wants to be free to sell poisoned food.
What the heck does that mean Professor?
You mean private property owners' rights don't extend to selling beer clarified with lead acetate, or salads containing rat turds? So explain to me again why it's OK to run a restaurant that has toxic material in the air, but not in the food?
Perhaps you should review the Maryland constitution and it's origins concerning property rights.
Yes, we do. Many of them are frivolous, and some are not. It is extremely upsetting when they are frivolous, particularly something like smoking bans, which have multi-faceted impacts. Let's look at just two: One, for the intangible SHS threat, a nice large property right is stripped. Fabulous slippery slope. Two, restaurants and bars that cannot provide a legal smoking area (e.g. a deck) will suffer, sometimes catastrophically. Try getting smokers to come to your bar when they can't smoke. It's about as effective as outlawing drinking and smoking at a casino.
And, in the end, what have non-smokers gained? Better health? If you have evidence that will demonstrate some huge benefit to society from not enduring a (gasp) two hour jaunt in a smokey bar once a week, then by all means produce it. Otherwise you have just shafted a large population of citizens and shafted a large population of business owners, all for the sake of your nose. It pains me to see how little some people, particularly smart people like you, value private property.
Another person who wants to scare the heck out of people with false assumptions, dubious statistics, and apalling hyperbole so they'll cry out for security and give up liberty. As Bill Clinton said, "sometimes people have too much freedom", right Prof?
It's anything but intangible.
. Two, restaurants and bars that cannot provide a legal smoking area (e.g. a deck) will suffer, sometimes catastrophically.
I doubt it. Bar sales in NYC are up 9% since the smoking ban. For every disgruntled smoker who won't go to bars anymore, you'll have a non-smoker, like my wife, who previously avoided bars because of smoke and will now patronize them.
Try getting smokers to come to your bar when they can't smoke.
My prediction: the Irish, smokers and non-smokers alike, will continue to go to bars. And since I grew up in Ireland, I know a little of the Irish.
And, in the end, what have non-smokers gained? Better health? If you have evidence that will demonstrate some huge benefit to society from not enduring a (gasp) two hour jaunt in a smokey bar once a week, then by all means produce it
I've done it once. I'm not going to do it again.
Otherwise you have just shafted a large population of citizens and shafted a large population of business owners, all for the sake of your nose. It pains me to see how little some people, particularly smart people like you, value private property.
Be pained all you want. It's a disgusting habit, which kills its addicts, and makes life unhealthier and more unpleasant for the rest of us. It's rapidly become socially unacceptable, and none too soon either. Get over it.
Yes and no. At least in the US, the sale of liquor is highly regulated, as is the sale of food. For very good reason, too. Up until cities, states and the Federal government started regulating food and liquor, food poisoning was common and frequently deadly.
So, when a bar owner applies for a liquor license, he agrees to follow certain rules. A bar isn't a private place like your living room. For example, as a private homeowner, you have every right to bar people based on race, gender etc. from your home. A bar owner does not have this power.
To call a bar a purely private place isn't accurate.
All restaurants that cook food will have "toxins" in the air. You are comparing an extremely small amount of air toxins with that of food contamination. This is specious.
To demonstrate, please answer this question: would you, if given a choice, "roll the dice" and eat a dinner at a restaurant with smokers in it, or "play it safe" and eat at a smoke-free restaurant with rat turds in the salad, and other assorted food poisoning? Which is the greater health threat? By how much?
Those of us who don't smoke and insist that we don't want to breathe other people's toxic waste aren't giving up anything. And smokers have given up their own liberty by getting addicted to something that will likely kill them.
When you go to a restaurant, you expect clean food. No one but a right wing fascist expects to go to a pub where no one is smoking.
You're not misled about the nature of a pub, you're just obstinately trying to impose you will on others. Just stay home instead.
They're businesses open to the public, so they have to follow certain rules, such as fire codes, hygiene, anti-discrimination, that a purely private place, such as your living room, does not.
I don't need to choose between greater and lesser health hazards. I can vote to regulate both smokeand rat turds in restaurants.
You don't have to set a foot out of your own home Professor. You don't have to go to an establishment that allows smoking. You don't have to do anything. I do have a right not to communicate any longer with a nitwit pantywaste who can't make decisions for himself, and needs a nanny-state government to outlaw lawful actions by a private property owner, because the Professor doesn't know how to choose where to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment provided by choice by a private property owner, NOT by the government. You're pathetic.
FMCDH
I can understand and appreciate the use of sophistry in a debate, but if you seriously believe some of the tripe you're posting, may I suggest you call a therapist?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.