Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion
The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"
Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".
In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.
I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, guess what? We were wrong.
There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.
They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.
They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.
To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:
"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".
Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.
You simply wouldn't go. Get it?
I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.
It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.
Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/
Good heavens, do you ever fly off on tangents. I went to Catholic school. What on earth are you raving about? You must need another smoke...
-ccm
Cool! :-)
My husband is always talking about how great it would be to live in San Diego. If it wasn't for all the liberals it would be great, as it really is a beautiful state.
I was born and raised in California and it used to be a wonderful place to live. Not any more, alas.
I thought someone did this. Did it get outlawed too?
In addition to your other obvious handicaps, you apparently have a problem with reading comprehension.
Why would any sane person think we need to accommodate such weak-willed crybaby smoke junkies, indeed?
We?
Do you own a restaurant or bar? The discussion is about private property rights. Do try to keep up, dear.
I realize that I probably won't be able to change the way ccmay or the other anti-smokers think about this issue. That isn't my primary concern.
I want to make sure that any other Freepers or lurkers reading this thread don't fall for the anti-smoking arguments. And, hopefully, I'll get some readers to think about the bigger issues behind this one controversy. Things like democracy, individual rights, property rights, and the nature of a free market system.
You act like we all live in a bubble and ccmay is the only person that's ever lost a loved one to disease. I'm almost sixty and I can assure you that I've lost family and friends to almost anything you can name, but it never turned me into the hateful, fearful little b!tch you are.
ccmaynot
Why, how imperial of you to so declare.
I'm patient, it will happen.
And I can only imagine the way the reporters would taunt them.
In your frightened little world, this would probably be enough for you to fold; but reporters don't run my life.
"Disgusting" is your bigoted opinion of 25% of your fellow citizens. How many of your relatives smoke? Do they know you think they're disgusting? Or do you keep it from them?
"Unsafe" is a legitimate ground, if you can prove it. You want to say that your exposure to my smoke is dangerous for your health? Post your evidence, not your vile, twisted rants.
You rightly say that pissing in the pool and serving bad food are public health issues. Where's your evidence that second hand smoke is dangerous? Post your evidence!
What if a medical expert determined that exposure to your bigotry is dangerous to my mental health and signs started popping up saying, "No ccmay's Allowed."? What if they did it to your favorite food? To your favorite perfume? To your shampoo? Your guns? Your car?
You're extremism shows you to be a ranter, not a thinker. A fascist, not a republican. If, as you say, you've been a conservative since the 1970's, maybe you should go and read some of the history of the USA and the principles of republicanism, rather than spouting your vitriolic diatribes at us.
Then you might discover that the founding fathers were....drumroll....tobacco farmers!!!
Did you know that Hitler managed to "statistically prove" that Jews carried diseases and epidemics into the German population? Did you know that the extermination of millions of people was based primarily on "public health" arguments?
Don't get me wrong. While I find your attitude repugnant, disgusting, anti-American and bigoted, I'll fight for your right to express it anywhere you like. But, try to enforce your foul views against me and I'll fight you!
And you don't have to put up with us, I am sure there are plenty of threads you can frequent, or have you worn out your welcome everywhere.
The economics only works when there is a region wide ban so that the owner doesn't need to compete with smoking restaurants.
Of course, the truth is not everyone will benefit from this law. In some establishments, smokers may make up a considerable portion of the customers. A smoking ban will weaken or eliminate these establishments.
Not if there is an accross the board ban.
The major chains are using the power of government to eliminate competition. Do you not think that is wrong, and against the free-market system our country is supposed to have?
I never like it when the larger players run rough shod over the smaller players but that is how our system works. They larger more successful restuarants may be able to excersize more clout than a small restauraunt but the bottom line is that even the small guy is going to have better profits when there is an effective regional ban. So, its not likely that the owner, who is in business to make money, is going to be upset when the larger players get a rule set whereby the industry as a whole makes more money. That is pure common cents.
I believe that free traders may or may not also be conservatives. I personally have no problem when business wants to compete in the political market place to forward their issues and concerns. I may not like it when the win but I believe they have the same right to push their agenda as do the smokers.
Unfortunately for the smokers they have the deck stacked against them. The combined forces of economics, "smoking nazi's", and the current culture that rails against smokers puts them at a sever disadvantage in the political market. Prior to the restaurant associations taking a stand on smoking the smokers at least had a fighting chance but know that the trend is for support on smoking bans from restaurants then the battle is lost. The smokers will never gain ground on this issue once the economics is against them.
You just admitted that it takes the force of government for the 'no smoking' crowd to compete with the 'smoking allowed' crowd.
If they can't compete without government interference, is that a free market economy?
Once you lost the objection of the restaurant associations in NY it became an economics movement. The private associations members are in business to make a profit and the association is in business to help them make as large a profit as they can.
For the associations, made of of the restaurant members to back a smoking ban means the profits for the restaurants are higher with a ban. This makes sensse because I can see that both the cost of staffing two sections of seating, better table turnovers, reduced equipment and supplies costs as well as lower cleaning costs all lead to more profits. The only rub is lost customers which is alleviated by a region wide ban.
Once the economics works against you your screwed. The folks you mentioned may have been the catalyst but once they got the associations to follow suit the battle is over. Its only a matter of time now.
Freedom has been outlawed.
Yes, if this were a democracy and I had no constitutional right.
They were found to be unconstitional. Please explain where the right to smoke is in the constitution. Is it right after the right to privacy ?
Source unknown. (by me)
We don't have a free market economy. We have one where both the free market and the political market fight and find compromise on issues in the laws.
For example, my profession is based on the political. I am a CPA and CPA's came about because their was a need the market didn't serve. Good financial information needed to be available for investors and lenders. The market failed to provide this on their won so laws were passed to create the auditors and audits. Recently the structure that was established long ago is not working and it appears the political will use more of its power to control audits and auditors.
So, our system is not a pure economy system or a pure political drive system. Its a combination and the ideas and issues need to be won in both markets. Unfortunaltely for smokers they may have had a fighting chance in the economic market but after the associations bailed they have no hope. They lost both fronts.
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.