Florida: Complaints over restaurants not complying with smoking ban

First Coast News ^

[SheLion]

DUVAL COUNTY, FL -- Florida's smoking ban was officially put into place on July 1st but not everyone is abiding. The state has had close to 800 complaints on restaurants that are not complying with the rules.

In Duval County, there have been 19 complaints with the majority coming from customers of RP McMurphy's located in Jacksonville Beach. The restaurant has received a warning and has 30 days to comply.

[Shryke]

My argument is that he has the at least the SAME rights as every other worker. Your argument is that he has less rights than every other worker soley because of his chosen work.

And the rights of the business-owner? I have a suspicion you value those less than the employees. Interesting contradiction, if true.

[VRWC_minion]

No one wants to deny nonsmokers the CHOICE of WHAT to be or WHERE to work but you and your kind, minnie.

Either the rights of the employer or the rights of the employee are affected. There is no nuetral side.

[metesky]

It means Miss Manners wears dresses and so do you.

[Madame Dufarge]

it trivializes the word, and leads people to not take you seriously.

The people whose opinions I value and agree with understand my use of the word and take it seriously.

I don't care what the others think.

They'll never be my allies.

[Shryke]

WElcome to the political free market.

Welcome to socialism.

[VRWC_minion]

I propose that a majority of us on this thread vote to take your house from you.

If the state decides things by majority rule the it may take the house. According to the constitution you must be compensated for this. These restaurant owners had there property taken and they should be compensated.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Then how do you plan on talking to them and swaying them over to your viewpoint? Righteous anger and mutual backpatting are OK for about 23 seconds, but isn't the goal to get people to legislate your way, as opposed to griping, moaning and feighning disenfranchisement?

[Madame Dufarge]

One of these principles is, that every State possesses exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over persons and property within its territory.

So in your opinion, closer-to-home tyranny is acceptable?

[Graybeard58]

"It means Miss Manners wears dresses and so do you"

...Thanks for that clarification, it tells me all I need to know.

[VRWC_minion]

you know that is how you were writing to them. Do you deny it?

Yes. I deny it. At the time I wrote it I thought about it and decided that for the most part I'm writing to a smoking population so regardless of whether this poster smokes my response is directed to the majority population on this thread.

[Mears]

And good afternoon to you too,metesky!

[CSM]

"Either the rights of the employer or the rights of the employee are affected. There is no nuetral side."

You are completely insane. The employer makes an investment and offers to pay an individual a specified value in exchange for a service. The employee choses to either accept that offer or to decline that offer. See it can work without infringing on either parties rights.

Oh, I forgot, you don't think a waitperson is smart enough to decline the offer. We need to legislate protection for them because they aren't bright enough to make choices.

[Ben Bolt]

I dont smoke statist and your #339 is another beauty also .

[VRWC_minion]

You are the one that made the statement about the founding fathers

The founding fathers wrote the state constitutions and established the methods by which property would be held by individudals. This court merey ruled on that structure. I directed you to the courts in 1877 that give reference to their rulings on precedents to establish for you the origin of their rulings.

If the founding fathers had created a constitution that didn't confer soveriegnty status over the individual state, i think that fact would be pretty obvious to us by now.

[CSM]

"The founding fathers wrote the state constitutions and established the methods by which property would be held by individudals."

I don't think this is possible. Most states were established long after the honorable founding fathers were extinct.

[Madame Dufarge]

Excellent straw man argument. Care gto go back on topic ?

Please point out the straw man characteristics.

[VRWC_minion]

I would not try to enact legislation to change that

He has a constitutional right to be reimbursed. A right that smokers here just really can't care to give a crap about. Its shocking to me to see such one-sided view point about which rights you want to enforce. Those that exist in fact you choose to ignore and those that exist in fantasy you choose to want to impose. The only common denominator is selfishness (surprise, surprise) ones in fact do nothing for being able to smoke and the ones in fantasy do.

[VRWC_minion]

This country was built on rebellion to a tyrannical dictator who excessively taxed a product without getting representation of those being taxed.

That was the bumper sticker reason. In reality, the states here had created a state that was soverign over its lands it didn't want to cede its power over to England and its King. These same states then endeavored to cut off relations with the King and used incidents like that to force a show down.

These states maintained there sovereignty over their territory, formed the federal gov't and 200+ years later ruled that smoking should be banned within their territory.

[VRWC_minion]

And the rights of the business-owner? I have a suspicion you value those less than the employees. Interesting contradiction, if true.

No, the business owner should be compensated for his loss. Therefore, we maintain the rights of the employee with the rights of the employer to enjoy his property fully. If the cost to society is too large to remiburse them accordingly then the bans should be reversed.

[CSM]

"He has a constitutional right to be reimbursed. A right that smokers here just really can't care to give a crap about."

I have yet to see any of the pro property rights advocates on this thread say any such thing. I certainly support the business owner being justly compensated for this seizure of his property. The problem is that according to most eminent domain situations this is not a full compensation so his ability to recover any compensation is greatly hindered.

It would have been easier to allow them to run their businesses as they were and let them cater to their customers.

BTW, the junk science does not define "public good" that is required under the eminent domain statutes. If it does, then we better be prepared for any restriction a powerful lobby group decides would be good for the public!