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.

[VRWC_minion]

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

I'm open to hear another solution to government. So far, the states that were created in the country seem to be a pretty good compromise.

[Madame Dufarge]

These restaurant owners had there property taken and they should be compensated.

At an arbitray price set by them, under a circumstance where this should have never been an issue.

[VRWC_minion]

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.

Except that every other employee in the state isn't required to make such a choice and every other businsess is required to ban smoking.

[Shryke]

He has a constitutional right to be reimbursed. A right that smokers here just really can't care to give a crap about.I ts shocking to me to see such one-sided view point about which rights you want to enforce.

His right to reimbursal is NOT BEING INFRINGED ON! He must simply pursue his legal recourse. Good! His right to choose as he wants with his property IS! Bad! How is this not clear!?!?

Those that exist in fact you choose to ignore and those that exist in fantasy you choose to want to impose.

Again, I'm baffled. What exactly, do I wish to impose on anyone?

The only common denominator is selfishness...

I posit that you are selfish for bringing your annoyance into someone else's business.

The fact of the matter is this: were a tobacco company to produce a completely non-carcinogenic cigarette, you would still vote to forbid it's use in restaurants - simply becuase it annoys you.

[VRWC_minion]

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

Its not what happened. Unlike Iraq, we had in place a governing mechanism that was working just fine without the King. These same people that were governing before the declaration continued to lead after.

[CSM]

"Except that every other employee in the state isn't required to make such a choice and every other businsess is required to ban smoking."

Once again, the "we already stole some property for the benefit of public health, so it is ok here" argument.

[Shryke]

The only common denominator is selfishness

Absolutely true, and a flawless example of snowball socialism.

[Just another Joe]

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.

What reality do you live in? I want to make sure that I never enter that reality.

1) It didn't make any sense.

2) Do you really think that all it was was a power grab?
If so I can see where you get your thoughts.

This is what your thinking leads to.
"Everything in the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state."
"After a few years of comparative non-intervention, and some liberalization, the government moves towards a highly interventionist policy, and statist pronouncements increasingly harping on the "corporate state." All traces of conservatism are lost, save only for the insistence that actual ownership of businesses by the state be avoided."

[VRWC_minion]

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

I understand that but its one that could be pressed more successfully than the smoker arguments. The restaurant did have a business to cater to smokers and that business no longer exists. It is the total taking of a component of ones business.

[CSM]

"These same people that were governing before the declaration continued to lead after."

So, which founding father wrote the constitution of the State of Michigan? How about keeping it relevant to the thread and giving me the name of the founding father that wrote the constitution for the State of Ohio.

[Shryke]

Whoops! Mis-pasted. Mind deleting above post by me admin? here's the correct one:

Once again, the "we already stole some property for the benefit of public health, so it is ok here" argument.

Absolutely true and a perfect example of snowball socialism.

[VRWC_minion]

At an arbitray price set by them, under a circumstance where this should have never been an issue.

You see, when it comes down to it you smokers really can give two craps about the owner.

[CSM]

Regardless of what an anti might think, I was able to figure out your reference.

[Just another Joe]

You see, when it comes down to it you smokers really can give two craps about the owner.

Unless we know the owner personally, why should we patronize a business that doesn't cater to our wants?

[VRWC_minion]

His right to reimbursal is NOT BEING INFRINGED ON! He must simply pursue his legal recourse. Good! His right to choose as he wants with his property IS! Bad! How is this not clear!?!?

Then help him by starting a legal fund after a smoking ban goes into effect. I know you won't.

VRWC: Those that exist in fact you choose to ignore and those that exist in fantasy you choose to want to impose. You:Again, I'm baffled. What exactly, do I wish to impose on anyone?

You want to require that an employee have to work in an evironment that is filled with smoke, while her counterpart in other businesses isn;t required to do the same.

VRWC:The only common denominator is selfishness... YOU:I posit that you are selfish for bringing your annoyance into someone else's business. The fact of the matter is this: were a tobacco company to produce a completely non-carcinogenic cigarette, you would still vote to forbid it's use in restaurants - simply becuase it annoys you

I told you, I would not vote for these bans even though I'm gratefull they are taking place.

[Madame Dufarge]

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.

I actually think you're insane.

The dominant theme in each and every one of your posts is "states" and your beloved "sovereignty."

Unelected Boards of Health and the continuous indoctrination of the population via the Public Educrats and the inevitable dumbing down of voters are conveniently ignored in your world view.

Just as long as the government is there to nestle you in its bosom, you're happy as a clam.

[VRWC_minion]

Once again, the "we already stole some property for the benefit of public health, so it is ok here" argument.

I agree. The only consistant argument is to either lift all bans or impose all bans. A middle ground just allow smokers to smoke is, simply selfish. But why am I not surprised that the smokers posistion is purely selfish ?

[VRWC_minion]

Do you really think that all it was was a power grab?

Of course it was. All wars are.

"Everything in the state, nothing against the state, nothing outside the state."

Which is balanced by elections and divisions of power.

[Shryke]

Then help him by starting a legal fund after a smoking ban goes into effect. I know you won't.

The ban is in effect. I am not a business owner affected by it, therefore I have no case. However, should a grass-roots case appear, I will help it - one way or another. Have no doubt.

You want to require that an employee have to work in an evironment that is filled with smoke, while her counterpart in other businesses isn;t required to do the same.

Um. No. One. Is. Required. To. Work. Anywhere. Additionally, no one has the "right" to a job. How did you make this leap in logic?

I told you, I would not vote for these bans even though I'm gratefull they are taking place.

My apologies. I missed that post. Why would you not vote for it? The reimbursal issue?

[Just another Joe]

Of course it was. All wars are.

So there is no such thing as a just war fought for idealistic purposes?

You do realize that you just agreed with one of the main ideas behind facism?
Outed again.