Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NJ: Federal court should rescind smoking ban
United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 9, 2006

Posted on 03/11/2006 8:35:31 AM PST by SheLion

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-172 last
To: gondramB; stone fortress
It's just not that simple. Public accomodation places are supposed to be safe for the patron unless they get a waiver accepting the risk...and even then sometimes the right can't be given up.

You still can't grasp the concept of public and private, can you?

Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people. (Maintained by the state).

Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.  (Private business bought and maintained by the private business owner who will continue to pay taxes on his property.

161 posted on 03/15/2006 3:18:50 AM PST by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

"You still can't grasp the concept of public and private, can you?"

You incur extra responsibilities when you open your private property to the public.. And that's the way it is.


162 posted on 03/15/2006 8:22:37 AM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative
"So you're ok with government making the use of a legal product illegal??"

No

"You have not also answered the other part of my post. You say you're against the nanny state, but your posts indicate otherwise. Can you explain the contradiction?"

I believe you are defining "nanny state" incorrectly. Protecting the public from being harmed by other members of the public is one of the two key things government does.

Smokers wish to be able to freely harm others. The government is preventing that. That's not a nanny state any more than laws designed to stop one person from shoving another one.

The only reason this causes such an uproar is that almost all smokers are addicted and addicts tend to lose perspective when it comes to their addiction. I support their right to addicted but not to inflict it on others.
163 posted on 03/15/2006 8:31:07 AM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Yes...I do get it....Cannot get a WAIVER in NY State


164 posted on 03/15/2006 11:17:19 AM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: stone fortress
Yes...I do get it....Cannot get a WAIVER in NY State

Not YOU! That other guy.  I just added your name because he was addressing his statement to you.  So, in order for you to see what I wrote to him about it, I included your name also.  :)

165 posted on 03/15/2006 11:38:10 AM PST by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

Yes...I do get it....Cannot get a WAIVER in NY State

Not YOU! That other guy. I just added your name because he was addressing his statement to you. So, in order for you to see what I wrote to him about it, I included your name also. :)

I had to read it twice...then I understood that you did not mean me...Thank You! :)


166 posted on 03/15/2006 11:41:05 AM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

I am a Newbie! Ha Ha!


167 posted on 03/15/2006 11:43:04 AM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: stone fortress
I am a Newbie! Ha Ha!

I know. hehe!  Welcome to Free Republic!

168 posted on 03/15/2006 11:44:46 AM PST by SheLion (Trying to make a life in the BLUE state of Maine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: SheLion

THanks!!!!


169 posted on 03/15/2006 11:45:33 AM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Your answer does not go with your post. You're ok with making smoking illegal in places that you select. That is a nanny state.

"I believe you are defining "nanny state" incorrectly. Protecting the public from being harmed by other members of the public is one of the two key things government does."

Yes, in a way. Government, whether state or local or federal, is to protect the peaceful from the not so peaceful, the ones called criminals. But you, as a customer, are not forced to go to an establishment that allows smoking. Therefore, government does not need to protect you, you can do that yourself, but you are wanting government to save you from yourself. You want government to take your bias against smoking and make it law, that is the perfect definition of a nanny state. Don't like smoking, choose a restaurant or bar that does not allow it, but leave those who do their rights to allow it on their property. Why make business owners bend to your will? You're using government to enforce your beliefs.

"Smokers wish to be able to freely harm others. The government is preventing that."

Your line there is slightly wrong. It should read "smokers wish to be able to freely exercise their right to use a legal product. The government is preventing that." You make smokers sound like thugs on the street with guns who are out to get you. You need to take a serious look at your beliefs and come to grips with what you believe.....in government being a nanny that takes care of you and enforces your bias against others who may do some things that you don't like.

"The only reason this causes such an uproar is that almost all smokers are addicted and addicts tend to lose perspective when it comes to their addiction."

That is the first step the nanny state takes, demonize the criminals as mindless addicts that need to be saved. It's already happening outside of the tobacco issue. Now they are coming for your food, higher taxes on "low nutrition foods" and then the banning starts. What is after food? Perhaps it will be something you love, something you can't live without, but then when you begin to object, someone, somewhere, will remind you of your stance on smoking and inform you that you are getting what you asked for, a nanny state.


170 posted on 03/15/2006 12:19:38 PM PST by MissouriConservative (People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid - Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

I ppreciate your answer and I'll read over it more carefully, but one thing leaped out...

"Your line there is slightly wrong. It should read "smokers wish to be able to freely exercise their right to use a legal product. The government is preventing that.""

The product is legal. To use an extreme comparison, a axe handle is legal until you use it such a way that it hurts people.


171 posted on 03/15/2006 12:46:11 PM PST by gondramB (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

After this statement, I know that gondram does NOT get it.


172 posted on 03/16/2006 9:58:54 PM PST by stone fortress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-172 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson