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

To: thefactor
tell me how this restricts property rights. i’m just asking.

Sure.

Generally speaking, a property owner has the right to possess, use, and control his own property as he sees fit. This includes deciding who he wishes to allow on his property, what activities he does on his property, and the kind of environment he maintains on his property. Any law that restricts the range of choices of the property owner in how he uses his property would be a restriction of his property rights.

Obviously, property rights can not be unlimited. There are certain instances where a restriction in property rights may be called for. However, any restrictions should have significant justification and should extend only as far as is necessary to achieve the legitimate end. Well, at least that's how conservatives think.

So prohibiting a business owner from allowing smoking on his property would be a restriction of his property rights. So far I've never heard anyone give an adequate justification for the kind of broad smoking bans that have been popping up across the nation.

Now that I have answered your question, would you mind sharing your own position concerning smoking bans on private property? (IOW, would you vote for or against a ban in your community?)

179 posted on 02/11/2008 6:01:26 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]


To: timm22
see post #176.

i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. it's a business. and an extremely regulated business at that.

bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve.

do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? or not being able to serve after 2am or 4am depending on the state? how about bars being unable to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated? all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.

smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.

i would abstain from a vote on a ban personally. i have smoked in my life. in bars and outside of bars. i have seen how miserable smokers are because of it and i have seen how happy non-smokers are because of it.

i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.

186 posted on 02/11/2008 6:14:11 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

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