Posted on 06/19/2002 7:11:34 AM PDT by SheLion
There is a hellofadifference between the Fire Marshall setting an absolute limit on the number of patrons allowed in a building and a legislative body passing blanket no-smoking rules. Likewise, there is a hellofadifference between the bar owner refusing to serve a drunk another drink and a legislative body passing blanket no-smoking rules.
What is reasonable is owner-option: If the owner of a business decides that his patrons may smoke, then those who don't smoke or are offended by smokers have the option to not patronize the business.
It is that simple.
In respect of the difficulty you wife encountered in a restaurant with smoke, remember, you both voluntarily went in there knowing that smoking was allowed. You could have gone to another restaurant, where smoking was not allowed BY THE OWNERS!
If we continue to allow government to dictate behavior to us, we are doomed. The Nazification of America continues, and I am astonished that you would argue in favor of it!
Actually, I no longer wish to discuss this issue with you.
It is apparent that you have abandoned your Conservative and/or Libertarian principles in this case and are advocating government control of personal habits and private businesses (Nazification of America).
You are not going to change your mind and I am not going to change mine, so let us agree to disagree and stop right here.
Not a chance. I USE YOUR OWN WORDS. You spoke them not me. I can't distort them when I post them exactly as you said them. Here they are again from POST 68;
Plus my posistion is that the towns do have the right to ban smoking but they have an obligation to compensate the existing restaurant for the decrease in market value of the restaurant because its no different that taking their property.
Your position is the above, despite your obfuscation.
The fact that a town has the right to do something isn't the same as saying I believe they should. You consistently read what I don't write.
Towns don't have rights, they have powers. People have rights. You say they have the legitimate power to do it in a private establishment, a resturant. YOU name it in your post.
I am certain Joe would remember that I have never advocated private bans.
Joe will remember now what you said, in post #68. It's like saying the that you think the government has the legitimate power to shoot citizens in the street but that you don't advocate it. LOL. Absurd.
Still waiting for the source of your "right" to tell me how to run my own business so it operates as you wish. Shall I hold my breath?
Likewise, there is a hellofadifference between the bar owner refusing to serve a drunk another drink and a legislative body passing blanket no-smoking rules.
That is quite right.
When a person is told that, because of laws on intoxication, he cannot have a drink in a restaurant or bar and he still wants to drink, his only legal alternative is to go home or to a friend's home and drink. In every city and state, drinking out in the open is a violation of at least one or more laws, meant to prevent public intoxication.
On the other hand, when a restaurant or bar patron is told that, because of public health laws, he cannot smoke inside, all that the smoker has to do is walk about 20 or so feet (in most cases) and he is free to light up in the parking lot and smoke as much as he likes. Problem solved. There is no law, nor is there justification for such law to prevent people from smoking in an open outdoor area.
So, as you point out, there is a "hellofadifference" between the drinker's options and the smoker's options. There is another difference between the drinkers and smokers who are told that they can't partake of their vice in an establishment. A drunk will generally mutter a few nasty comments about the parentage of the lawmakers that passed that law and then leave quietly. Most smokers, on the other hand, will become very loud and obnoxious. In fact, I have seen that reaction numerous times when a smoker chose to light up in the non-smoking section and was reminded that he or she was in the nonsmoking section. In one case, an off-duty deputy had to threaten to arrest the smoker for disorderly conduct, before he quieted down and left. Yes, there certainly is a "hellofadifference" between the drinkers and smokers.
Furthermore, I never suggested "blanket no-smoking bans". All that I suggest is that one or more governmental bodies should ban smoking only in enclosed public places and at large outdoor public gatherings (concerts, parades, etc.).
If you want to kill yourself, that should be your right. But, you have no right to risk the lives of others in the process. Smoke at home. Smoke in your car. Smoke at the park. Smoke in the parking lot. I will stand up for your right to do that. But, when your smoking endangers the life of even one other person, you have stepped over the line and if you and others are too selfish to realize that, then the government does indeed have very good cause to step in and enact a ban on smoking in enclosed public places, to protect the people that those smokers thoughtlessly put at risk.
In respect of the difficulty you wife encountered in a restaurant with smoke, remember, you both voluntarily went in there knowing that smoking was allowed. You could have gone to another restaurant, where smoking was not allowed BY THE OWNERS!
You conveniently forget that we went there that night, believing that the worst that would happen would be a little nausea that we could deal with. We had no idea that the second-hand smoke at the restaurant would almost kill my wife that night. Had we known that she had developed asthma, we would not have gone or she would have taken an inhaler before leaving the house. In fact, we do most often avoid restaurants that allow smoking. But, the point that I was making is that there are many unexpected adverse reactions to second-hand cigarette smoke and some of those are deadly. That is why smoking in an enclosed public place should be banned.
It is apparent that you have abandoned your Conservative and/or Libertarian principles in this case and are advocating government control of personal habits and private businesses (Nazification of America).
I resent most vehemently, your suggestion that I have abandoned my Conservative/Libertarian Principles. If either of us has abandoned their Conservative principles or any other principles, for that matter, it is you. What you advocate is Anarchy! But worse yet, you do so for no better reason than that you selfishly don't want to be "INCONVENIENCED" by having to walk 20 or so feet to the door, to light up. I honestly thought that you respected the rights and well-being of others. I'm normally a much better judge of character. Boy, was I wrong about you!
Let the owner do whatever he wants, regardless of how it affects anyone else. Let people do whatever they want, regardless of how it affects anyone else. All government is bad, especially if it prevents you from doing something that you want to do, even if what you want to do endangers others. After all, you are the only person who is really important. That's ANARCHY!
Neither Conservatism nor Libertarianism advocates that the government stay out of all business and allow the owners to run their business in such a manner as to jeopardize the public, as you suggest. Even the most rabid Libertarian wants and even demands some government. As a Conservative, I stand for very limited government, but government, nonetheless. Laws controlling business should be limited to only those that pertain to such factors as fraud, safety and public health. But, where those laws are called for, I stand solidly behind them, even if a few of those laws should happen to INCONVENIENCE me. That's Conservatism!
I never have advocated and never will advocate Anarchy. Our Constitution wasn't meant just for you. It applies to other people too. You don't get to trample other people's rights just because you find them "INCONVENIENT".
You can have your Anarchy. I'll stick with Conservatism. Actually, it is said that the difference between an Anarchist and a Conservative is that a Conservative is an Anarchist who cares about other people, as much as for himself.
Just returned from vacation.
As you stated the town has powers granted it by the state who in turn are granted their ultimately power by the people of the state.
If a state gives the town the power to regulate then it has the right to regulate.
That said, even though I disagree that any government should be allowed to set smoking policy for a private business, I believe that if they do the town should reimburse the owner for all of his future lost profits. You and other smokers apparently don't give a fig about the private business owner.
For twisting my words to fit his perverted sense of understanding what I write ?
Not a chance. Why would I reward such behavior ?
I've got to admit, VRWC, you've got stick-to-it-iveness.
Who could possibly twist your words in a more pretzel-like manner than you yourself do already?
You must be exhausted.
I don't smoke. I do own a business. I care about rights. People have rights. Property rights are among them. Governments don't have rights. Governments have powers. No government has the LEGITIMATE power to usurp the property rights of businesses by saying who can or cannot smoke on the private property.
I don't give a fig about you if you think that governments have the legitimate power to usurp rights as long as they steal money from other citizens to give to the people who's rights they have usurped. I know you do not have the capacity to understand this because of your past posts on the issue of property rights.
The issue isn't about smoking. And it certainly isn't about you being a more caring person than me or others who don't agree with your warped sense of rights. Only liberals go around accusing people of being less caring than them.
So I will educate you liberals one more time;
You think it's OK to usurp property rights as long as the person who's rights are being violated is compensated. YOU ARE INCORRECT.
Exactly. Patrons who enter a smoke-filled bar are, by their actions, consenting to accept any health risks posed by doing so. Any would-be patron who does not wish to accept such risks is perfectly free to stay away from the bar and go somewhere else.
One of the founding principles of this country is freedom of association. Nobody has any inherent right to be served by any business except under such conditions as the business owner sees fit. A patron has no more right to walk into a bar and demand that it forbid smoking than he would have to walk in and demand that it remove all rap songs from its juke box, serve Zima at $0.25/bottle, or provide free pretzels. Rather, a patron who doesn't like a bar's smoke, music selection, beverage selection or prices, or complimentary food (or lack thereof) has the right to take his business elsewhere.
What perhaps galls me most about the smoking nazis is that not only do they insist that people not smoke at places they frequent, but they even insist that people not smoke at places they wouldn't go anyway or else try to cripple places that allow smoking to prevent them from competing with those that forbid it [e.g. by restricting smoking bars' ability to serve food]. These people refuse to listen to what the markets are clearly saying (i.e. that a significant number of people want to eat in restaurants that allow smoking), and instead want to stamp out the markets.
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.