IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

The Cigar Show ^ | 2 October 2002 | Chuck Cason

[Protagoras]

Having a smoking-allowed area in a restaurant is like having a p*ssing-allowed area in a swimming pool!

Don't swim in private pools if you don't want to taste the piss that is allowed there.

[Zon]

No confusion. Prove it to an impartial jury that you've been harmed by the person smoking a cigarette. The point being, you wouldn't be able to convince even half the jury that you'd been harmed.

This forum is used by some people (ccmay included) that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

[Protagoras]

The handwriting is on the wall but smokers are in denial. The restaurants as a whole represented by their associations have determined that its cost beneficial to have state wide smoking bans.

There have always been groups of people who have banded together to deny others of their rights. It matters not if they are doing for the same reasons as others.

Groups of resturant owners acting to squash competition by using government to deny rights are every bit as evil as those who would do it for other reasons.

[SheLion]

I would not want you near my kids.

Scary, isn't it........

[SheLion]

Fed up enough to do something about it? Like what?

Not so much about having RINOS in our party, but fed up about this smoking/property rights issue!

[Protagoras]

Not so much about having RINOS in our party, but fed up about this smoking/property rights issue!

Why isn't the Republican party out front and center doing their best to stop these proposals from becoming law?

Think about it.

[VRWC_minion]

Groups of resturant owners acting to squash competition by using government to deny rights are every bit as evil as those who would do it for other reasons.

Thats majority rule. Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it.

[freeeee]

The restaurants as a whole represented by their associations have determined that its cost beneficial to have state wide smoking bans.

Let's revise that for accuracy. Some restaurants want to go smoke free. But there's this pesky little problem - customers preferences and the presence of competitors that allow smoking. So banning smoking in their own restaurants just isn't good enough. Their competitors have the unfair advantage of catering to the wishes of the marketplace!

So, like all good little socialists, the no-smoking restaurants beg their masters to use their heavy hand "to level the playing field".

This is an economic movement

Yeah, it's an economic movement allright. It's an attack on free market capitalism by socialists.

[SheLion]

This forum is used by some people (ccmay included) that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

Have a problem with this? I have a BIG problem with this. We do NOT need Big Government as a NANNY protecting us "for our own good." Yes, I have a BIG problem with this!

[SheLion]

Why isn't the Republican party out front and center doing their best to stop these proposals from becoming law?

Easily swayed by special interest groups with BIG BUCKS.

[VRWC_minion]

So, like all good little socialists, the no-smoking restaurants beg their masters to use their heavy hand "to level the playing field".

It is the American way. Your in denail that this trend can be reversed. Its a done deal. The major chains want the laws changed and the end result will be increased profits for everyone in the business because maintaining the staffing and the equipemt for providing smoking and nonsmoking sections will be eliminated and with a state wide ban the income will remain the same.

Once the economics works against you your screwed.

[freeeee]

Thats majority rule.

It's Tyranny of the Majority, aka democracy. We're supposed to be a republic, remember?

Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it.

Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But hey, who said any of that matters anymore.

[Protagoras]

Thats majority rule.

Ah,,, ochlocracy, the last line of defense for those who disregard rights.

Unless smoking were specifically protected by the constitution like guns, the press, speech, religion etc then its perfectly alright for the majority to ban it.

That's a non starter for anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of where rights derive from. Please review the Declaration of Independance for an explanation even a child can understand.

BTW, in case you don't even get the fundamental issue, it's not smoking rights being addressed, it's property rights.

Damn it's pitiful what is dressing up as a conservative around here lately.

[freeeee]

It is the American way.

I agree it is. And because of that, our name is sullied and cheapened.

The major chains want the laws changed

Corporate oligarchy?

Once the economics works against you your screwed.

"...o'er the land of the fiscally prudent, and the home of the accountant."

[Protagoras]

Yep, and the desire to be all things to all people. And call it a big tent. (same circus, different clowns)

They sell out freedom and principles for power.

[SW6906]

This is one of my pet peaves - business owners being forced to make their businesses smoke free. My wife and I used to own a beauty shop. The state (WA) was considering banning all smoking in any business. We were looking at customers having to get up while having their hair done (some women's coloring and such can take hours), walk outside 50 ft from the building, stand in the rain while their hair is processing to have a cigarette. It would have made getting your hair done an ordeal rather than a pleasure. Our other option was to put in a separate hermetically sealed, outside vented room where smokers could go. That would have cost tens of thousands of dollars. Over 50% of our customers smoked, so we fought this hard and they relented.

If I want to have customers smoke, why can't I? If people don't like smoke, they can take their business elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand???

If this country is so free, why can't I start an all-smoking airline if I thought I could make money doing so?

Please add me to your puff list......

[Protagoras]

Yeah, it's an economic movement allright. It's an attack on free market capitalism by socialists.

There can be a good argument made that it is fascism.

[SW6906]

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a smoker, but I do enjoy a cigar maybe once a month or so.......

[freeeee]

There can be a good argument made that it is fascism.

I agree. I've found it difficult to distinguish the fine nuances between communism, socialism and fascism. Sound like a good idea for its own thread.

[FreeTally]

agree. I've found it difficult to distinguish the fine nuances between communism, socialism and fascism. Sound like a good idea for its own thread.

I just call it "Totalitarian Socialism". You have rulers at the top who are "above the law" and you have us commoners, pesants who are "allowed" certain things by our rulers who use socialistic measures to take whatever they want from us.