Posted on 12/20/2002 10:10:51 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Excellent example, but one that, IMHO, detracts from your argument rather than supports it. First, there is clearly antecedent behavior. That is, people going to movies, etc. prior to cell phone use. In your example, it is the cell phone user who introduces their behavior into an established setting. And it is they who owe courtesy to others. Just as clearly, smokers in restaurants were the established order long before anti-smokers made an intrusion. If anything, anti-smokers owe smokers a courtesy.
Far more important than the issue of courtesy is that of rights. In this case, the rights of property and pursuit of happiness. In your example of cell phones in a theater, it is the owners property and prerogative to announce, "Ladies and gentlemen, we present, for your pleasure, Othello and an assortment of cellure telephone conversations." It is my prerogative to attend or not. Anything else destroys the rights of us all.
Smoke spreads throughout a confined space true enough. But you are not required to be in that confined space and unless and until you are, your rights are in no way being violated. Children are required by law to attend school. I would support public school buildings being smoke free. You are required by law to attend court when selected for jury duty or served with a subpoena. I support courts being smoke free. In fact, I believe government has the power to ban smoking in all public places, including parks, streets, etc. After all, smokers don't own those places. There are many forms of behavior that we have no right to perform in public but may in private. In short, choosing to occupy a setting is tacit approval of the the setting.
Finally, anti-smokers owe all of us an apology for the absolutely deprived manner in which they have perverted justice for everyone with their false claims that second hand smoke is killing people. They have no proof, but that is immaterial. If they can sway opinion via ruse, they appear more than willing to do so. Shame on you all.
And what is the basis of those decisions? One utterly depraved side using lies about second hand smoke? You side with evil.
And will your gloating continue as restaurants become, by force of law, fat-free, meat-free, sodium free, cholesteral free? Will you gloat as our highways become SUV free? Single vehicle occupant free? As our schools become education free? Our lives become rights free? Where do you draw the line. You OK with banning everything you disapprove of? How you gonna stop it there?
Actually, the right to smoke in public is being pretty well maintained. It is in private that it is being attacked. The inability to determine the difference is yet another sign of a liberal
So you believe the purpose of the individual is to server society?
Thanks for the message, I don't think anyone here cares about your advice, so spare everyone now that you have given your great message.
That is not at all what you are doing. 1st, you are demanding, (at gunpoint if necessary) not asking. Always someone else's gun, btw.
2nd, you aren't talking about public places, you are talking about private property. I know you would like to obscure the two, but no thinking person falls for it.
I don't think you get it and you run to the "loss of rights" as a cover for your fear of not smoking for a short duration inside a restaurant. Do you fly commercially? Do you attend church? Do you spend any time at your children's school?
In all of these places, smoking is banned by the owner of the property. Not at gunpoint. It is the owner's right to set the terms of your presence on their property.
Should we allow smoking in these places?
We? You have a frog in your pocket? YOU have no say, it's not YOUR property or YOUR call. You can choose to not enter.
You have hit on the hidden truth behind the smoking bans. Although the restaurant business can be financially rewarding, it is a passion with successful operators. I was in the restaurant business for 25 years and based on my observations, liberal operators passions seemed to emphasize their idea of what you should be eating, and more to the point, how you should live. As a result of these, "liberal" passions the fare and motif of their restaurants were very disagreeable. Even the most radical smoke nazis find these restaurants repulsive and insulting.
Am I missing something here? No smoker I know wishes to be the cause of you or your child's demise. We would like to be able to dine in a restaurant that allows smoking. These restaurants should have very large, obvious signs warning you and yours about said policy. According to you and your ilk, 75% of Americans don't smoke. Simple math tells me 75% of the restaurants would ban smoking or face the consequences of the free market.
It's about time someone put an end to those filty polluters, but Hizzoner doesn't go far enough.
Making them huddle in groups outside is OK, but that only works when they're actually smoking. It'd be more effective to make them wear some sort of identification ALL the time, maybe a yellow hexagonal star thingy or something.
Everybody knows second-hand smoking is a hazard to society at large, and we've had enough - it's time to segregate this antisocial group from civilization completely. I'm thinking camps here, camps with barbed wire and machine-gun posts. I'll bet we could round up enough railway cars to make getting them there easier. Here they can work to give up their filthy addiction - work builds character, dontcha know...
(Well, it sounded better in German, but you get my drift.)
" You could easily say when you're seated "Is there a non-smoking section?" And if no - just go elsewhere. But to ramrod your social preferences through the courts? That's just plain wrong. "
It has never occured to me to limit someone else's freedom because I don't like a smell. Actually, that sounds like something a 2 year old would do. Business owners respond to one thing, profit. If enough customers demand something, they will do it.
It's called a business plan.
And there's a huge difference between cash flow and profit.
Depreciation comes to mind, when there's an initial cost for capital expenditures; equipment, furniture, etc.
Ahhh, we have found the cusp of the Jihadis' fury.
Some resistors left.
How disconcerting this must be.
Good.
Please cite examples of this happening, with links (outside of San Francisco, of course.)
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.