You have the constitution behind you right?
Right, but it's not required. Rights exist without the constitution.
So your copy of the Constitution guarantees you the right to smoke, but doesn't guarantee me the right to breath clean air. You must have the abridged edition.
So anotherwords I'm trapped in my home if I want to go out to a movie, a restaurant, a bar, dancing or any other public PRIVATE place you defend as
being able to do business with known carcinogenic substances infecting the patrons.
You keep making that assertion, no matter how many times it has been pointed out to you.
Either you don't have the tools to understand this, or you are simply choosing to act this stupid. I'll opt for the second out of courtesy.
No restaurant, bar, movie theater or other public venue is going to chop off 1/3rd of their potential clientele. Even though only about 30% of Americans smoke, business owners didn't want to send potentially 1/3 of their business down the street. The outcome was that there were no non-smoking places for non-smokers to go. Either the government would step in to end the presence of smoke in all establishments, or all establishments would allow smoking. This has been pointed out on this thread. You have chosen to overlook it.
That's an interesting concept.
Concepts seem hard to you. Private property is a concept lost on you.
Okay, then you obviously think restaurant health inspections are an invasion of an owner's rights. After all, this is private property and there is an implicit agreement between the owner and the patrons that anything goes. Like I said, row faster. You're falling behind.
Is it your premise that a business can poison the public in other ways too? I mean it's guaranteed by the Constitution isn't it? Come on hot shot, tell me
how any proprietor should be able to place a known poison filler in patron's food if that's what he wants to do.
That would be fraud. Also assault. Those things are violations of rights. They are not allowed for that reason. Get it? "Not so" hot shot.
Why would putting a mild poison in a person's soup be fraud? This isn't a misrepresentation. It's private property and the owner can do anything he likes. Well assault is a pretty though concept to enforce here. We've already agreed this is private property and the owner has the right to present an atmosphere containing materials known to cause health problems. How can you allow one poison then prosecute for another? This guy would be covered under the abridged US Constitution.
I'm waiting. Why don't you change your pseudonym to Barnie Jefferson?
You didn't have to wait long. I'll change my name to that when you change your name to Hitler.
When I've had this conversation with others, they've sooner or later gotten around to the insult of last resort. You know you've made a hot air arguement, so you call me Hitler because I think it's wrong to allow a carcinogenic substance in a public place for all to breathe. So bankrupt is your logic that you equate my desire for a clean air environment inside a public building, to a man who gassed millions of Jews and cause the deaths of some 20 million others.
You debate style is very impressive.
144 posted on 01/06/2003 9:36 AM PST by ThomasJefferson
We have the same one. What we don't both have is an understanding of the document and the concepts behind it. You seem ignorant of them.
Here's a refresher course of fundamentals for the hopelessly confused;
The constitution is a document that defines the limits of federal government. It enumerates the powers which the states cede to the federal government. It does not grant rights. People retain certain rights in all cases and in every location, violating the rights of others is not among them.
No right to smoke is necessary. No right to compel private property owners to provide smoke free air exists.
Either you don't have the tools to understand this, or you are simply choosing to act this stupid. I'll opt for the second out of courtesy.
I'm stupid because you don't know or refuse to acknowledge the difference between public and private property? I submit that you are the impaired one.
The outcome was that there were no non-smoking places for non-smokers to go.
Oh well. Start your own.
Either the government would step in to end the presence of smoke in all establishments, or all establishments would allow smoking.
Government "step in"? Is that a euphemism for facist activity?
This has been pointed out on this thread. You have chosen to overlook it.
I have overlooked nothing. Off topic nonsense is your purview, not mine. The topic is property rights and illegitimate forcible intervention to violate them.
Okay, then you obviously think restaurant health inspections are an invasion of an owner's rights.
True enough, but off topic and it's not likely that someone so wedded to the ideology of force could understand that other scenerios to solve the question exist.
After all, this is private property and there is an implicit agreement between the owner and the patrons that anything goes.
Moronic statement. And you made it , not me. (Strawman alert.) Contract law is not your strong suit either I see.
Like I said, row faster. You're falling behind.
Cute, but it doesn't help you from drowning in an ocean of ignorance.
Why would putting a mild poison in a person's soup be fraud? This isn't a misrepresentation. It's private property and the owner can do anything he likes.
Childish nonsense. Grow up.
We've already agreed this is private property and the owner has the right to present an atmosphere containing materials known to cause health problems. How can you allow one poison then prosecute for another?
We? You have a frog in your pocket?
When I've had this conversation with others, they've sooner or later gotten around to the insult of last resort. You know you've made a hot air arguement, so you call me Hitler
Your post; "I'm waiting. Why don't you change your pseudonym to Barnie Jefferson"?
My response;
"You didn't have to wait long. I'll change my name to that when you change your name to Hitler."
It seems you were the first name caller.
because I think it's wrong to allow a carcinogenic substance in a public place for all to breathe.
There ya go again, lying about private and public property.
to a man who gassed millions of Jews and cause the deaths of some 20 million others.
Fascism has been defined, Hilter was a fascist. If the shoe fits wear it. The murders come after the other rights have been ceded.
You debate style is very impressive.
Thank you. Yours is unfortunatley childish.
You've made this point at least twice now. If a business lost 30% of its smoking customers by switching to a smoking ban, wouldn't that mean that it would gain the non-smoking customers like you and philosfy? So, how could it go out of business? It would lose a small percentage in favor of a much larger percentage who prefer places with a smoking ban.
You absolutely refuse to look at the picture beyond your nose (what you find to be an offensive odor).
You claim that business won't go non-smoking and chance losing 30% of their business to an establishment that permits smoking. And this justifies the government forcing everyone to be non-smoking so that everyone loses that 30% of business?
You are just allowing me to go back to my analogy of the establishment that can't afford a particular band seeking to prohibit the establishment down the street from hiring that band.
In all seriousness, when was the last time you worked as a bar or waitstaff person in a bar/restaurant? I've been doing it on and off for the past 25 years. So I am not exactly talking about things of which I know nothing.
I guess that answers the question in a nutshell about whether he believes that the internal combustion engine should be banned as well. After all, we wouldn't want his family to smell of all those carcinogenic fumes and since they may be a health hazard and certainly an inconvenience to DO and his family, then the obvious solution is to outlaw them. After all, we don't have a right to inflict the results of our addiction to driving on anybody else.