Freep This Poll - Smoking Ban Goes Into Effect Today

WFTV Orlando ^ | UPDATED: 6:37 a.m. EDT July 1, 2003 | www.wftv.com

[Tank-FL]

ORLANDO, Fla. -- No longer will smoking be allowed in Florida restaurants. Today, the new state law goes into effect banning smoking at restaurants and indoor work places.

Restaurants in Central Florida have been warning customers of the new law by placing stickers notifying them that, after Monday, they will no longer be able to light it up inside. Gov. Bush signed the new legislation that voters approved last November

[maryz]

It's an absolute mess - and I understand it is even worse in NYC.

Surely you're mistaken -- I've seen no such reports in the major media < /sarcasm >.

[Gabz]

These laws have no other means of enforcement except by the public, hence the public becomes a defacto employee of the state to effect the enforcement of the ban. Unpaid employee, I might add.

As I said, I understand your original point and I agree with it, but in this particular type of situation I disagree.

By stating it is up to the public to do the enforcement (by turning in the establishments) the state is saying it cannot enforce the law. If it can't enforce a law, why is the law on the books to begin with?

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

So, you're saying you'd break the law if you didn't agree with it? Isn't that the biggest complaint on FR about the anarchists and environmentalist terrorists?

[Freebird Forever]

So, you're saying you'd break the law if you didn't agree with it? Isn't that the biggest complaint on FR about the anarchists and environmentalist terrorists?

Good point.

[HarryDunne]

As I said, I understand your original point and I agree with it, but in this particular type of situation I disagree.

Again, will you only uphold/support/enforce laws you happen to agree with?

[HarryDunne]

So, you're saying you'd break the law if you didn't agree with it? Isn't that the biggest complaint on FR about the anarchists and environmentalist terrorists? This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[Lexington Green]

I love the smell of tobacco in the morning. It smells like... FREEDOM.

[Gabz]

You are missing my point altogether.

My problem is with the enactment of laws that the state admits, prior to the enactment, it can not enforce and the public is required to do it.

Let me try a different way using the example of a bar I am familiar with that has been cited for violating the smoking ban in Delaware, the enforcement of which is public complaint driven as is the Florida ban.

The owner opposed the ban from the begininng, but when it went into effect the owner abided by it and enforces it, and does a very good job. supposedly some jerk, instead of going outside to have a cigarette, went to the men's room instead.

Neither the owner nor the bartender were in the men's room and did not see it - supposedly someone else entered the men's room and called the health department, instead of saying something to the bartender. The owner of the establishment was cited for a violation and fined. He appealed, but lost the appeal.

The owner was unable to face his accuser because the complaint was made anonymously, and thus was unable to defend himself. Where is the proof that the owner violated the smoking ban?

My problem with this type of enforcement is that, as someone else said, disgruntled employees or customers (think about someone getting cut off or barred from an establishment) can cost a business lots of money.

I am not advocating anarchy, but I do have a problem with enforcement of a law based upon anonymous omplaints.

[Gabz]

And it is totally the opposite of what I am talking about.

I am not saying I am going to break any law - I just have no intentions of doing the government's job for it.

If the government can not enforce a law - it shouldn't enact it to begin with.

I realize no one can be everywhere at the same time and the public is needed to inform government of violations of laws - but when the government abdicates all responsibilty of enforcement to begin with - why should the public cooperate?

[Mears]

That is one scary story. What the heck is this country turning into? An anonymous complaint is a valid complaint?

It was an anonymous complaint that caused the police officer in Fall River,Mass to lose his job. He smoked off duty at a private party, and because of some dumb law in the town,he can't smoke off duty.

It's perfectly acceptable to get drunk off duty though,just come to work sober,but God forbid a cigarette would be smoked.

Didn't the Nazis have people spy on eachother?

[AZ GRAMMY]

it should be up to the restaurants/loung/bar owner to set the standards, if he /she wanrnts it non smoking so be it. it is not up to the state to mandate how he runs his business
az

[exile]

It's nice to know, that in a country where savages are flying planes into buildings, that we will be safe from the dangers of second hand smoke.

[HarryDunne]

Care to comment on the topic at hand, please?

[Conspiracy Guy]

I thought it was rough over here, looks like the same old tired non-argument. "Smokers are evil, businessmen have no property rights, I don't smoke so you can't smoke either", pile of spew bile we get everytime. They miss the point. The state says we aren't going enforce the law but we'll fine the businessman if a violation is reported by any clown who rats him out. Is that how we enforce other laws. Only in what used to be America! Let's leave this silly thread and go somewhere else Gabz, I'll hold the door.

[HarryDunne]

why should the public cooperate?

Again, because it is a law, period. If we don't like the laws, we must pressure our lawmakers to change them.

[Publius6961]

Like the Florida Ban, the enforcement of the Delaware ban is driven by customer complaints.

I kind of like this.
Let me see if I have this right.

If a weenie boy shows up and calls the cops, can a half dozen people call the cops with his name and car license plate so they can pull him over and cite him for "smoking"?
Will a "nicotine" test be required?

With pay phone in bars I see endless possibilities.
He he he.

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

First, if the government were truly abdicating all enforcement, you would be required under the law to arrest the owner of the establishment. But they aren't asking that.

If you saw a person dressed in black throwing a stone into a Starbucks window, would you be taking over the government's job by sending the police after him or her? If you didn't, you are allowing the crime of vandalism to occur. By allowing the crime to occur, you are advocating the disobedience of the law.

Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode about this?

[Democratic_Machiavelli]

I see your point here. What a mess. Did the owner have signs informing patrons that they would be kicked out of his establishment if they lit up? Or was it something that was just understood?

[honeygrl]

"voted "No". i want a taste of that sweet sweet civil disobediance. "

I voted no too. Just like I would call the cops if someone roll-stopped at a stop sign when there was no traffic, and I wouldn't call the cops over any other law where no one is hurting anyone else. I have yet to see a legitimate study showing that SHS kills or harms anyone.

[honeygrl]

smoking is not a violent crime. SHS isn't going to kill anyone.