Craig Mac
_____________________
My cigars don't stink any worse than the construction worker I sat next to the other day....
Do you have a right to eat at a restaurant?
My cigars don't stink any worse than the construction worker I sat next to the other day....
herr_ryan
New member
If I walk into a restaurant with no shoes on, there is no chance it will cause any of the other patrons to get cancer. But this brings us back to what I said above, can a restaurant owner say "No Mexicans"? Nope. Which is to say a private business owner with a business open to the public (just so I have all my bases covered) can make some choices and not others.
Blue Arc
3 Iron...and watch this
Everyone jumps up and down at first when these things are enacted but...later...it just wasn't that big of a deal. Cigarettes offer nothing to society. All the people who claim to enjoy them are just junked out on the drug in them. When I was young it was considered a threshold to crossing over to becoming a man and not being a kid. They were advertised in all forms of media. If you didn't have ashtrays in your house for your guest that smoked, even if you didn't smoke, it was considered inconsiderate. I smoke like a train and wish I had never started. Cigarettes offer nothing. They should stop making them. imo
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #29
Grogger, I thought my last statement about leaning to the libertarian side would indicate that I am against making drugs illegal at a federal level. If a particular state or local government wants to make a particular drug illegal that is fine. And no this does not contradict my argument about banning smoking. Property rights issues go to the heart of the difference between living in a Republic like we do and living in a communist state. Property rights are an inalienable right, taking a drug is not.
herr_ryan
New member
What if the drug in question is your property?
provisional
Could Care Less
We have that no smoking ban here in Vegas. It was brought before the voters, and was passed legally. By a large margin I might add. I voted in favor of it. You can't smoke where food is served, unless there is a barrier between the food, and the smokers. This also includes separate HVAC units. Now for some dumb reason this law did not include the various big hotel, and casinos, and yes I am being facetious. No Politician will mess with these corporate giants, regardless of what the voters want.
Smoking is a poor health habit, and unfortunately some of those who get sick from smoking can't afford the health costs associated with smoking illnesses. Guess who is picking up their medical bills.
Yes anyone has the right to smoke, drink, and otherwise abuse their body anyway they choose. Just don't bring it around me, as I have rights too. I don't want to breathe your second hand smoke, get sick, and possibly die from it.:comp:
Smoking is a poor health habit, and unfortunately some of those who get sick from smoking can't afford the health costs associated with smoking illnesses. Guess who is picking up their medical bills.
Yes anyone has the right to smoke, drink, and otherwise abuse their body anyway they choose. Just don't bring it around me, as I have rights too. I don't want to breathe your second hand smoke, get sick, and possibly die from it.:comp:
Grogger31
Swing hard, just in case
And remind me who determines what is, and what is not, an inalienable right? Did you say that it was God?
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #33
Yes sir, just as the founders believed.
herr_ryan
New member
What they believed and what they put in the Constitution were not one-and-the-same if memory serves...
Grogger31
Swing hard, just in case
Where in the Constitution did the founders say private property was an inalienable right? They mention eminent domain in the Fifth Amendment, but I'm not aware of a specific list of inalienable rights (other than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).
I could be wrong, though.
I also appreciate you candor when it comes to the legalization of drugs.
I could be wrong, though.
I also appreciate you candor when it comes to the legalization of drugs.
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #36
That is not completely true. While the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence shouldn’t be confused with each other I can much more easily point to the basis of property rights in the Constitution than you can the right to privacy. But yet I am guessing you would argue till you are blue in the face that you have a right to privacy.
- Admin
- #37
I am just so surprised this is such an issue. This law has been in effect in several states for quite some time now. I am extremely grateful this law has passed, I am not a smoker, never have been, never will be. As a former server I know that even the servers who did smoke hated getting the smoking section, everyone hated smelling like an ashtray at the end of the night. Like someone else said sales have not been effected by this ban because smokers will still go out to eat. A lot of places in Florida offer patio sections where people can still smoke, this way they can smoke all they want and the rest of the patrons can stay inside with the clean air.
My guess is, if you are mad about this you probably don't support the "smoking" sections at sporting events and think people should be able to sit in their seats and blow smoke on everyone? I know I am slightly blinded by rage because as a non-smoker I can't stand being around smoke. I have lost more relatives then I would like to think about to cancer due to smoking. I too wish they would just ban them altogether, I would rather see government issue free prescriptions for the pills to help people quit and then ban the sale of cigarettes all together, but of course that is my fantasy land.
My guess is, if you are mad about this you probably don't support the "smoking" sections at sporting events and think people should be able to sit in their seats and blow smoke on everyone? I know I am slightly blinded by rage because as a non-smoker I can't stand being around smoke. I have lost more relatives then I would like to think about to cancer due to smoking. I too wish they would just ban them altogether, I would rather see government issue free prescriptions for the pills to help people quit and then ban the sale of cigarettes all together, but of course that is my fantasy land.
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #38
For the record I have never smoked a cigarette before although I have been known to smoke an occasional cigar.
scott_d
New member
The comment about no shoes, no shirt, no service is up to the owner of the establishment because it is not a law. No smoking is a law. The voters in here (Austin) had the ability to vote and it passed easily (IIRC). Are you saying the voters don't have the right to pass laws? I own my car and don't see any reason I should not be able to drive as fast as I wish. But there is a law against that. I can't walk down the street nude as there is a law against it (although in Austin it is legal for both men and women to be topless in public).
The short answer to the question of smoking in a rerstaurnat is a law can be passed to make it illegal. Restaurants have many laws they must follow and they do not have the right to not follow laws because of private property. They may own the property but if they choose to open their doors to the public they will have to follow the laws. Nobody is forcing them to be open to the public it is a choice they make. You may own your home but you may not have a meth lab in it. Private property is not the argument hat will ever win when it comes to a business that is open to the public. At the point in time you open your doors to the public you lose many of the private property rights. There are laws that tell you how hot or cold food has to be kept, how hot dishes have to be washed at, hair netting, and many other sanitation, health and public policy issues.
The short answer to the question of smoking in a rerstaurnat is a law can be passed to make it illegal. Restaurants have many laws they must follow and they do not have the right to not follow laws because of private property. They may own the property but if they choose to open their doors to the public they will have to follow the laws. Nobody is forcing them to be open to the public it is a choice they make. You may own your home but you may not have a meth lab in it. Private property is not the argument hat will ever win when it comes to a business that is open to the public. At the point in time you open your doors to the public you lose many of the private property rights. There are laws that tell you how hot or cold food has to be kept, how hot dishes have to be washed at, hair netting, and many other sanitation, health and public policy issues.
Grogger31
Swing hard, just in case
scott_d, I tried the round about approach trying to get where you started. I should know better.
The point I was TRYING (terribly) to make is that laws limit our rights every day ... and those laws are passed by the government, be it at a local, state, or federal level. Any attempt to argue that private property is an inalienable right handed down by God that government has no right to pass laws on is ridiculous.
The point I was TRYING (terribly) to make is that laws limit our rights every day ... and those laws are passed by the government, be it at a local, state, or federal level. Any attempt to argue that private property is an inalienable right handed down by God that government has no right to pass laws on is ridiculous.
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #41
Scott, often these bans are not voted on by the public they are passed at the city council level, etc. No, I am not saying that the public doesn’t have the right to pass laws. I am saying that there are certain “laws†that should not be legal to pass. Would you be ok if a majority of the citizens voted to take your house or business away and give it to someone else? The idea behind instituting a republic instead of a democracy was that the majority don’t necessarily rule.
scott_d
New member
Here it was on the ballot and voted on. As for voters being able to vote to take away property and give it to someone else (I assume you are not including taxes) that is when you take arguments to silly levels.
Does the public or government have the right to make any laws? That is what you are really asking. If the answer is no then the constitution is thrown out as well as the bill of rights and every other law of the land. If the answer is yes then the question is how far can they go. Currently they can take your property and give it to someone else (emminent domain). But there are laws that restrict what laws can be passed and how they are enforced. ANd there are ways to challenge the laws that are passed.
As to the smoking bans, the question is does a smoker have the right to do something that has a detrimental impact on others or do the others have the right to restrict the smoker's right to smoke in certain places. You can do many things in your own home that you can't do i public. I would suggest that smoking is one of those things that you are free to do but not do when it has an impact on others such as in a restaurant (you are also free to have sex (either alone or with another) in the privacy of your home but not in the restaurant while I am eating).
Does the public or government have the right to make any laws? That is what you are really asking. If the answer is no then the constitution is thrown out as well as the bill of rights and every other law of the land. If the answer is yes then the question is how far can they go. Currently they can take your property and give it to someone else (emminent domain). But there are laws that restrict what laws can be passed and how they are enforced. ANd there are ways to challenge the laws that are passed.
As to the smoking bans, the question is does a smoker have the right to do something that has a detrimental impact on others or do the others have the right to restrict the smoker's right to smoke in certain places. You can do many things in your own home that you can't do i public. I would suggest that smoking is one of those things that you are free to do but not do when it has an impact on others such as in a restaurant (you are also free to have sex (either alone or with another) in the privacy of your home but not in the restaurant while I am eating).
Hanks
On the Fringe
:clapp::clapp::clapp:
herr_ryan
New member
That is not completely true. While the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence shouldn’t be confused with each other I can much more easily point to the basis of property rights in the Constitution than you can the right to privacy. But yet I am guessing you would argue till you are blue in the face that you have a right to privacy.
You don't think a right to privacy is inherent in the 4th amendment? How can it not be?
So where are these property rights you're talking about? :confused2:
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #45
No I am not talking about taxes and yes I do think the government has the right to pass laws. I am curious did you agree with the Supreme Court ruling regarding eminent domain? If so, would you feel the same way if they took your house so they could build an office building because it produced more tax revenue and as the argument goes it’s for the public good?
I think your argument in the last paragraph is a good one. But the difference we have is that I am not looking at this from the smoker’s perspective but instead from the property owner’s perspective. I just don’t see the logic of saying someone has right to frequent an establishment assuming they aren’t being excluded due to gender, race, etc. In my opinion we are too quick as a people to allow the government to limit our freedoms and choices.
TheGasman
I Like to Party
Haha, but does that construction worker have the right to smell?:act-up:
herr_ryan
New member
And who elects the city council? We are a representative democracy, not a direct one (though someone should remind the population of California about that fact).
There are. That's what the Supreme Court is for.
You've obviously not heard of Kelo v. City of New London.
We are a republic and a democracy, the two are not mutually exclusive.
herr_ryan
New member
Again, all they have to do is close it to the public and they can do whatever they want. A public restaurant is under the purview of the government, period. To argue the government - be it local, state, federal - doesn't have the right to establish and enforce health and safety standards in a public place is ridiculous.
They recently started doing this in Wisconsin and I personally like it. As a non-smoker, its nice to be able to enjoy hanging out in a bar or restaurant withing having to breath someone else's 2nd hand smoke.
I always used to hate smelling like a cigarette when I left the bar.
Its a touchy issue. On one hand, I can see how smokers wouldnt like it because it limits where they can smoke but on the other hand, as a non-smoker, I dont to pollute my lungs by breathing someone else's 2nd hand smoke. If you want to ruin your lungs, thats your choice but you have no right to ruin my lungs.
I always used to hate smelling like a cigarette when I left the bar.
Its a touchy issue. On one hand, I can see how smokers wouldnt like it because it limits where they can smoke but on the other hand, as a non-smoker, I dont to pollute my lungs by breathing someone else's 2nd hand smoke. If you want to ruin your lungs, thats your choice but you have no right to ruin my lungs.
AHacker'sHacker
Who is John Galt?
- Thread starter
- #50
If the citizens of California choose to enact a law that is their right as long as it doesn’t go against the federal or state constitution. Are you saying you don’t think there is ever a place for things to go on the ballot and instead everything should be voted on by our respective representative?
I am well aware of Kelo v. City of New London. My point is I don’t agree with the ruling just as four of the nine justices didn’t agree. It’s a dangerous road to go down when you simply say, “Oh well, the Supreme Court has ruled and that is thatâ€.
It is obvious that I am in the extreme minority regarding this issue.