The Smoking Ban

• ernest_t_bass

  

  What say you, about the smoking ban? Do you think it is constitutional for the Government to tell establishments that they cannot allow smoking? Does this not go against the basis of our free market economy? (And dare I say, unconstitutional?)
  
  My take... If you don't like the smoke, don't go to that business. The smoking ban has caused many businesses to close. (A Frickers in Ft. Wayne closed b/c of it, among many others around the country). It is not up to the govt. to decide this, but the producers and consumers. Supply and demand.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I'm against the ban.
  
  I think it should be up to the businesses to decide what they want to allow.
• GoChiefs

  

  I don't smoke..so the ban doesn't bother me at all..and none of the business's that I go to have closed b/c of it.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  I don't smoke either, but I'm a huge fan of freedom.
• GoChiefs

  

  If it's more healthy for me..like they say it is..then hey..I'm all for that too.
• enigmaax

  Two things I don't understand about this argument. Why should non-smokers have to be the ones to "not go to an establishment"? Smoking is a choice that imposes on others. Non-smoking doesn't do that. It isn't as though a smoker goes to a restaurant to smoke. We all go there to eat, why should a non-smoker have to worry about non-relating, unhealthy practices everywhere they go?
  
  Why would places close over the smoking ban? Did people frequent those establishments in the past simply to smoke? Do smokers now just sit home all of the time because they can't smoke anywhere?
  

  ernest_t_bass wrote: I don't smoke either, but I'm a huge fan of freedom.

  Exactly, but freedom doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want regardless of the impact or effect on others. I should have the freedom to be in a healthy environment. Someone else's choice to smoke should not make my choice for me.
• queencitybuckeye

  These debates always turn into a rights debate between smokers and non-smokers, and ignore the rights of property owners.
  
  My place, my rules is how it should work.
• enigmaax

  queencitybuckeye wrote: These debates always turn into a rights debate between smokers and non-smokers, and ignore the rights of property owners.
  
  My place, my rules is how it should work.

  Well, whorehouses are illegal too. Just because its your property doesn't mean you make all the rules and it has NEVER been that way.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote: These debates always turn into a rights debate between smokers and non-smokers, and ignore the rights of property owners.
  
  [size=large]My place, my rules is how it should work.[/size]

  
  Indeed!
• queencitybuckeye

  enigmaax wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: These debates always turn into a rights debate between smokers and non-smokers, and ignore the rights of property owners.
  
  My place, my rules is how it should work.

  Well, whorehouses are illegal too. Just because its your property doesn't mean you make all the rules and it has NEVER been that way.

  Other than risks which the average person can't determine on their own (i.e. the ever so weak filthy kitchen comparison), it SHOULD be that way.
• GoPens

  

  I don't get why you had to put "for the government" or "for businesses" after each selection. I'm for the ban for my health, for not smelling like a smokestack and for enjoying the taste and smell of my food without having to gag from smoke, not for the government. Besides, in a democracy, aren't "the people" the government? In this case, the people have spoken.
  
  And Enigmaxx, you're exactly right. Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.
• queencitybuckeye

  GoPens wrote: Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.

  
  What gets lost in these topics is that an establishment open to the public is NOT a public place. What's wrong with the person risking his life savings to open a restaurant having the right to set the rules, and let the marketplace decide on whether or not he's making the right decisions?
• enigmaax

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote: Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.

  What's wrong with letting the marketplace decide? That's usually best.

  So this was never voted on anywhere?
• GoPens

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote: Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.

  What's wrong with letting the marketplace decide? That's usually best.

  The marketplace did decide. We voted.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  GoPens wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote: Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.

  What's wrong with letting the marketplace decide? That's usually best.

  The marketplace did decide. We voted.

  
  Yeah, well "WE" also voted for George Bush, Barrack Obama, Ted Strickland, etc.
  :s
• GoPens

  

  Ugh, I see this got moved to the policital forum--and I vowed never to go to this forum on this site or "the other one"...lol.
• queencitybuckeye

  GoPens wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote: Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.

  What's wrong with letting the marketplace decide? That's usually best.

  The marketplace did decide. We voted.

  Rights cannot be voted away (or at least that's how America works in theory).
  The "majority rules" argument shows such a basic lack of understanding of our government, the founders would be appalled.
• BCSbunk

  ernest_t_bass wrote: I don't smoke either, but I'm a huge fan of freedom.

  A fan of freedom eh? Then you are for the freedom of a non-smoker to breath air that will not harm them?
  
  If smoking was merely a matter of smell "oh it stinks" then you would have a point, but this is a health concern second hand smoke is harmful.
  
  So basically you are advocating that is correct to subject others to harm.
  
  You cannot argue against the harm smoking and second hand smoke does it is established fact.
  
  At this point in time smokers are lucky. Since second hand smoke is harmful then smoking around children could be constituted as child abuse.
• enigmaax

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Rights cannot be voted away (or at least that's how America works in theory).
  The "majority rules" argument shows such a basic lack of understanding of our government, the founders would be appalled.

  But "rights" do not include exposing the rest of the population to health risks.
• GoPens

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote: Why is it always "non-smokers" can choose not to go to smoking establishments? Smokers can just choose to eat at home if they must have their puff.

  What's wrong with letting the marketplace decide? That's usually best.

  The marketplace did decide. We voted.

  Rights cannot be voted away (or at least that's how America works in theory).
  The "majority rules" argument shows such a basic lack of understanding of our government, the founders would be appalled.

  Basic lack of understanding....good one. I know this will show such a "basic lack of understanding" but why have elections in our government if the majority doesn't rule. I love people like you. Throw out blanket, cliche statements like "the founders would be appalled" without any proof that they would in this argument to sound so authoritive. Many of the founders thought men should own other human beings as well.
  
  Back to the argument--so we should just trample on the rights of people who don't want cancerous smoke in their lungs...that's what you're saying. (And here comes the same old line--well non-smokers can just choose not to go to those establisments...)
• queencitybuckeye

  enigmaax wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Rights cannot be voted away (or at least that's how America works in theory).
  The "majority rules" argument shows such a basic lack of understanding of our government, the founders would be appalled.

  But "rights" do not include exposing the rest of the population to health risks.

  They can. Do I have right to smoke (I don't FWIW) in my own home? Of course, for now anyway. If you willingly enter my home, do I have any obligation not to smoke. From a legal standpoint, of course not.
  
  How does this somehow change when the context becomes a business? My business. Open to the public, but private property?
• queencitybuckeye

  GoPens wrote:
  Basic lack of understanding....good one. I know this will show such a "basic lack of understanding" but why have elections in our government if the majority doesn't rule. I love people like you. Throw out blanket, cliche statements like "the founders would be appalled" without any proof that they would in this argument to sound so authoritive. Many of the founders thought men should own other human beings as well.
  

  You don't understand that our country was based on the protection of rights of the minority as well as the majority?
  
  Since you raised the subject, if you're going to be consistent in your position, you would also have to believe that if slavery would come up for a vote and got a majority, it would and should become the law of the land. After all, "we voted". What's the difference, if any?
• BCSbunk

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  enigmaax wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Rights cannot be voted away (or at least that's how America works in theory).
  The "majority rules" argument shows such a basic lack of understanding of our government, the founders would be appalled.

  But "rights" do not include exposing the rest of the population to health risks.

  They can. Do I have right to smoke (I don't FWIW) in my own home? Of course, for now anyway. If you willingly enter my home, do I have any obligation not to smoke. From a legal standpoint, of course not.
  
  How does this somehow change when the context becomes a business? My business. Open to the public, but private property?

  Open to the public.
  
  What you are suggesting is that businesses could then say I do not want African americans in my establishment. It is your business and private property.
  
  You do not have to allow african-americans in your private home, however you must allow them in your business it is open to the public and therefore the public have a right to go there and not be subjected to harm.
• enigmaax

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  enigmaax wrote:

  queencitybuckeye wrote: Rights cannot be voted away (or at least that's how America works in theory).
  The "majority rules" argument shows such a basic lack of understanding of our government, the founders would be appalled.

  But "rights" do not include exposing the rest of the population to health risks.

  They can. Do I have right to smoke (I don't FWIW) in my own home? Of course, for now anyway. If you willingly enter my home, do I have any obligation not to smoke. From a legal standpoint, of course not.
  
  How does this somehow change when the context becomes a business? My business. Open to the public, but private property?

  I don't think you'll ever get it if you don't know the difference between a private home and a business. You could also choose to walk around naked in your own home with people around. A business owner can't allow that in a business just because its his.
• GoPens

  

  queencitybuckeye wrote:

  GoPens wrote:
  Basic lack of understanding....good one. I know this will show such a "basic lack of understanding" but why have elections in our government if the majority doesn't rule. I love people like you. Throw out blanket, cliche statements like "the founders would be appalled" without any proof that they would in this argument to sound so authoritive. Many of the founders thought men should own other human beings as well.
  

  You don't understand that our country was based on the protection of rights of the minority as well as the majority?
  Since you raised the subject, if you're going to be consistent in your position, you would also have to believe that if slavery would come up for a vote and got a majority, it would and should become the law of the land. After all, "we voted". What's the difference, if any?

  Since you raised the subject, then why does the government not allow homosexuals to marryor have civil unions? Definately not protecting the rights of the minority as well as the majority there...