Smoking Bans

[frigidweirdo]

Still private property. This is where the encroachment of the "public accommodations" wedge rears its ugly head. This is both why statists were so eager to establish the precedent, and why libertarians and privacy advocates were so opposed. Some of you want to make everything we own 'public' property, and everything we do subject to state scrutiny.

Yes, it's private property, but not like your own home. You cannot ban black people from coming into your restaurant. You can ban them coming into your home. You can't ban women from going into your bar. You can ban women going into your home.

There was a case in the UK, I think, about a religious couple who denied a gay couple into their B&B. They went to court and lost.

Christian B B Owners Lose Supreme Court Appeal Over Gay Couple Case

"Our B&B is not just our business, it's our home. All we have ever tried to do is live according to our own values, under our own roof."

Clearly the courts think otherwise. And I have no doubt a similar outcome would happen in the US.

 

[rightwinger]

Second hand smoke can irritate and cause others conditions, i.e., asthma to worsen.

so do what any intelligent person does, stay away from smokers.

So do what any logical argument does -- explain how it's the victim's responsibility to do that, and how the perp gets off scot free.

"victim" "perp" so you want smoking to be a crime?

Voters have made it a crime in certain places.

Yes, and when it comes to the commons - public parks, streets, government building, etc... that's perfectly fine. It's telling people what they can do in their own homes and businesses that steps over the line.

There are thousands of rules telling people what they can do or not do in their business. Smoking is one of them

 

[dblack]

Still private property. This is where the encroachment of the "public accommodations" wedge rears its ugly head. This is both why statists were so eager to establish the precedent, and why libertarians and privacy advocates were so opposed. Some of you want to make everything we own 'public' property, and everything we do subject to state scrutiny.

Yes, it's private property, but not like your own home. You cannot ban black people from coming into your restaurant. You can ban them coming into your home. You can't ban women from going into your bar. You can ban women going into your home.

There was a case in the UK, I think, about a religious couple who denied a gay couple into their B&B. They went to court and lost.

Christian B B Owners Lose Supreme Court Appeal Over Gay Couple Case

"Our B&B is not just our business, it's our home. All we have ever tried to do is live according to our own values, under our own roof."

Clearly the courts think otherwise. And I have no doubt a similar outcome would happen in the US.

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

 

[Mustang]

Interesting map of smokers -

Now, compare that map with the maps concerning such things as life expectancy, education, income and clean air:

Distractify Visualizing 25 Differences Across America Through Maps

#4 (what each state searches for on google) simply HAS to be a joke.

 

[Pop23]

You seemed so very worried about the health effects of second hand smoke, but not at all about a substance that causes SEVEN times more cancers?

This really isn't about healthy environments then is it?

I also seem to be not very worried about the health effects of many things, that would be, perhaps, because this is a threat about SMOKING, so what do I talk about, SMOKING, que sorpresa no?
You seem to think that me not talking about something indicates I don't give a damn. So, I don't seem to care about anything. Or maybe you're just trying to divert.

So getting back to the original point. What the HELL does Radon have to do with this threat exactly?

This thread is about smoking?????

Oh wait, no it's not, it's about smoking bans. Ammirite.

So, frigid, why are these bans acceptable because of health when it's not close to being the probable cause of the health conditions you fear?

 

[Pop23]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

I don't think he meant that a man who purposely walks into a swinging arm deserves sympathy.

Do you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This thread is about smoking?????

Oh wait, no it's not, it's about smoking bans. Ammirite.

So, frigid, why are these bans acceptable because of health when it's not close to being the probable cause of the health conditions you fear?

You're really trying hard to be a pedant aren't you?

Are you claiming that there is not serious health problem from second hand smoke?

 

[rightwinger]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

I don't think he meant that a man who purposely walks into a swinging arm deserves sympathy.

Do you?

You are allowed to purposely walk into a place of business and not expect to put your health at risk

You can expect that patrons who are swinging their arms be asked to do so outside

 

[Pop23]

This thread is about smoking?????

Oh wait, no it's not, it's about smoking bans. Ammirite.

So, frigid, why are these bans acceptable because of health when it's not close to being the probable cause of the health conditions you fear?

You're really trying hard to be a pedant aren't you?

Are you claiming that there is not serious health problem from second hand smoke?

Not NEARLY as much a problem as radon.

AND, you can avoid second had smoke simply by seeing it. You might feel safe, but there are few people who understand that they indeed may not be.

You may be sleeping in it, but you can't get any public outcry because the nannies of the world want to blame lung cancer in non smokers on second hand smoke so they can keep these bans alive.

 

[Pop23]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

I don't think he meant that a man who purposely walks into a swinging arm deserves sympathy.

Do you?

You are allowed to purposely walk into a place of business and not expect to put your health at risk

You can expect that patrons who are swinging their arms be asked to do so outside

Wow, talk about deflection.

Do you think boxers should be able to box, but only as long as they don't hit each other?

How very exciting for you!

 

[Pop23]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not NEARLY as much a problem as radon.

AND, you can avoid second had smoke simply by seeing it. You might feel safe, but there are few people who understand that they indeed may not be.

You may be sleeping in it, but you can't get any public outcry because the nannies of the world want to blame lung cancer in non smokers on second hand smoke so they can keep these bans alive.

But it's still a problem. And not only that it's the problem we're talking about HERE. You go bugger off to the Radon thread if you want to talk about radon.

Yes, you can avoid second hand smoke if you just leave. But should someone be forced to leave the place where they work and therefore get FIRED because someone is allowed to smoke there?

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

You're just sayin' what? That you don't get anything? That the world passes you by just as dark matter passes most people by?

Christ, the point here is, if you'd bothered to keep up, is the difference between a home and a business under the law. A home, you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, like murder etc.
In a business you can be prevented from banning people based on things like race, from entering your business. Your business is not so private as your home/

You got it now?

 

[dblack]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

I'd have a huge problem with it. You must not usually read my posts. Not that you're obligated to - but no, I'm no fan of racism.

 

[Pop23]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

When someone accuses another poster of deflection then posts the above?????

Just sayin

You're just sayin' what? That you don't get anything? That the world passes you by just as dark matter passes most people by?

Christ, the point here is, if you'd bothered to keep up, is the difference between a home and a business under the law. A home, you can do what you like as long as you don't harm others, like murder etc.
In a business you can be prevented from banning people based on things like race, from entering your business. Your business is not so private as your home/

You got it now?

Name one other legal product not allowed in ANY business

You got it now?

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's what I meant in a previous post about public accommodations laws being a wedge. The reason power hungry leaders chose that legal approach, rather than any number of different means of dealing with racism, is because it set legal precedent giving government the power to encroach on private property. It's wrong there, it's wrong here.

So you'd have no problem with, say, McDonalds banning black people from their restaurants?

I'd have a huge problem with it. You must not usually read my posts. Not that you're obligated to - but no, I'm no fan of racism.

Well I'm making a point. A business is private or not? If it's private, like a home, you can refuse who ever you like entry, you can allow smoking if you like.

If a business is essentially a public place, then health and safety issues come to the fore, an individual cannot claim their business to be their home, so they have to abide by different rules.

 

[Pop23]

Not NEARLY as much a problem as radon.

AND, you can avoid second had smoke simply by seeing it. You might feel safe, but there are few people who understand that they indeed may not be.

You may be sleeping in it, but you can't get any public outcry because the nannies of the world want to blame lung cancer in non smokers on second hand smoke so they can keep these bans alive.

But it's still a problem. And not only that it's the problem we're talking about HERE. You go bugger off to the Radon thread if you want to talk about radon.

Yes, you can avoid second hand smoke if you just leave. But should someone be forced to leave the place where they work and therefore get FIRED because someone is allowed to smoke there?

There you go off again.

Does this employee have the knowledge of the radon level in that business.

Do you care

Probably not, even though radon causes 7 times MORE lung cancer than shs does.

You do gooders are so intent on punishing smokers that the real problems get swept under the rug.

How many folks do you suppose have died because, like you , non smoker lung cancers have been blamed on second hand smoke? After all, it is the " cool" thing to do.

Ammirite?

 

[Mustang]

I believe it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said the following:

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

The point, of course, is I don't give a damn if you want to smoke, but you sure as hell don't have a right to subject me to your smoke in the process. This is true of all different kinds of issues, including your right to free speech (although smoking is not a right, I should add). While you have a right to free speech and free expression, it doesn't mean that you have a right to sing in your front yard at 3AM when all your neighbors are trying to sleep.

It would be nice if conservatives could manage to find a way to exercise their freedoms (and privileges) without it seeming as if they're intentionally trying to provoke other people in the process.

I don't think he meant that a man who purposely walks into a swinging arm deserves sympathy.

Do you?

You are allowed to purposely walk into a place of business and not expect to put your health at risk

You can expect that patrons who are swinging their arms be asked to do so outside

Wow, talk about deflection.

Do you think boxers should be able to box, but only as long as they don't hit each other?

How very exciting for you!

Boxers can hit anyone who's in the ring wearing boxing gloves. However, I would suggest that they wait until the bell rings before they start swinging.

 

[rightwinger]

This thread is about smoking?????

Oh wait, no it's not, it's about smoking bans. Ammirite.

So, frigid, why are these bans acceptable because of health when it's not close to being the probable cause of the health conditions you fear?

You're really trying hard to be a pedant aren't you?

Are you claiming that there is not serious health problem from second hand smoke?

Not NEARLY as much a problem as radon.

AND, you can avoid second had smoke simply by seeing it. You might feel safe, but there are few people who understand that they indeed may not be.

You may be sleeping in it, but you can't get any public outcry because the nannies of the world want to blame lung cancer in non smokers on second hand smoke so they can keep these bans alive.

We need to pass laws banning people from spraying Radon in Restaurants and Bars