Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

[RNR]

I think it should be up to the owner, and would even be willing to have it up to the owner if you have to be 21 to enter. City wide is bullshit IMO

[alanm]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

JK with you and could not help myself. I would be interested if once a ban is in place will they allow a private bussiness to ignore the law.

No, you'll just have tons of private citizens become criminals.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

I agree. Patriot act for starters. However...smokers make up approximately 18% of the population. We live in a democracy. Majority rule and all of that. If the non-smoking majority wants smoking gone...well, welcome to the democratic process in action.

Very true but in many cases it is not put up to a vote.

[alanm]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

I agree. Patriot act for starters. However...smokers make up approximately 18% of the population. We live in a democracy. Majority rule and all of that. If the non-smoking majority wants smoking gone...well, welcome to the democratic process in action.

Then just ban tobacco altogether. I'm sure law enforcement can't wait for the rise of Organized Crime Part II. And why were at it why not ban alcohol again?
Seig Heil.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Very true but in many cases it is not put up to a vote.

With a 4-1 majority I don't think there's much doubt about how any vote would come out.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by alanm

Then just ban tobacco altogether. I'm sure law enforcement can't wait for the rise of Organized Crime Part II. And why were at it why not ban alcohol again?
Seig Heil.

Hold up. Someone was throwing the word "fascist" around earlier today. I'm supporting what amounts to the democratic process here...majority rule. You are effectively saying that the will of the majority should be ignored. That's fascism. Welcome to the dictatorship of the special interest (smokers in this case).

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Hold up. Someone was throwing the word "fascist" around earlier today. I'm supporting what amounts to the democratic process here...majority rule. You are effectively saying that the will of the majority should be ignored. That's fascism. Welcome to the dictatorship of the special interest (smokers in this case).

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. This means we democratically elect our leaders but they are to do what is best for us, not necessarily what the majority wants. They are hopefully better informed and more intelligent than most of us and that is why we put them in a leader position. Of course this is a lovely theory but we have lost this aspect over the years. Probably because we keep putting idiots in charge rather than true leaders.

Second of all, this thread was started on the premise that these laws are wrong because of what it is forcing the business owner to do, it is not about smokers vs non-smokers. This is not a case of "protecting" the smoker, it is about allowing the owner the freedom to cater to the market segment of his choice. Again, if 80% of the country are non-smokers and much prefer non-smoking establishments, why wasn't there a wave of non-smoking establishments popping up around the country, regardless of legislation? Are our free economists in this country that out of touch that every last one of them missed this chance to get an advantage on their competition by banning smoking in their businesses?

[HonestChieffan]

Frazoid is the one throwing out terms like that. He can be excused. He has no idea what it means nor how it would or wouldn't apply. Its ok though, his head is probably about to explode after the Chargers win.

No need to pay much attention to him anyway, he is emotional.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

First off, we are not a democracy, we are a democratic republic. This means we democratically elect our leaders but they are to do what is best for us, not necessarily what the majority wants. They are hopefully better informed and more intelligent than most of us and that is why we put them in a leader position. Of course this is a lovely theory but we have lost this aspect over the years. Probably because we keep putting idiots in charge rather than true leaders.

Second of all, this thread was started on the premise that these laws are wrong because of what it is forcing the business owner to do, it is not about smokers vs non-smokers. This is not a case of "protecting" the smoker, it is about allowing the owner the freedom to cater to the market segment of his choice. Again, if 80% of the country are non-smokers and much prefer non-smoking establishments, why wasn't there a wave of non-smoking establishments popping up around the country, regardless of legislation? Are our free economists in this country that out of touch that every last one of them missed this chance to get an advantage on their competition by banning smoking in their businesses?

FWIW, I know we're technically a republic, but trying to explain what that means to your average Joe is so futile it's not worth getting into. Rest assured I understand.

And there is a mechanism for the owners of these establishments to go right around the law. It's becoming a private club, and it's not that big a deal.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

why wasn't there a wave of non-smoking establishments popping up around the country, regardless of legislation? Are our free economists in this country that out of touch that every last one of them missed this chance to get an advantage on their competition by banning smoking in their businesses?

For the same reason that legislation is needed to create non-smoking places: because if someone had created a non-smoking restaurant (in the absence of laws designating it as non-smoking) then a smoker could have gone in and smoked there because it's a public place and there wasn't/isn't any legislation protecting it as a non-smoking area. An individual that operates a public place can't unilaterally ban (or unban) anything.

Get this through your thick heads...private ownership means nothing when the establishment is a public place. That cuts both ways. An owner that wanted a smoke-free establishment (pre-legislation) wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if he/she had tried to enforce the non-smoking nature of the place and would have been wide open to a lawsuit from a smoker that was denied service or ejected. The only answer in either case is to be a private club.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

Hold up. Someone was throwing the word "fascist" around earlier today. I'm supporting what amounts to the democratic process here...majority rule. You are effectively saying that the will of the majority should be ignored. That's fascism. Welcome to the dictatorship of the special interest (smokers in this case).

Again, you presume to speak for everybody. That's horseshit. You confuse non-smokers with those who are completely unreasonable and intolerant about smoking. Not every non-smoker is a jerkoff about it like Honest****face. I don't smoke every bit as much as you or him(her? I wonder). I don't like the smell of smoke. I'm actually happy to eat without smelling smoke, and quite frankly, always was. But I don't feel the need to enforce my personal choice not to smoke upon others. There's your fascism. Using misinformation and scare tactics to manipulate the ignorant into thinking your way is another pretty good example of fascism, too.

[Hydrae]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

For the same reason that legislation is needed to create non-smoking places: because if someone had created a non-smoking restaurant (in the absence of laws designating it as non-smoking) then a smoker could have gone in and smoked there because it's a public place and there wasn't/isn't any legislation protecting it as a non-smoking area. An individual that operates a public place can't unilaterally ban (or unban) anything.

Get this through your thick heads...private ownership means nothing when the establishment is a public place. That cuts both ways. An owner that wanted a smoke-free establishment (pre-legislation) wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if he/she had tried to enforce the non-smoking nature of the place and would have been wide open to a lawsuit from a smoker that was denied service or ejected. The only answer in either case is to be a private club.

He absolutely could have done so. I have been in many places with signs stating that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. This would include a smoker.

For that matter, maybe non-smoking places could have been set up as membership clubs. If it is good enough for smokers to set up something like this, why not for the non-smokers?

I don't know. I thought I grew in the land of the free, not the home of the law ridden.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

For the same reason that legislation is needed to create non-smoking places: because if someone had created a non-smoking restaurant (in the absence of laws designating it as non-smoking) then a smoker could have gone in and smoked there because it's a public place and there wasn't/isn't any legislation protecting it as a non-smoking area. An individual that operates a public place can't unilaterally ban (or unban) anything.

Get this through your thick heads...private ownership means nothing when the establishment is a public place. That cuts both ways. An owner that wanted a smoke-free establishment (pre-legislation) wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on if he/she had tried to enforce the non-smoking nature of the place and would have been wide open to a lawsuit from a smoker that was denied service or ejected. The only answer in either case is to be a private club.

I've stayed out of this because nobody's mind is going to be changed in this debate. But this has got to be the dumbest argument for a smoking ban I've ever seen. A business owner is private property(in a public place). He has the right to refuse service to whomever he chooses as long as it isn't a protected class(minorities, etc.). A smoker would have no legal right to sue for not being allowed to smoke in a business. It goes along the same lines as clubs with dress codes, or convenience stores that require shirt and shoes.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Frazoid is the one throwing out terms like that. He can be excused. He has no idea what it means nor how it would or wouldn't apply. Its ok though, his head is probably about to explode after the Chargers win.

No need to pay much attention to him anyway, he is emotional.

You'd like it if that was true, wouldn't you? Sorry. Just calling a spade a spade.

And I was actually quite happy that the Chargers won. Add that to the long list of things you're wrong about, dickhead.

[TN_Chief]

Originally Posted by Hydrae

He absolutely could have done so. I have been in many places with signs stating that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

Hilarious. You're actually dense enough to think that sign has any legal basis or standing? Guess again. That sign was there in an attempt to scare/intimidate you into doing something. Had anyone actually challenged it they would have kicked ass in court.

[HonestChieffan]

Oh well Im not really surprised. One day you ar off on this rant, then another day on another. What was it you said here not long ago that your team is the team and all others are the enemy?

I took out the irrational faux screaming and profanity but that is what you were saying.

But if you are now jumping on the support for the division, then welcome.