After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Bro, I'm not asking to come over to your home to do it. Don't be an asshole and tell me what to do on someone else's property that doesn't seem to mind...

I'm not trying to be an asshole. Do you want to go home smelling like meth because the owner allows me to smoke it?

You're asking me to leave a place of gathering because of your habit. Versus me asking you to just take your habit outside for a minute then come back and join the party. I see your point, I do. But being a reasonable and intelligent man, surely you can see mine? Who's request is seriously more reasonable?

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dmahurin

Yeah, yeah. I get it, your butt gets hurt when people do things you don't like, my apologies.

That's what it all boils down to REALLY. The other shit is just there to excuse the BAD BEHAVIOR of bullying private property owners to go along with THEIR agenda.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Which is why we have protected classes. Your analogy fails on many many levels. It's not even like bar owners are refusing to serve non-smokers. They simply say, "if you come to my bar, be prepared to put up with smoke" or Chiefs gear or loud music or live bands or pink walls or whatever environment they decide is ok. BUT NO that isn't good enough. You want to FORCE them to adopt the environment YOU find comfortable. That's bullshit. It makes you and those who support these laws... bullies. End of story.

But the point that I made about black people, and the point DD was making before your meltdown – is that there are all other all kinds of other laws that force property owners to do certain things. You have just picked this exact one as where you draw that you draw between a fundamental right being violated and a mere inconvenience.

I think you have to look at the whole picture - the harm (or lack thereof) being actually caused to property owners and smokers, and the good (of not having to put up with disgusting smoke – and the possibility of the dangers of secondhand smoke) that is created. In this case the good pretty clearly wins. Who is even harmed here in a non-philosophical way? (especially if you aren't making the slippery slope argument) We don't live in a society of perfect axioms. We live in a society of laws which are often compromises that simply try to do the most good for the greatest number of people. This is a law that does exactly that.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

I'm not trying to be an asshole. Do you want to go home smelling like meth because the owner allows me to smoke it?

You're asking me to leave a place of gathering because if your habit. Versus me asking you to just take your habit outside for a minute then come back and join the party. I see your point, I do. But being a reasonable and intelligent man, surely you can see mine? Who's request is seriously more reasonable?

I have no problem with your REQUEST. That's not being an asshole at all. What is being an asshole is using the VIOLENCE of the LAW to FORCE a private business to tow the line. That's a dick move.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Sometimes when I get smash nasty. And I want a cigarette. And it sucks ass to go outside, in the cold, can't take a beer with me. But it's the right thing to do. Because if it weren't a law, nobody would be courteous enough to volunteer to take it outside.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by dmahurin

Yeah, yeah. I get it, your butt gets hurt when people do things you don't like, my apologies.

Nah, never got butt hurt. But it was a real pain in my ass.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

But the point that I made about black people, and the point DD was making before your meltdown – is that there are all other all kinds of other laws that force property owners to do certain things. You have just picked this exact one as where you draw that you draw between a fundamental right being violated and a mere inconvenience.

I think you have to look at the whole picture - the harm (or lack thereof) being actually caused to property owners and smokers, and the good (of not having to put up with disgusting smoke – and the possibility of the dangers of secondhand smoke) that is created. In this case the good pretty clearly wins. Who is even harmed here in a non-philosophical way? (especially if you aren't making the slippery slope argument) We don't live in a society of perfect axioms. We live in a society of laws which are often compromises that simply try to do the most good for the greatest number of people. This is a law that does exactly that.

I'm not reading all of this. Something about 2nd hand smoke health concerns...I smoke pot, so my lungs are ****ed already. I'm concerned about the inconvenience of it all. Smelling the shit, then smelling like the shit.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

But the point that I made about black people, and the point DD was making before your meltdown – is that there are all other all kinds of other laws that force property owners to do certain things. You have just picked this exact one as where you draw that you draw between a fundamental right being violated and a mere inconvenience.

I think you have to look at the whole picture - the harm (or lack thereof) being actually caused to property owners and smokers, and the good (of not having to put up with disgusting smoke – and the possibility of the dangers of secondhand smoke) that is created. In this case the good pretty clearly wins, I almost every account even yours. We don't live in a society of perfect axioms. We live in a society of laws which are often compromises that simply try to do the most good the greatest number of people. This is a law that does exactly that.

No. that is were you are wrong. The other laws relate to constitutionally protected classes or workers health... not simply the WHIMS of the public.
You are advocating majority rule that overrides PROPERTY RIGHTS. You do know that private property rights are one of the most important foundations for our country, right?

We live in a society of LAWS yes, NOT majority rule. Those laws are meant to protect everyone's rights AGAINST mob rule... something you don't seem to understand.

One big problem is that you don't see stripping a person of a right as a legitimate harm. That is a major ****ing problem for me. IT IS A REAL AND TANGIBLE HARM whether you see it as one or not.

You are comfortable with social bullying. I am not.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

That's what it all boils down to REALLY. The other shit is just there to excuse the BAD BEHAVIOR of bullying private property owners to go along with THEIR agenda.

You just described the history of government. I'm sure in the first peasant collectivist back in the dark ages - a couple of them didn't like the position of the well, or the bedbug inspections, or that they weren't allowed to marry their sister. But when you live in a functioning society, sometimes you have to do shit you don't want to.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Cmd'r&Chief

Sometimes when I get smash nasty. And I want a cigarette. And it sucks ass to go outside, in the cold, can't take a beer with me. But it's the right thing to do. Because if it weren't a law, nobody would be courteous enough to volunteer to take it outside.

Wow. So you want laws to legislate courtesy now. that is ****ed up.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

You just described the history of government. I'm sure in the first peasant collectivist back in the dark ages - a couple of them didn't like the position of the well, or the bedbug inspections, or that they weren't allowed to marry their sister. But when you live in a functioning society, sometimes you have to do shit you don't want to.

So, there we have it. You support majority rule and don't recognize private property rights taking precedence. So, back to my analogy, you are fine with the majority making it illegal for a bar owner to have pink interior walls? Or allow patrons to wear Chiefs gear? Yes, those are ridiculous... but your logic dictates that laws like that (however ridiculous) are ok if the majority deems them so.

[dmahurin]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

You just described the history of government. I'm sure in the first peasant collectivist back in the dark ages - a couple of them didn't like the position of the well, or the bedbug inspections, or that they weren't allowed to marry their sister. But when you live in a functioning society, sometimes you have to do shit you don't want to.

Unless its smell smoke in a restaurant, then you just make it illegal.

[Cmd'r&Chief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I have no problem with your REQUEST. That's not being an asshole at all. What is being an asshole is using the VIOLENCE of the LAW to FORCE a private business to tow the line. That's a dick move.

Look man, I have zero problems with people smoking indoors...in a separate closed off section. I just honestly don't want to be inconvenienced for other people's thing, you smell me? Go do your thing, but not at my expense.

[dmahurin]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Wow. So you want laws to legislate courtesy now. that is ****ed up.

He's a troll, that's why I gave troll responses.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

No. that is were you are wrong. The other laws relate to constitutionally protected classes or workers health... not simply the WHIMS of the public.
You are advocating majority rule that overrides PROPERTY RIGHTS. You do know that private property rights are one of the most important foundations for our country, right?

We live in a society of LAWS yes, NOT majority rule. Those laws are meant to protect everyone's rights AGAINST mob rule... something you don't seem to understand.

One big problem is that you don't see stripping a person of a right as a legitimate harm. That is a major ****ing problem for me. IT IS A REAL AND TANGIBLE HARM whether you see it as one or not.

You are comfortable with social bullying. I am not.

Why do I not have a right to serve whoever I want in my establishment? Why do I have to serve black or gay people? Why can't I have cows on my property? Why does my restaurant have to submit to health inspections? Shouldn't the free-market just sort it out when I give people botulism? Why can't I build up as high as I want? Why can't I put a giant rotating neon sign on the top of my house that says "Vaginal Bloodfart"?

Why are none of these fundamental inalienable rights, but allowing smoking in my bar is somehow radically philosophically different? You're not really attempting to make any case as to why this "right" is so much different than every other zoning and property law out there on the books. You're just waving your hands a lot about bullies and majority rule. It's obvious you're very emotionally invested in this issue for some reason.

I get the concept you're making about majority rule, believe me I really do. And there have been times in history majority rule has done some very bad things. But I do not believe that this is remotely one of those cases. There are very real potential health effects, and a very very real gigantic nuisance effect to smoking in bars and restaurants.