Where does eveyone stand on smoking bans?

TN_Chief · 01-13-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frazod

But there are worse things than breathing in a wisp of smoke - like watching our country morph into a police state.

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.

**RNR** · 01-13-2008, 03:06 PM

Quote:

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.

TN_Chief · 01-13-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

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.

**RNR** · 01-14-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TN_Chief

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

So lets just not be allowed to vote, thats pretty rich. Every 4 years we put a president in office and what is the average % of the turn out? I am just saying that although you may think you know how a vote may turn out does not mean there should not be one. As I have said before this is not about smoking it is about rights.

TN_Chief · 01-14-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

So lets just not be allowed to vote, thats pretty rich. Every 4 years we put a president in office and what is the average % of the turn out? I am just saying that although you may think you know how a vote may turn out does not mean there should not be one. As I have said before this is not about smoking it is about rights.

Jeez, I wouldn't mind an actual vote at all. But even with voter apathy the non-smokers would likely kick ass. 100 people. 18 smokers...let's say all 18 vote. 82 non-smokers...let's say only 33% vote (pretty serious apathy). That's still 27 votes for the non-smokers. Not even close.

**alanm** · 01-13-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-13-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-13-2008, 03:34 PM

Quote:

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?

TN_Chief · 01-13-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

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 · 01-13-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

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.

Hydrae · 01-13-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

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.

TN_Chief · 01-13-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

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.

kstater · 01-13-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

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.

TN_Chief · 01-13-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kstater

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.

What's hilarious here is that you have no idea how wrong you are.

Shirt and shoes are public health code laws and are enforceable because they're actually laws.

You bring up "clubs"...which has been the cornerstone of my responses in this thread. A club IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE! It is private...membership restricted...and as such operates differently.

A restaurant or bar owner has no legal right to refuse service to anyone as long as they (the patrons) are not breaking the law. Pre-legislation a smoker wasn't breaking the law...therefore a business couldn't refuse them service legally.

God you people are idiots.

Frazod · 01-13-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

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.