enigmaax wrote:
You could also choose to walk around naked in your own home with people around.

You sure about that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804027.html

BCSbunk wrote:
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.

Actually, only those groups specifically protected by law would be protected for the reason you are describing. Obese people, for example, are not a protected group in North Carolina, and I could legally toss every single one of them out legally (in my case, a bit hypocritical looking at the scale a couple of days ago ). However, in Michigan (make up your own joke), I know there are some job protections for the overweight. Whether that extends to the situation we're discussing, I don't know.

GoPens wrote:
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...

Fortunately, more states are allowing it, and I suspect in another generation, it will just be something that people look back on and shake their heads.

BTW, do you have an answer for my question?

LJ wrote:

enigmaax wrote:
You could also choose to walk around naked in your own home with people around.

You sure about that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121804027.html

Well, those people weren't in his home, but still, bad example on my part.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
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.

Actually, only those groups specifically protected by law would be protected for the reason you are describing. Obese people, for example, are not a protected group in North Carolina, and I could legally toss every single one of them out legally (in my case, a bit hypocritical looking at the scale a couple of days ago ). However, in Michigan (make up your own joke), I know there are some job protections for the overweight. Whether that extends to the situation we're discussing, I don't know.

Another analogy to the smoking ban is this.

Do you think it is okay to allow people to fire guns in the city in the streets up in the air? They are not shooting at anyone just up in the air should that freedom be allowed?

The reasoning behind both bans (smoking and open gun firing) are because of harm. Both have been established without question to harm others. In fact shooting the gun could cause harm and breathing second had smoke will cause harm.

The same argument but with guns. I have the right to fire my gun up in the air in town square and if you don't like it please stay in your homes and do not come out in public.

It is my business and I can fire a gun up in the air or shoot holes in my walls if I want so stop eroding my freedoms.

Like I said if not for the HARM then the OP would have a great point.

enigmaax wrote: Smoking is a choice that imposes on others.

In my opinion, this isn't valid, just focusing on smoking. There are so many other things out there that "impose" on others.

enigmaax wrote: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.

It is about choice. Choice, and only choice. That is what a free market is. If there is smoking allowed at a restaurant, then you simply CHOOSE not to go there.

If you go into any other business, complain about said business... do you expect them to change their ways just for you, or ask you to choose another business?

With smoking, the BUSINESSES make a choice. Who do I want to lose? The smokers, or the non-smokers.

BCSbunk wrote:
The same argument but with guns. I have the right to fire my gun up in the air in town square and if you don't like it please stay in your homes and do not come out in public.

Your comparison falls apart at "in town square". Replace that with "the acre behind my house" and the answer is 100% different. I do have that right, and you are free to choose whether to be there, limited by my absolute right to determine your privilege to be there at all.

In Michigan, my home State, you don't need to establish job protections. The last time I checked, there weren't enough jobs to protect.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
The same argument but with guns. I have the right to fire my gun up in the air in town square and if you don't like it please stay in your homes and do not come out in public.

Your comparison falls apart at "in town square". Replace that with "the acre behind my house" and the answer is 100% different. I do have that right, and you are free to choose whether to be there, limited by my absolute right to determine your privilege to be there at all.

Discharge of a firearm varies by municipality. "The acre behind my house" may not change the answer at all, depending on municipality and how close the nearest house is.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
The same argument but with guns. I have the right to fire my gun up in the air in town square and if you don't like it please stay in your homes and do not come out in public.

Your comparison falls apart at "in town square". Replace that with "the acre behind my house" and the answer is 100% different. I do have that right, and you are free to choose whether to be there, limited by my absolute right to determine your privilege to be there at all.

When a business goes PUBLIC it is then like Town square.

You cannot fire a gun in your business either.

A business that serves the public is not a private home. It is privately owned but not a private entity. It is more like public property than private property though some laws are different.

It is analogously more accurate to say a business is more like town square than your private home.

ernest_t_bass wrote:

enigmaax wrote: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.

It is about choice. Choice, and only choice. That is what a free market is. If there is smoking allowed at a restaurant, then you simply CHOOSE not to go there.

If you go into any other business, complain about said business... do you expect them to change their ways just for you, or ask you to choose another business?

With smoking, the BUSINESSES make a choice. Who do I want to lose? The smokers, or the non-smokers.

It should not be allowed, to harm others that choice should never be available.

You simply keep neglecting the fact that it is harm. It is not simply a choice to harm others.

I am 100% with qcb in this debate. I just can't see how anyone could be okay with the government stepping in and limiting personal freedoms.

The problem was already solved long ago with smoking/non-smoking areas. Apparently that wasn't good enough.

BCSbunk wrote:It should not be allowed, to harm others that choice should never be available.

You simply keep neglecting the fact that it is harm. It is not simply a choice to harm others.

It HARMS businesses.
It HARMS smokers, taking away some of their freedom.
It HARMS the economy, when these businesses lose business.
It HARMS our freedoms as a country.

I'm not an idiot. I KNOW that it is unhealthy, and that 2nd hand smoke kills. If I walk into a restaurant with the kids, and there is smoking... I'm not going to ask that the laws be changed. I simply will not go there with my kids any more.

WHO THE HELL AM I to tell this business how to operate? I am ONE person. They should be able to do what they want. THEY are not harming anyone. The second hand smoke is, and it is your choice to stay away from it.

justincredible wrote: I am 100% with qcb in this debate. I just can't see how anyone could be okay with the government stepping in and limiting personal freedoms.

Well, shit.

queencitybuckeye wrote:

justincredible wrote: I am 100% with qcb in this debate. I just can't see how anyone could be okay with the government stepping in and limiting personal freedoms.

Well, shit.

Sucks, doesn't it?

ytownfootball wrote: The problem was already solved long ago with smoking/non-smoking areas. Apparently that wasn't good enough.

This seems to be an area where protection of my rights isn't enough, I won't stop until you have none.

BCSbunk wrote:
It should not be allowed, to harm others that choice should never be available.

You simply keep neglecting the fact that it is harm. It is not simply a choice to harm others.

So my property is totally surrounded by farm fields. Do I have the right to insist that the farmers don't spray their chemicals (far more dangerous than cigarette smoke BTW) since some of it will enter the air on my property? Or do they have some right to do what they do with the realization that it is impossible for people to live in a way that has no effect on others?

Let's throw this out there.

Overeating leads to obesity, and the restaurants should cut back their portions, and not allow people to order so much... right? ... right?

Obesity isn't healthy.

What about spicy food? Can we next make a law that restaurants can't make food that is too spicy? It may lead to gastro-intestinal problems.

What about alcohol? It makes me drunk, and when I leave the restaurant, and hit a tree... isn't it the restaurants fault?

ernest_t_bass wrote: Let's throw this out there.


What about alcohol? It makes me drunk, and when I leave the restaurant, and hit a tree... isn't it the restaurants fault?

Sadly, the wrong side has won this one.

The arguement is this.....If I'm a business owner, and I want to cater to the smoking crowd, I am prevented by law from doing so. Smoking is NOT an illegal activity (as is prostitution), therefore if I alert non smokers that smoking is allowed in my establishment I should not be prevented from doing so.


enigmaxx wrote:
"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?"

There are a number of business that have suffered at the hands of the bans...Bars, American Legion clubs... So yeah, they walk out of the establishments, or spend less time there because of their habit.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/07/smokebanupdate/

The law is joke, anyway. It is selectively enforced and many counties don't have the manpower or the money to be smoking police.

HitsRus - They didn't lose customers to other places who can allow smoking because it is banned everywhere. If people started staying home because they couldn't smoke, apparently the business itself isn't worth that much to begin. I don't remember any places like that promoting themselves as a place to go to smoke.

They didn't lose customers to other places who can allow smoking because it is banned everywhere.

They lost customers. It doesn't where those customers went or why they went there. Lost customers equals lost revenue which equals lost jobs.