HitsRus wrote: 'Bans' should be rejected by all freedom loving Americans as a matter of principle....especially ballot initiatives which leave no room for discussion reconsideration or compromise. 'Regulation', if necessary at all, should be left in the hands of the legislature where all sides can get a fair hearing.

Excellent post. I fully agree. I will say the lack of an option to regulate, like alcohol (where you sell a limited number of licenses), is fully because of the hidden agenda at play here, which is to severely limit smoking by taking away places you can smoke.

I've made the point many times that these smoking bans are nothing more than backdoor prohibition. I am not accusing supporters of that, but I do believe it is the ultimate goal of the main proponents driving this legislation. CA is a great example - one by one taking away places people can smoke. They've already passed or considered bans on smoking in your car with children (and with new developments on "3rd hand smoke", you can see where that is going) and in apartments should your neighbor be able to smell it (as if the amount of smoke from one person going out their window and into yours poses a risk). The beach...It goes on and on.

Voted against it, but was happy it passed. If I didn't want to dine/drink in smoke, I didn't.

Glory Days wrote: haha everyone has to rememeber, we the people voted on it. the ohio state legislature and executive body did not do this by themselves. i love the government is doing this blah blah blah...haha no, WE did it.

Yes THE PEOPLE voted on it..this is not the proprietors deciding what should be and can be allowed in their OWN establishments..but the people...
Well lets just play what if..............You own a small family mom n pop grocery/snack place...You serve soda drinks...BUT "We the "people" decide that soda pop is harmful (which it is especially with the obesity in this country) and "The People" vote do BAN soft drinks served in restaurants. Now your Mom-n-Pop store suffers a drop in business because you are banned from selling someting that is completely legal. YOU the owner did not get the choice of whether to sell or not to sell this product. Is this fair? You say it won't happen?...Don't bet on it

Another thing..YOU the people...have the right to open your own restaurant and make it NON Smoking if you want...sure is nice to have rights isn't it................

adog, I agree, but someone will come on here and say... "There is no 'second hand' pop."

The Founding Fathers had no idea about the medical risks inherent in being either a tobacco user or a victim of second hand smoke. The Constitution was written in a very general way for a reason. The Founding Fathers were very wise in allowing latitude in the document for changes that would occur as time went by. I think it is almost totally false to say that the Founding Fathers would be appalled to hear about these violations of basic freedom if, when they were writing the document, they were privy to these same medical revelations that have come to light since the original construction of the document. If it is a serious health risk, we might have even seen some of the most addicted Colonial Leaders, trying to quit smoking and chewing. You have to remember that these gentlemen were the smartest guys we had. (Although it did take a little too long to get the Slavery issue cleared up....)

adog wrote: Yes THE PEOPLE voted on it..this is not the proprietors deciding what should be and can be allowed in their OWN establishments..but the people...
Well lets just play what if..............You own a small family mom n pop grocery/snack place...You serve soda drinks...BUT "We the "people" decide that soda pop is harmful (which it is especially with the obesity in this country) and "The People" vote do BAN soft drinks served in restaurants. Now your Mom-n-Pop store suffers a drop in business because you are banned from selling someting that is completely legal. YOU the owner did not get the choice of whether to sell or not to sell this product. Is this fair? You say it won't happen?...Don't bet on it

Another thing..YOU the people...have the right to open your own restaurant and make it NON Smoking if you want...sure is nice to have rights isn't it................

yeah thats kinda how it works. i also have the privilege to drive on public roads...but not at 160 mph. you also have the privilege to open that resturant, just not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. you have the privilege to smoke, just not in a bar. notice i didnt use the word RIGHT.

Glory Days wrote:

adog wrote: Yes THE PEOPLE voted on it..this is not the proprietors deciding what should be and can be allowed in their OWN establishments..but the people...
Well lets just play what if..............You own a small family mom n pop grocery/snack place...You serve soda drinks...BUT "We the "people" decide that soda pop is harmful (which it is especially with the obesity in this country) and "The People" vote do BAN soft drinks served in restaurants. Now your Mom-n-Pop store suffers a drop in business because you are banned from selling someting that is completely legal. YOU the owner did not get the choice of whether to sell or not to sell this product. Is this fair? You say it won't happen?...Don't bet on it

Another thing..YOU the people...have the right to open your own restaurant and make it NON Smoking if you want...sure is nice to have rights isn't it................

yeah thats kinda how it works. i also have the privilege to drive on public roads...but not at 160 mph. you also have the privilege to open that resturant, just not in the middle of a residential neighborhood. you have the privilege to smoke, just not in a bar. notice i didnt use the word RIGHT.

But my point is not that I HAVE a right or privilege to smoke in a bar...The "RIGHT" goes to the owner of said bar whether smoking is allowed or not. Personally I do not smoke, but if I did and a bar owner had non smoking as his/her rule..GREAT....but other "people" do not have the RIGHT to take that choice away from the establishment owner.
Also your example of driving down the road at 160 MPH..That is a PUBLIC road where the gov't has every right to set the speed limit..Once again I go back to a PRIVATELY owned establishment not having control of what goes on inside his/her place

adog wrote: But my point is not that I HAVE a right or privilege to smoke in a bar...The "RIGHT" goes to the owner of said bar whether smoking is allowed or not. Personally I do not smoke, but if I did and a bar owner had non smoking as his/her rule..GREAT....but other "people" do not have the RIGHT to take that choice away from the establishment owner.
Also your example of driving down the road at 160 MPH..That is a PUBLIC road where the gov't has every right to set the speed limit..Once again I go back to a PRIVATELY owned establishment not having control of what goes on inside his/her place

see that is where you are wrong. that privately owned bar is not like your home. but lets try another example. its perfectly legal to sell alcohol in a bar.....try selling it after 2am and its illegal. you also cannot bring a gun into a bar. heck, you cant even leave the front door of the bar open. there are certain rules and regulations that go along with operating a place like a bar, and one of them is no smoking. i am also not old enough to know personally, but i like history and seem to remember a time when privately owned establishments used to control what type of people were allowed inside or where they were allowed to sit inside. how did that work out?

Glory Days wrote:

adog wrote: But my point is not that I HAVE a right or privilege to smoke in a bar...The "RIGHT" goes to the owner of said bar whether smoking is allowed or not. Personally I do not smoke, but if I did and a bar owner had non smoking as his/her rule..GREAT....but other "people" do not have the RIGHT to take that choice away from the establishment owner.
Also your example of driving down the road at 160 MPH..That is a PUBLIC road where the gov't has every right to set the speed limit..Once again I go back to a PRIVATELY owned establishment not having control of what goes on inside his/her place

see that is where you are wrong. that privately owned bar is not like your home. but lets try another example. its perfectly legal to sell alcohol in a bar.....try selling it after 2am and its illegal. you also cannot bring a gun into a bar. heck, you cant even leave the front door of the bar open. there are certain rules and regulations that go along with operating a place like a bar, and one of them is no smoking. i am also not old enough to know personally, but i like history and seem to remember a time when privately owned establishments used to control what type of people were allowed inside or where they were allowed to sit inside. how did that work out?

The example you use with alcohol is a good one to use. Personally I do not agree with this one either, but it has been deemed to help society to get the drinkers out of a bar at whatever time is decided by some guys in gov't. have no idea how that helps society but so be it. The point you are missing is if something is legal which it still is to smoke, the bar owner should have the right to say if smoking is allowed... not you or I. And Glory..read the sign when you walk into any establishment..it reads.."We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"..so I guess they still do kinda regulate who drinks in their establishment....and rightfully so as it is..ONCE again..THEIR establishment
Now Glory do me a favor...tell me something that you really enjoy doing..because I will then go out, get petitions signed, and get it on the ballot to be decided by others whether you are allowed to participate in it. Is that right?

adog wrote: The example you use with alcohol is a good one to use. Personally I do not agree with this one either, but it has been deemed to help society to get the drinkers out of a bar at whatever time is decided by some guys in gov't. have no idea how that helps society but so be it. The point you are missing is if something is legal which it still is to smoke, the bar owner should have the right to say if smoking is allowed... not you or I. And Glory..read the sign when you walk into any establishment..it reads.."We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"..so I guess they still do kinda regulate who drinks in their establishment....and rightfully so as it is..ONCE again..THEIR establishment
Now Glory do me a favor...tell me something that you really enjoy doing..because I will then go out, get petitions signed, and get it on the ballot to be decided by others whether you are allowed to participate in it. Is that right?

yes, that is right. how else is it supposed to be done? and that right to refuse service thing is a little more complicated than you make it sound. its there not just so the owner can pick and choose who he wants in, but to protect the patrons and the establishment from damages and there has to be a legit reason. for example, kicking out drunks, not allowing rival gangs to be in the establishment, keeping people out because it has already reached maximum allowable capacity, and non customers.

Glory Days wrote:

adog wrote: The example you use with alcohol is a good one to use. Personally I do not agree with this one either, but it has been deemed to help society to get the drinkers out of a bar at whatever time is decided by some guys in gov't. have no idea how that helps society but so be it. The point you are missing is if something is legal which it still is to smoke, the bar owner should have the right to say if smoking is allowed... not you or I. And Glory..read the sign when you walk into any establishment..it reads.."We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"..so I guess they still do kinda regulate who drinks in their establishment....and rightfully so as it is..ONCE again..THEIR establishment
Now Glory do me a favor...tell me something that you really enjoy doing..because I will then go out, get petitions signed, and get it on the ballot to be decided by others whether you are allowed to participate in it. Is that right?

yes, that is right. how else is it supposed to be done? and that right to refuse service thing is a little more complicated than you make it sound. its there not just so the owner can pick and choose who he wants in, but to protect the patrons and the establishment from damages and there has to be a legit reason. for example, kicking out drunks, not allowing rival gangs to be in the establishment, keeping people out because it has already reached maximum allowable capacity, and non customers.

lol..I understand my example of the "right to refuse service" would get a response ( was laughing as I typed it) but I think you see my point. It should be the owners decision if smoking is allowed or not. If all the do- gooders that try to tell me what is good for me by regulating it, would instead go out, open their own establishment, make it non smoking, they should make a killing if you believe them. If that many people were looking for a NON smoking place before the ban..somebody would have already jumped on it and opened a non smoking establishment to capitalize on it. I have no problem with someone doing something I might not agree with (as long as it is legal) but I have the right NOT to patronize that establishment if I feel that strongly about it. Now do not say ..yea but all places allow smoking..." go back to my earlier post about opening and running a NON Smoking facility...

i pointed this out a few pages ago. but before the ban if someone opened up a non smoking bar, there wouldnt be anything to stop smokers from entering that bar and smoking. then smokers would have brought a discrimination lawsuit against them for not allowing smokers.

Glory Days wrote: i pointed this out a few pages ago. but before the ban if someone opened up a non smoking bar, there wouldnt be anything to stop smokers from entering that bar and smoking. then smokers would have brought a discrimination lawsuit against them for not allowing smokers.

???? huh? A little stretch there..There is/was a restaurant here in NW OH that has ALWAYS been non Smoking..which was their right and people that smoked respected. I understand the legal system is screwed up in this country, but in no way shape or form do I see a smoker winning a lawsuit for being asked/told not to smoke in an establishment. Again..this establishment that bans smoking would be in the right because it is THEIR place to make this decision. I would be equally against a bar forced to allow smoking on the grounds you stipulate.

Glory Days wrote: i pointed this out a few pages ago. but before the ban if someone opened up a non smoking bar, there wouldnt be anything to stop smokers from entering that bar and smoking. then smokers would have brought a discrimination lawsuit against them for not allowing smokers.

LOL, neither smokers nor non-smokers are a protected class.

gut wrote:

Glory Days wrote: i pointed this out a few pages ago. but before the ban if someone opened up a non smoking bar, there wouldnt be anything to stop smokers from entering that bar and smoking. then smokers would have brought a discrimination lawsuit against them for not allowing smokers.

LOL, neither smokers nor non-smokers are a protected class.

you couldnt refuse service to someone because they were smoking.

Glory Days wrote:

gut wrote:

Glory Days wrote: i pointed this out a few pages ago. but before the ban if someone opened up a non smoking bar, there wouldnt be anything to stop smokers from entering that bar and smoking. then smokers would have brought a discrimination lawsuit against them for not allowing smokers.

LOL, neither smokers nor non-smokers are a protected class.

you couldnt refuse service to someone because they were smoking.

WHAT?!? Find me precedent on this.

adog wrote:

Glory Days wrote:

gut wrote:

Glory Days wrote: i pointed this out a few pages ago. but before the ban if someone opened up a non smoking bar, there wouldnt be anything to stop smokers from entering that bar and smoking. then smokers would have brought a discrimination lawsuit against them for not allowing smokers.

LOL, neither smokers nor non-smokers are a protected class.

you couldnt refuse service to someone because they were smoking.

WHAT?!? Find me precedent on this.

i already listed just about most of the legal reason you could refuse service to someone. and having that sign does not give you any more "right to refuse service" than a place without that sign.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html

There a number of legitimate reasons for a restaurant to refuse service, some of which include:

?Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble
?Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in
?Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed
?Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in
?Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.)
In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself.

remember i said BEFORE the ban. second hand smoke wasnt taken seriously for a long time and probably wouldnt have been found by a judge to be a good enough reason to refuse service.

No I know what the "refuse to service" means..I wanted you to give me case law of someone yelling discrimination for being told they could not smoke in a place the OWNER put in effect. Not being allowed to smoke is in no way discriminatory.

find me a place that had liqour licsense that legally did not allow smoking before the ban and wasnt just a local rule. unless that place was a private club that had membership, they couldnt.

basically, before the ban. refusing service to someone who smoked would have been probably treated the same as refusing service to someone who was a steelers fan.

Glory Days wrote:
you couldnt refuse service to someone because they were smoking.

Yes you could. What law would be broken in doing so? It's a behavior that is not permissable in your business. No different than having a dress code. You can't come in my business if you're smoking, how is that different not allowing you in with a tank top? The person is not being prevented from coming in, the person is not being discriminated against, it's an action that person takes that is not permissable.

ccrunner609 wrote:THis law didnt strip any person of any freedom. Smokers can still smoke cant they? Yes.

To stick to the redundancy, I'd say that it took freedom away from the owners of the establishments.

ernest_t_bass wrote: To stick to the redundancy, I'd say that it took freedom away from the owners of the establishments.

Ehhhh, why let the free market work this out when interfering politicians can score some cheap votes?

gut wrote: Yes you could. What law would be broken in doing so? It's a behavior that is not permissable in your business. No different than having a dress code. You can't come in my business if you're smoking, how is that different not allowing you in with a tank top? The person is not being prevented from coming in, the person is not being discriminated against, it's an action that person takes that is not permissable.

because you cant refuse service to someone for an arbitrary reason. which many years ago, smoking would have fallen into that category. the mindset was different back then. as for the dress code, you can probably show people act differently when they are dressed up than when they come off the street in shorts and a tank top. in that case the establishment is looking to keep trouble out. for example, i went to a bar in cleveland where you couldnt wear a hat, their theory was they didnt want different gang members coming in wearing their hat to one side or a certain color.

gut wrote: Ehhhh, why let the free market work this out when interfering politicians can score some cheap votes?

how were the votes cheap?

Glory Days wrote:
because you cant refuse service to someone for an arbitrary reason

Then would you care to explain how workplaces banned smoking (successfully and legally) before the laws were passed? There's no difference. It's a behavior, not discrimination, and even then smokers are not a protected class.

Again, show me the law that is violated.

Glory Days wrote: find me a place that had liqour licsense that legally did not allow smoking before the ban and wasnt just a local rule. unless that place was a private club that had membership, they couldnt.

basically, before the ban. refusing service to someone who smoked would have been probably treated the same as refusing service to someone who was a steelers fan.

Wait a minute now....you say unless they are a Private club huh..well then, why are these same PRIVATE clubs under this same "law" banning smoking? And to your question of finding a bar that did not allow smoking before the ban...probably can't (unless you count the bars in airports...some smoke free others not, guess which ones were busier)...because of supply and demand..so now you say the "peoples" choice dictates what a Private ownership can and cannot allow? Again..I will say...if the business was out there for a smoke free bar, restaurant, whatever...somebody would have opened 1 up. Stil goes back as ernest says....took the freedom and rights of the estblishments owners away