FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

What about the people who work there? I mean yea they can choose not to work there. But isn't the smoke some kind of OSHA thing.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

And while you might think you have "private property" if you run a "public" business...you don't. Try to refuse service to a specific race or religion, Have a "business practice" of getting your patrons as drunk as possible and encouraging them to drive home, have a "business practice" of only serving rotten food.

All those things are "private" business practices in which the government will not allow you to engage.

The idea of "private property" in 'public business' has always amused me.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

FRT the business DOES have the right to chose to allow people to smoke....they just have to make the establisment "21 and up" or sell memberships making it a "private club"

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Actually, that's a great point. But I was only approaching it from the consumer perspective, and not an employee perspective as that is all has been brought up in the thread.

And he's right about this, actually. Businesses -can- have people smoke, it's not a universal ban. At the heart of it, it's just a ban on any establishment that allows minors in - similar to alcohol restrictions as I think about it.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

The idea of private property has always amused me. Nothing is private. But what you describe is not really applicable. They can serve rotten food if they tell the customer, and probably have them sign some sort of waiver. As for encouraging drunk driving, well that is a hazard to others outside the business so of course this is illegal.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

not in elkhart indiana

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

But that is due to local city and county ordinances, Jared.

That has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. Depending on how the proposed legislation is implemented, it may even override Elkhart's ordinances.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

You can't say they have the right to choose and then add conditions. That's like saying, yea you can choose to breathe but oh by the way you need to be 21 and up and buy this membership.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

regardless blaen
law only requires you to be 18 to smoke

im talking about smoking bans in general
i didn't start this thread to only discuss the specific legislation being proposed in the state of indiana

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

And I've discussed the rationale behind smoking bans.

Specifically, that individual rights trump property rights.

FRT_Fun

iTrader: (19)

personally I've never understood individual rights. Seems like it's a massive contradiction.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

yes i do recall seeing menu's before saying that sunny side up eggs may not be fully cooked as far as the yolk is concerned

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

For any of you who think second hand smoke is going to kill you, watch this:

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

This is something that would be thread-worthy on it's own, and we'd never begin to discuss all the little details involved.

In this case, second-hand smoke is considered a hazardous substance by the federal government, and a potential carcinogen.

The basic theory is that you have the Right (capital R, Bill of Rights Right) to not have someone deluge you in hazardous substances and carcinogens in your daily life if you do not have a choice in the matter.

Hence why I support a universal smoking ban on all government buildings, but not private property.

(Edit) Much <3 for Gearhead's link, someone show our federal legislators that.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

agreed 100%

samnavy

iTrader: (7)

When I was young and retarded, there were no smoking bans in restaurants and bars... so I went and hated how shitty it made me feel the next day and what I smelled like... but I went anyways because I was young and retarded.

Then smoking bans started coming around and I loved it. Going to a bar didn't have to suck anymore. I could get drunk and take a chick home and not smell like a Pakistani taxi-cab from Pakistan.

Now that I'm nice and old at age 35, I wouldn't be caught dead in a smoking bar/restaurant. It's just not worth it to me. There is nothing in a bar that I need to see or do bad enough to subject myself to that crap.

On the other hand, Jared is exactly right. If you choose to work or patronize a bar that allows smoking, then enjoy your reduced lifespan.

On the other hand, those lower-socioeconomic status types who choose to smoke and give themselves cancer are going to get their medical care out of my tax dollars, so I'm all in favor of making it as hard as governmentally possible for people to smoke. Perhaps if you had to show proof of private healthcare to enter a smoking bar, then I'd be all cool with it.

TNTUBA

iTrader: (1)

Or proof of private health insurance or "financial responsibility" in order to purchase "smokes." I'm sorry but with all the empirical data showing just how dangerous smoking is...if you are dumb enough to still do it you probably shouldn't be allowed out in public anyway.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

i liked EVERYTHING you said up until this part

wow
you want to justify legislation that infringes on our rights to make up for legislation that infringes on our rights?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I agree with Samnavy completely on the non-smoking points.

I'm scared to agree with statements like this however.

I'd rather the gov't not get involved in taking more things away from us :(.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

Smoking is dangerous, second hand smoke is wayyyyyyy over hyped.