|
smoking ban-property rights
as if it isnt bad enough there already is one for my city
i got this email today January 9, 2012 Keep Private Property Rights in Indiana. Fight the Statewide Smoking Ban! Dear Indiana C4L Member, The government does not have the right to invade private property and force its will on the private businesses of our great state. The smoking ban is not about people's health. It's about who decides what you can and cannot do on your own private property! If you do not fight for your rights TODAY, the government will not stop here. The nanny state will continue to expand and invade all of your private property, including your home and your car. Click here to sign our petition. Not only is this an extreme violation of your private property rights, it is extremely damaging to the economy because it drives some people to stay home instead of go out. The people who wanted the ban have not increased their traffic to these businesses to make up for lost business and revenue. As a result, many smoking places around the state are going out of business where bans have been instituted. Just ask Fort Wayne. You've heard the argument: the business owners' property rights and smokers' personal liberty are small sacrifices for the greater good of society. Wrong. Liberty lost is never good for society. In the words of John Stuart Mill: "[T]he danger which threatens human nature is not excess but deficiency of personal impulses and preferences.” A truly free society allows diversity of choice, as well as diversity of lifestyle and opinion. The greatest threat to health, liberty, and happiness is a government that knows no bounds. There can be no denying that the smoking ban is a step in the direction of tyranny. Not only that, but the ban diverts law enforcement resources away from serious crimes, like rape, robbery, and murder. This isn't about smoking. This is about liberty, individual sovereignty, and the tyranny of the majority. Together, we must stand up for our liberty. Click this link to sign the petition today! For Liberty, Deb Wells Indiana Interim State Coordinator Campaign for Liberty P.S. Now is the time to stand up for your private property rights. Sign and forward this to all of your friends to do the same. P.P.S. To get involved in this issue, contact Melissa Burger directly at Mline73@aol.com. |
This is wrong and distorted on many levels.
Have you researched the proposed legislation at all? I'm not saying it is good legislation, but rather saying that the people involved in sending you that email are slimy, lying bastards. |
no i havent yet blaen
you are right i should yet i dont imagine them saying there is a proposed ban when there isnt one and of course any ban would be a bad ban |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817478)
no i havent yet blaen
you are right i should yet i dont imagine them saying there is a proposed ban when there isnt one and of course any ban would be a bad ban What I am saying is that the people involved are distorting, twisting, and IMO flat out lying about what is going on. That's where my problem with that email stems from. As for the actual law: I don't think it's a particularly good law. There are several solid arguments against it. But what they are talking about has little to do with the actual law and the reasoning behind it. Instead, they are fear mongering and giving half truths to try to drum up support. |
Can somebody sum this stuff up please? What are you two talking about?
|
making it illegal to smoke in public places that are privately owned
for example resturaunts taking away the property rights away from the property owner |
Originally Posted by samnavy
(Post 817577)
Can somebody sum this stuff up please? What are you two talking about?
Basically, the proposed law is an argument that individual rights trump property rights, while trying to blatantly ignore that people have the option of entering said property. It's a bad law, but the email in the OP is just....disgustingly twisting what it is. |
blaen, Campaign for Liberty is the organization that Ron Paul started using his 2008 pres'n run donations. I doubt that they are "slimy lying bastards", wrt to this email.
A quick google search yielded multiple hits that suggest it's VERY real: https://www.google.com/search?client...hannel=suggest |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 817591)
blaen, Campaign for Liberty is the organization that Ron Paul started using his 2008 pres'n run donations. I doubt that they are "slimy lying bastards", wrt to this email.
A quick google search yielded multiple hits that suggest it's VERY real: https://www.google.com/search?client...hannel=suggest If you do not fight for your rights TODAY, the government will not stop here. The nanny state will continue to expand and invade all of your private property, including your home and your car. My argument has nothing to do with the law. I've said I agree it isn't a good law. |
We started the smoking ban thing here in Tennessee a few years ago and I LOVE it. I can now go sit at the bar at a resturant and not go home smelling like a took a nap in an ashtray. In Tennessee if you want to allow smoking you can...you just have to make the place 21 and up and or sell memberships.
|
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817598)
We started the smoking ban thing here in Tennessee a few years ago and I LOVE it. I can now go sit at the bar at a resturant and not go home smelling like a took a nap in an ashtray. In Tennessee if you want to allow smoking you can...you just have to make the place 21 and up and or sell memberships.
Things such as bars, casinos, etc. are explicitly exempted from the law - i.e., places that only people who can legally smoke can visit. I stand by previous commentary that I think it's a bad law, but what is being claimed does not match up to what it is. |
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817598)
We started the smoking ban thing here in Tennessee a few years ago and I LOVE it. I can now go sit at the bar at a resturant and not go home smelling like a took a nap in an ashtray. In Tennessee if you want to allow smoking you can...you just have to make the place 21 and up and or sell memberships.
but the fact of the matter is that the property is privately owned and the government has no place to tell the owner what he can and can't do what is being argued here is not your convenience but what gives one the right to tell the property owner how to run his business |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817600)
I stand by previous commentary that I think it's a bad law, but what is being claimed does not match up to what it is.
|
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817605)
it might be convenient for you to go to others peoples property and have everyone doing or not doing what you want them to do
but the fact of the matter is that the property is privately owned and the government has no place to tell the owner what he can and can't do what is being argued here is not your convenience but what gives one the right to tell the property owner how to run his business This is essentially a law that prioritizes individual rights over property rights. The problem is that the legislators stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed "LALALALALA!" when it came to the fact that said individuals do not have to go into said private business. It's not a good law, but because of the fingers-in-the-ears part, not because of prioritizing individuals rights over property rights. The above logic is used to ban smoking in all government buildings, and quite frankly I agree with a smoke ban when it comes to government buildings. But not when it comes to private property. Individual rights should not be prioritized over property rights in any situation that does not present a clear danger IMO. |
for example i am very careful about what i eat
it would be much easier for me if every resturaunt was required to offer 100% whole grains but what gives me the right to tell them what to serve their paying customers? if they do not have what i want it is my right to go somewhere else |
Wait... People still smoke? :rofl::rofl: noobz
|
I have a few friends in the food services industry...and they have said exactly the opposite as the E-Mail. One friend is a GM at what we'll call a 4 star restaurant...Not an Applebees but not a Ruth's Chris either and she said the store sales actually went up significantly the year after the ban was instituted and this was in a down economy. Her opinion...NOT MINE...BUT HER'S was that smokers are typically of lower socioeconomic status and the cloud of smoke at the restaurant bar would keep non smokers with money to spend away. My opinion is these smoking bans wouldn't be going into place if they weren't a response to popular demand.
|
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817610)
for example i am very careful about what i eat
it would be much easier for me if every resturaunt was required to offer 100% whole grains but what gives me the right to tell them what to serve their paying customers? if they do not have what i want it is my right to go somewhere else However, you do have the right to not be in a private business with a clear danger to your health - for instance, poisonous food or air with carcinogens. That is the logic being used for the smoke ban, in that cigarette smoke is considered harmful by the federal government. However, the legislators are choosing to ignore the fact that you don't have to go into a smoking restaurant. |
What is so wrong with the business being able to choose though TNTUBA? If a business wants to allow smoking, and some customers do not like it, they can CHOOSE to leave. Just like a business should have the right to refuse service if they don't want you smoking on their property.
|
while the ban may help or hurt some business (i have spoken with local bar employees after the ban that has been in place for some time now in my city and it does in fact hurt their business) that is not the point
the point is what gives me the right to tell you what you can do on your privately owned property? |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817613)
You don't have that right.
However, you do have the right to not be in a private business with a clear danger to your health - for instance, poisonous food or air with carcinogens. That is the logic being used for the smoke ban, in that cigarette smoke is considered harmful by the federal government. However, the legislators are choosing to ignore the fact that you don't have to go into a smoking restaurant. |
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. |
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"
|
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun
(Post 817616)
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.
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" |
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817617)
The idea of "private property" in 'public business' has alway amused me.
|
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817618)
....they just have to make the establisment "21 and up"
not in elkhart indiana |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817623)
:rofl:
not in elkhart indiana That has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. Depending on how the proposed legislation is implemented, it may even override Elkhart's ordinances. |
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817618)
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"
|
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 |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817628)
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 Specifically, that individual rights trump property rights. |
personally I've never understood individual rights. Seems like it's a massive contradiction.
|
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun
(Post 817620)
They can serve rotten food if they tell the customer, and probably have them sign some sort of waiver.
|
Second hand smoke is BULLSH!T
For any of you who think second hand smoke is going to kill you, watch this:
|
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun
(Post 817634)
personally I've never understood individual rights. Seems like it's a massive contradiction.
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. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817637)
Hence why I support a universal smoking ban on all government buildings, but not private property.
|
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by samnavy
(Post 817643)
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.
wow you want to justify legislation that infringes on our rights to make up for legislation that infringes on our rights? |
I agree with Samnavy completely on the non-smoking points.
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817649)
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.
I'd rather the gov't not get involved in taking more things away from us :(. |
Smoking is dangerous, second hand smoke is wayyyyyyy over hyped.
|
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817639)
agreed 100%
Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE. |
^I was trying to be funny, but the revolution isn't as far away as you think. The more the gov't gives my money away to poor people who are poor because they're stupid and like it that way, the more I want to lead the charge.
|
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817656)
So you support someones right to smoke in their own house?
Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE. privately owned public place |
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817656)
So you support someones right to smoke in their own house?
Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE. It may potentially change my stance significantly on this. Businesses open to the general public occupy an interesting position legally. |
tntuba are you trying to tell me that if i start a business that the government owns the property?
edit i open it to the public to enter if they wish im not forcing anyone to breathe second hand smoke |
Again...there is LONG standing legal precedent that if your "privately owned public place" serves the GENERAL PUBLIC you don't have the same rights as you would if the property were say your home. The ONLY way you can keep those PRIVATE rights is to make the place a PRIVATE CLUB. I.E. You can choose not to let African Americans into your home...you CAN'T chose not to serve them in your PUBLIC restaurant.
Your argument that the owner of "privately owned public property" has the same rights as privately owned private property is simply wrong. |
Originally Posted by jared8783
(Post 817660)
tntuba are you trying to tell me that if i start a business that the government owns the property?
edit i open it to the public to enter if they wish im not forcing anyone to breathe second hand smoke |
After some research on it, TNTuba's right on this.
I need to do a lot more than the cursory research I've done, but yeah. TNTuba's right. Research has changed my stance. Short of ignoring supreme court decisions, I have no way of justifying earlier statements about a business open to the public that is not age or otherwise restricted. |
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817661)
Again...there is LONG standing legal precedent that if your "privately owned public place" serves the GENERAL PUBLIC you don't have the same rights as you would if the property were say your home.
Business owners' property rights should be respected. If they choose to make their bar a smoking bar, that's their choice. Anyone who doesn't want to breathe 2nd hand smoke (like me), will go spend their money in a non-smoking bar instead. |
If you do not fight for your rights TODAY, the government will not stop here. The nanny state will continue to expand and invade all of your private property, including your home and your car.
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817594)
The email is classical alarmist tripe.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 817679)
But the point is correct. Statism creeps forward relentlessly. We're like the frog slowly being boiled to death. It's 2 steps forward and 1 step back for statism. The only way to prevent the relentless march is to fight it every step of the way.
The point may in general be correct, but if you want to get people up in arms over something like this.... Do it for something that matters, something that is important. Like SOPA. That piece of ---- shouldn't even be considered. But this law? Small ------- peanuts compared to the insanity that is SOPA. THAT is everything the OP says and more. This law? Meh. It's not even an attack on "rights" (based on supreme court decisions) as the OP claims, it's just a simple interpretation that individual rights trump property rights. |
The "good or bad" of those precedents was not the matter of debate in this thread and are a very subjective matters of opinion. The simple fact is we DON'T live in a totally free society...and I dare say VERY FEW would want to live in a totally free society anyway. Again wither these precedents exist is a matter of fact, their merit is a matter of opinion with no right or wrong answer.
|
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817656)
Again is it "stare decisis" that if your "private business" serves the "general public"...it isn't PRIVATE.
http://www.9thousandfeet.com/blog/wp...mer-sickle.jpg |
Hope this goes through nationwide.
|
Originally Posted by TNTUBA
(Post 817661)
Again...there is LONG standing legal precedent that if your "privately owned public place" serves the GENERAL PUBLIC you don't have the same rights as you would if the property were say your home. The ONLY way you can keep those PRIVATE rights is to make the place a PRIVATE CLUB. I.E. You can choose not to let African Americans into your home...you CAN'T chose not to serve them in your PUBLIC restaurant.
Your argument that the owner of "privately owned public property" has the same rights as privately owned private property is simply wrong. |
Originally Posted by jbrown7815
(Post 817819)
qft
|
pft, smokers have been 2nd class citizens in nyc for as long as I remember. People here make a big scene when I smoke odorless e-cigs indoors.
|
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 817680)
The legal basis behind this is individual vs. property rights, Jason.
Why does a customer have the "individual right" to demand that a given bar be smoke-free? That's like demanding that the beer is $1 each. The relationship between bar owner and customer is voluntary on both sides. Deal or no deal. If the bar owner prefers to attract smoking customers then non-smokers can simply take their money elsewhere. |
smoking is gross and it IS for second class citizens. booya
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 817866)
Are you talking about the smoking ban?
Why does a customer have the "individual right" to demand that a given bar be smoke-free? That's like demanding that the beer is $1 each. The relationship between bar owner and customer is voluntary on both sides. Deal or no deal. If the bar owner prefers to attract smoking customers then non-smokers can simply take their money elsewhere. Like I have said repeatedly, I don't like the law, but it's not the OMGWTFINVASIONOFRIGHTS that SOPA is. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands