smoking ban-property rights - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-09-2012, 07:14 PM   #1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default smoking ban-property rights

as if it isnt bad enough there already is one for my city

i got this email today

Quote:
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 [email protected].
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 07:20 PM   #2
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 07:26 PM   #3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

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
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 07:29 PM   #4
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
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
I'm not saying that any kind of ban is a good ban (Equivalently, I'm not saying any kind of ban is a bad ban...), I'm just saying nothing on it. It's the same as I'm saying nothing about the legislation.

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:20 PM   #5
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
samnavy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
Posts: 6,020
Total Cats: 175
Default

Can somebody sum this stuff up please? What are you two talking about?
samnavy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:25 PM   #6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

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
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:28 PM   #7
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samnavy View Post
Can somebody sum this stuff up please? What are you two talking about?
See his OP.

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:29 PM   #8
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

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
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:32 PM   #9
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
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
What is being said in the email and what the actual law is are a bit different, Jason. I doubt RP still has much influence on the organization with quotes such as this:

Quote:
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.
The email is classical alarmist tripe.

My argument has nothing to do with the law. I've said I agree it isn't a good law.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:35 PM   #10
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 157
Default

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.
TNTUBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:37 PM   #11
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
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.
This is very similar to the actual proposal going on in Indiana actually.

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:43 PM   #12
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNTUBA View Post
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.
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
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:44 PM   #13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
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.
can you elaborate please?
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:47 PM   #14
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
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
As I said before, Jared.

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:47 PM   #15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

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
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:49 PM   #16
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,293
Total Cats: 180
Default

Wait... People still smoke? noobz
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:49 PM   #17
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, Tn
Posts: 1,038
Total Cats: 157
Default

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.
TNTUBA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:50 PM   #18
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jared8783 View Post
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
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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:52 PM   #19
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
 
FRT_Fun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,293
Total Cats: 180
Default

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.
FRT_Fun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 10:52 PM   #20
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 639
Total Cats: 2
Default

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?
jared8783 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help - Stock Balancer and Fastforward overlay pulleys Frank_and_Beans Supercharger Discussion 13 09-12-2016 09:17 PM
Someone help me with AE ihiryu MEGAsquirt 33 10-08-2015 05:56 PM
Back to Stock Part Out!! Turbo Parts, MS2 Enhanced 01-05, Suspension, and MOAR! StratoBlue1109 Miata parts for sale/trade 16 10-02-2015 10:39 AM
Odd Steering issue interestedofold Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 09-29-2015 02:42 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM.