really?
thats news to me
:bowrofl:
just kidding
most of us involved in political threads weren't born yesterday and already understand this

heck i cant even go fishing in a pond in my backyard without getting permission from uncle sam

well....i hope u sure dont feel this way
and this statement is partially why i think this country is hopeless
that and the fact that most citizens pay little if any attention to politics
:hustler:

of course screwed up stuff is gonna happen if we do nothing to stop it
that's a no brainer that most seem to ignore

ok so blaen you say supreme court decisions support this
can someone post links to these decisions?
specifically i want to see a time era and then if someone does that i will attempt to see how that lines up with decisions made closer to the origin of the country

Find any supreme court decision supporting the regulation of something for the health of the citizens over business interests. There are numerous ones. I rolled my eyes after the third or fourth case that repeatedly gave the same decisions.

This is based on, as I said, the federal government's shennanigans declaring cigarette smoke a hazardous "waste" (Not the right word, but whatevs) and a potential carcinogen.

The state claims they have the right to regulate smoke based on the individual right to not be exposed to hazardous "waste" and potential carcinogens, and this individual right trumps property rights. If it goes into law, the only thing that will change it is the Indiana legislature, not any legal challenges. I don't support the law, and I don't like it. But that's the legal reality for this law. And like I said, it's the legislators putting their fingers in their ears screaming "LALALALALA!" in that the individual's "right" is not affected because they don't have to go into the business if they don't want to.

well of course our government has an excuse to justify it

the question is
how does this line up with the founding fathers?

Well, the founding fathers said the supreme court was the ultimate decider of the legality of a law....

Which is why I changed my stance. I may not like it, and I may think it's a stupid law. But unless the supreme court revises their decision or takes a new case, the fathers would have probably said "Suck it up Nancy". I would imagine they had numerous cases that were decided in the supreme court that they would have violently disagreed with - but they abided by those decisions nonetheless.

they never said the supreme court were dictators

they translate laws
nothing more

translations dont "update with the times"

They also never said the legislators were dictators. The legislators have tools to address shitty supreme court decisions, incidentally. But why don't they use them?

We have direct influence on our legislators. With 41% voter turnouts though, only a minority gets the government they want.

And with that low of a voter turnout, we get the government we deserve.

I 100% feel this way. I in NO WAY would want to live in a lawless society which is the ONLY 100% free society. And for you to say that a lawless society is the only hope this nation has SCARES the hell out of me. Rules and Order are the keystones of ALL society. And I'm sorry but in a nation of over 350MM people there is NO WAY everyone is going to get their way.

I can end this thread quickly. Don't smoke in public restaurants if it's against the law. If you don't like the law vote out of office the people that made the law and vote in people that will change the law. If you can't vote them out of office apparently a majority of your voting peers did not agree with you and our great nations process of governing has worked yet again.

p.s. If you REALLY think that not smoking in public restaurants is the first step on a slippery slope leading to a police state you should really take some of your debating energy and take some time to educate yourself on US Corporate and business law.

qft!!!!!!!!

being free does not equal a lawless society
i did not say that

and also when did i say that banning smoking in public business was the first step down a slippery slop to a police

you have clearly resorted to placing words in my mouth

you're just being ridiculous

LOL I'm the one being ridiculous? You have started a 4 page "debate" thread when you don't even have a simple understanding of the laws behind the topic you want to debate. I'm not at all trying to be an ass. I am however encouraging you to at least be familiar with the topic for which you are so willing to fall on a sword.

the government telling me what adults can and can not do in a privately owned business does not fit my definition of freedom
nor does it any others

i asked a sincere question about the supreme courts actions in such cases over the entire life of our country and if their decisions have perhaps changed over time

i truly do not know the answer to the question

instead of answering that question
you choose to put words in my mouth

i can't respect that

If you want to debate it is not my job to educate you on the topic you chose. I'm not at all asking for your respect. I am simply encouraging YOU to educate YOURSELF. That is part of the problem with political debate such as this. Far too many people rely on "They said" facts or simply partial truths provided with a slant from their media outlet of choice. Find the REAL truths for youself...and then you will be able to dig deeper and further to the REAL core problems for yourself and not rely on what was said on the news...or what was in a chain email you received.

lmao tnt
dont be silly
of course i am trying to find answers to my questions
im not just waiting for the guys on miata turbo

i want the input of others as well
others can show me things i did not find
i can show others things i found that they did not find

in addition to research i like to encourage others to research what i am researching then i have others do discuss said topic with

you are directing your posts to me as if i have no common sense


well no sh!t lol

This is not correct. There are at least 3 things which are more important checks or firewalls against gov't (2 are federal) tyranny:

1) State nullification - the States can decide that a Federal Law is unconstitutional and choose not to enforce it within their borders

2) Jury nullification - a jury can decide to let a man free that is technically guilty of violating an unjust law

3) Secession - we know how that turned out....

4) The 2nd Amendment...

TNTUBA it is the gov't that is the #1 violator of the law. In the case of the Federal Gov't, the vast majority of its laws are unconstitutional and outside its jurisdiction as per the 10th Amendment.

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws

Bureaucrats, special interest groups, and busybodies get their way and impose their will on the rest of us. That's tyranny.

i still remember why according to my public elementary school that we have gun rights

protection from tyranny

Smoke commies not cigarettes.

http://cloud.graphicleftovers.com/23...moking-gun.jpg

I assume that you are referring to "Federal gun laws nullification" which has been brought around out of the "10th Amendment Movement." While this legislation has been proposed in several states and passed in a few it has yet to be tested in the courts...but again read Cooper v Aaron. Keep in mind that the Federal Gun Laws Nullification bills currently passed or considered ONLY effect firearms manufactured in the state in question. So unless Smith and Wesson want's to put manufacturing facilities in all 50 states this will end up holding little power IMHO

You can also research how the federal government does, has and always will use federal funding to enforce it's will on the states. If a state makes too much of an issue over this issue they could end up with no federal funding for specific projects such as roads. See the State of SD v Doyle.


As for the over all power of the 10th Amendment. Read US v Sprague and US v Darby.


While at the core I agree with you...I just wanted to point these things out.

Right, and the Fed Gov isn't even supposed to be funded by direct taxation of the citizens. It was supposed to be funded mostly by the States.

Right now CA citizens for example, pays the Fed Gov more in direct income tax than the State gets back in funding... and with strings attached. What a f*cking crock of shite that is.

If the States got together and told the Fed Gov to f*ck off and rescind the 16th Amendment (income tax, which wasn't even properly ratified), they would get their power back.
Note that the 17th Amendment (direct election of senaturds), and the Federal Reserve, were maneuvered into place, by the same group of conspirators (google "colonel house" and the CFR).
All of which centralized power, not to mention the Fed Res ability to fund the Fed Gov with debt.

The Fed Gov as per the Constitution was a creation of the States for taking care of the few matters that are more efficiently taken of by a central authority. They did not mean to cede power to it in general. Again, secession was attempted, and look what happened.

Power always tends to centralize and grow.

The one country that resembles what the Founders wanted in this regard, than the USA does today, is Switzerland. (down to the militia defense) Citizens pay very low taxes to the Federation and much more to the Cantons (states). And law making is very decentralized, even towns have more laws than the Cantons. They did one thing right, which was to totally neuter the Federal gov't. Almost no power, and the head of the Federation isn't voted in, the post round robins among the governors of the Cantons.

It's past my bed time so I'm only going to deal with one of these tonight. Your claim that the 16th amendment to the constitution was not properly ratified:

Go read:
Miller v US
US v Stahl
USv Foster
Knoblauch v Commissioner
Stearman v Commissioner
and
Socia v Commissioner

This claim about the 16th amendment is one of the most often "quoted as fact" internet lies ever perpetuated.

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three‑fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

I'll deal with the rest tomorrow if I can remember.

You can't smoke in any public or private businesses here in Nebraska. Even bars. It's friggen awesome! I don't smell like an ashtray when I just wanted to get a burger and a beer.

I can guarantee that happened here as well. Costs went down for the restaurant/bar from cig burns and buying/installing/maintaining smoke eaters and more people came with families and ate. Sales were definitely up and costs were down.

you guys are the first i heard this from

when they first did this in my hometown all the bars still let u smoke
initially you only recieved a $100 a day fine. the bar owners paid it cuz when they didn't let people smoke they lost more than that

though with restaurants i can see business possibly going up

after the city realized that the fine had no effect on the bars they changed the law so that violators could loose their liquor license

Business dropped for about three months when the ban hit town as people went to the small towns around so they could smoke. After a couple of months driving 15 miles each way to a hole-in-the-wall they got tired of it and they all came back. They just go outside, smoke and then come back in.

NYC is even trying to ban electronic cigarettes altogether

Now, what would be the point in this?

Control.

I cant read all 5 pages, so I'm not sure where you guys are in this debate, but this is my :2cents: as a 10 year smoker that quit over a year ago.

When on YOUR property, you should be able to smoke whatever the ---- you want. When on private/public property, you should at the very least be respectful. Don't stand right outside of a store (whether you work there or not) and smoke. I was definitely guilty of this many of times myself, mainly cause I didnt give a ----, but now that I'm on the other side of the fence I can see how dick it is.

I wont even get into the trouble I've caused with cigs. So I know what can come from them, but man did I enjoy me a smoke every hour or two.

Now that I quit, I ------- HATE all you smokers! :vash: Not really, but if your smoking on the sidewalk, front of a building, in my ----------ing way, I'm going to walk straight into you. Flick it out the window and hit my car and now I'm going to tailgate you until you change lanes. I'm a hypocrite too because I'd flick cigs AT tailgaters back when I smoked.

Really though, I don't care if you chose to smoke. Just be respectful about it. You should try and quit now though before they become 100% addictive with no chance of turning back. :bigtu:

well said vashthestampede

yeah i started this thread cuz i wanted the owners rights to be respected
so the debate is about is if the business/property owner should be allowed to choose or not

sometimes i go to the bar
and the music is loud
really loud, maybe too loud
loud enough where it is capable of damaging my ears

dB law. I'll draft it, we can be famous heros!


no noise ever past 90dB. We'll effectively destroy the world.

yeah u do have better grammar than me do

hOW DARE YOU OUTLAW PLANES!!!11111oneone1oneon111

We must ALL GATHER TO PROTEST BRAINY'S PROPOSED LEGISLATION! IT WILL BAN ALL PLANES EVERYWHERE IN THE WORRLDDDD!!

hey now don't give :brain: all the credit

i inspired him :rofl:

Whoa now, we don't think about unintended consequences to our actions.

You realize that a large majority of Europe, all of Canada and if I'm not mistaken portions of the US already have anti-smoking laws in public places? I for one love it. I can go to the bar now without having to breathe in smoke and go home smelling like a chimney because someone else wants to be able to inhale their disgusting habit near me.

Can't smoke within 6 meters of any doorway to any public building in Vancouver, or any parks/beaches. It's great.

/flame suit

Why is it over hyped? Smoking gives you cancer. Fact. You're breathing in the same ---- they are, just without a filter. Therefore, second hand smoke (which is actually a bad name for it) with enough exposure can give you cancer. Ask people who worked in bars their whole life but never smoked a day in their life now have lung cancer, and yes there are multiple stories of this. The smoke that comes off the end of a cigarette is worse than the garbage they are inhaling.

No thanks, not in my lungs.

falcon
i do agree second hand smoke is dangerous
dont get me wrong i am not at all trying to say it is good in any way

that being said it should be obvious that smokers get more crap in their lungs than the non-smokers
yes smokers have a filter
but they are sucking in STRAIGHT SMOKE plus the exact same atmosphere as the non-smoker.

i just dont understand how people can possibly believe that second hand smoke is MORE dangerous than actually smoking
not saying that is what you said
but i got the impression that that is what you were implying

So Jared...in your mind where does the smokers "right to smoke" stop and the non smokers "right to not have to breath second hand smoke" start.

It's universally accepted that smoking causes cancer...and that with enough exposure to second hand smoke does too.

I don't want cancer.

If I REALLY like milk and you are lactose intolerant do I have the "right" to spit milk in your mouth?

If I REALLY like peanut butter and you have a nut allergy do I have the right to force peanut butter down your gullet?

If I LOVE shrimp but you have a shell fish allergy do I have the right to throw shrimp broth all over you dinner?

I see these things as one and the same. If I am seriously at risk for cancer. If it runs in my family on both maternal and paternal sides you don't have any more right to breathe cigarette smoke in my face than I do to do any of the actions above.

Your retort will then be I should just stay home and simply not go into resturants...and my retort to that is the smoker should stay home and smoke in the privacy of his or her home....and I don't care what he or she smokes there.

Interesting side point...How do you feel about smoking on Airplanes? An Aircraft is a privately owned piece of property. Do you think a ban on smoking in airplanes is as "unconstitutional" as the smoking ban in restaurants? Or do you just think non smokers should just not fly?

well in reality it starts with people that NEED to go to the post office
people that NEED to go to the bmv
people that NEED to go to the court house

but as soon as you enter a place that you do not need to go to
a place that is 100% optional for you to be
for example a bar or a restaurant
no one has the right to tell the business/property owner how to run his business

good idea
ill write up legislation making water gun fights at privately owned establishments illegal and just attach it to brain's db law



seriously tnt,
do you just not get it?
no one is trying to make anyone breathe in second hand smoke here
it is just that i and many others feel that at places that are privately owned and 100% optional for YOU (the non-smoker) to enter, that we simply have no right to tell the owner how to run his business on his property

OR you could support non-smoking establishments by visiting them
and I can support smoking establishments by visiting them

but apparently you just wanna shove your ideals down my throat by writing my liberties on MY property with legislation

You never answered the question about Airlines. It is every bit as optional to fly as it is to sit in a public restaurant. Do you feel as strongly about the ban on smoking on flights as you do about the smoking ban in O'Charlies?

is it privately owned?

and this next question doesn't really matter
but seriously
do you not think that customers will support a non-smoking airline?

Yes. They are privately owed

and you are right. The second question doesn't matter.

and just to clarify by privately owned i meant owned and operated by private citizens and not the government.

i understand that most airlines are publicly traded