Just to clarify this still further, if Joe Barowner goes down to the courthouse tomorrow and files a lawsuit arguing that the New York State smoking ban in bars and restaurants (or some similar law) violates some protected rights under the U.S. Constitution and ought to be overturned by the courts, would you:
(a) Support his lawsuit.
(b) Argue that we ought to live in a society where the government is not legally allowed to do something like this, but you don’t think the Constitution as generally interpretted supports his case.
(b) I am not a lawyer, but I don’t think there are any written restrictions against this sort of power. Where I live the cities have many regulations which are far more trivial. Restrictions on how many schrubs you must have in front, imposition of costs for upgrades to the exterior of buildings.
There was a recent case where the city wanted to sieze (they were offering payment and moving expenses so it was not like they were kicking him out on the street) a business to give the land to another private party. They wanted to use the emminent domain power of government to achieve this. Again, IANAL, but many pundits were convinced that this was perfectly legal.
I tend to think smoking bans are in the same vein. But as I said, I don’t smoke or enjoy smoke, so I won’t be contributing to Joe Barowner’s legal fund. <great name BTW>
I have a question about the California law.
Since it is based on the employees, if a bar required all its employees to wear gas masks could it allow smoking?
However, I think a more reasoable lawsuit would be one where Joe B. would sue the City for lost revenue due to the fact that he had originally opened and had been operating his business under the “old” law that implied that he could entertain smokers.
What do you think would happen if every existing business was grandfathered in as a smoking establishment but all the new businesses that opened could not entertain smokers. How many new businesses of this type would open? I think that would be a telling scenario.
I remember seeing some statistics from California suggesting something similar, whuckfistle I read somewhere that the new applications for new liquor licenses fell off dramatically. I can’t find the cite right now, but if its true (can’t procalim it is without looking up the cite of course) this would suggest that part of your experiment has already been conducted.
Are all such regulations inherently wrong? For example, should your neighbor be allowed to have a scrap yard on his front lawn? Should he be allowed to build a 10-story tower on his property that completely blocks the sun out from your property?
I work for an eminent domain lawyer, and I assure you that it is NOT legal to seize property from one business simply to give it to another business. That doesn’t mean cities don’t do it; they often bank on the fact that the little guy doesn’t know his rights and will easily give in to intimidation. There was a recent case around here where a city wanted to take away a bargain store and put in one of those mega-chains. The bargain store fought them and won.
How? Misuse of eminent domain amounts to taking of property without due process; that’s clearly forbidden by the Constitution. What property is taken away by smoking regulations?
WTF? Must have been my evil twin that said all that stuff. I think there are many very good reasons to regulate smoking. I am not in favor of passing laws for no reason. (Duh)
Well I guess you see only in black & white, whereas I recognize different shades. I would not want to live in a society with no rules.
Hold the phone, Jack - weren’t we just talking about whether government should restrict what businesses do? I don’t recall this debate being framed as to what is the difference between what you can do in a public business and what you can do elsewhere. There are more things one is allowed to do in private that we can’t do in a public place than I can even name here. Just to name a few, (and here’s the disclaimer: these are just off the top of my head and are not to be construed as a direct parallel to smoking or anything else, verstehen?):
You can have sex, but you can’t do it in a restaurant. You can urinate, but you can’t do it in the martini glass of the guy sitting next to you at a bar. You can fire a gun, but you can’t do it in a restaurant. You can get naked, put a cucumber in your ass, and pretend you’re Scooby Doo, but you can’t do it in a bar.
Come on, I’m not going to continue explaining it to you. You’re just going to have to scroll back up the page and read what I wrote. I can’t tell you how weary I get of using an analogy to make a specific point, and having people draw all kinds of parallels that I did not assert in any way.
It’s really moot now, because if I understand you correctly, you have conceded that government does have the right to regulate businesses, and have back-pedalled to the position that you simply disagree with smoking regulations, and would support working within the legislative system to change the laws. If you concede that government has this right, then my analogy with discrimination laws is uneccessary.
I understand what you are saying, I simply point out that you are wrong. Your “right” to produce smoke imposes the obligation on me to breathe that smoke, thereby terminating your right, by your own reasoning.
As I disagree strenuously with your characterization of smoking cigarettes in public as a right. And of course, I didn’t say any of these things are rights - you’re really going off the deep end here.
I’m sorry, I just don’t get this reasoning at all. The government could ban smoking altogether, everywhere, as is currently the case with marijuana, for example. You seem to think that stopping short of total prohibition infers some sort of right. There have got to be at least a million laws that are situational. Certain things are prohibited under certain conditions; that is such an obvious fact that I can’t believe I even have to bring it up. There is nothing unfair about this, and it does not imply that anyone’s liberty has been infringed upon.
O.K., so we agree. Then what is intrinsic to smoking that it deserves some sort of hallowed status that applies to nothing else?
Hmmm…so in other words, a business ought to be able to do anything, so long as it isn’t concealed from the customers? I disagree.
It’s called an A-NA-LO-GY. If you aren’t going to allow me to illustrate specific points with examples, then it’s like debating with one brain tied behind my back.
DING! DING! Exactly right. There are no absolutes as to what we have a “right” to do in public. These are legal, moral, and ethical decisions to be made, not black & white principles. That’s what I’ve been saying all along, and what you have been vehemently denying.
O.K., this is getting really annoying now. I must insist that you stop being obtuse. I said killing is allowed IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. Two examples would be self-defense, and execution by the government after due process.
YOU said my examples were ALWAYS forbidden, in an attempt to distinguish them from smoking.
I said they aren’t.
I did NOT say that it’s O.K. to shoot a customer with a shotgun.
My point is that there are ALL KINDS OF THINGS that are allowed ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. You can not reasonably argue that allowing a thing in ONE circumstance and not ANOTHER is PER SE a violation of liberty.
I’m begging you - PLEASE stop making connections between my examples that I didn’t make.
No, YOU were claiming that any law which regulates businesses is a priori a BAD law. We were refuting you.
Because you keep making blithe pronouncements about supposedly inalienable rights that business owners have to run their business in whatever way they please. It’s called EX-AM-PLES. When you claim that the government has no right to regulate businesses, what better way to demonstrate that right than with examples of ways in which government regulates businesses? Are you seriously telling me you don’t understand what an example is?
Then it is contingent on you to DEMONSTRATE how smoking is a right. You have to do more than just say my examples are “different”. You have to show how smoking IN AN ENCLOSED SPACE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC is an inalienable right, whereas the myriad other things that are not allowed in places open to the public are not rights. In my opinion, you have not done so. You have not demonstrated anything unique about the act of smoking that ought to lend it hallowed status.
I believe that smoke HURTS people. I believe that it goes beyond a simple preference, such as liking steak more than chicken, or liking a room that is 70 degrees rather than 75 degrees, or liking jazz better than rock, or liking Hawaiian decor better than African decor. I concede that the evidence for secondhand smoke causing death is inconclusive, but I still believe that there is evidence that smoke HURTS me, even though it may not be conclusively proven that it will KILL me. The Libertarian argument seems to be that I must enter an implicit contract that I am agreeing to be hurt when I enter a restaurant or bar that is open to the public, and that the only proviso needed is that I be aware of this condition, and that the government ought not to interfere with such a state of affairs. I disagree with this notion, which I guess makes me a liberal and not a Libertarian, which is fine with me.
By the way, thanks to all for a really enjoyable debate. I’m wasting WAY too much time on this, but it’s hard to stay away.
No, of course not. As we discussed before many regulations can be fairly said to prevent (or provide redress in the case of) one property owner adversely affecting another. But many of these regulations can go too far as well. Does it really affect the value of your property if my grass is 3 inches high instead of 2.5? Should I have to submit my choice of an exterior paint color to an apporval commity? In the case of smoking bans, I don’t think smoking on my property affects others unless they choose to join me. And while the fact that I run a business on my property clouds the issue a little, I don’t think it is altogether different.
I am not a lawyer, so I certainly will not dispute you on this. Apperently the city wanted to do some “urban renewal” The property is on the corner of a vacant and is pretty run down. This much of their application of emminent domain seemed somewhat reasonable to most people. The part that went too far was that in order to renew the lot, they wanted to sell it to a private developer.
Misuse of powers is not always clearly discernable. Sometimes a particular application of power is a misuse even though the case may be perfectly legal. Restricting a property owners right to use or develop his property has been argued on this grounds also. Regulations protecting wetlands have been enacted forcing property owners to forgo planned development, for instance. If I am not mistaken, an argument like this came up earlier in the thread. As I said, IANAL, but I don’t think you could sue to get the smoking ban overtuned. But that does not mean that I think it is the right thing to do.
Yep, pretty much. People should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own belongings. Especially if said neighbor makes a living from the scrap yard or tower. If it’s been there for X number of years, generates a profit, provides a tax base that keeps property taxes lower – then who should have the authority to take it away? But even if it does none of those things, there should be very little that prevents good, ol’ neighbor from doing whatever he wishes with his property.
Of course, in an ideal world, this neighbor would attempt to negotiate new construction with others in the immediate vicinity, but nothing would ever get done if you had to have a consensus for everything that might be simultaneously visible and offend somebody’s delicate sensibilities.
A tower that protects me from skin cancer? This neighbor is doing me a favor. I don’t have to be exposed to those damaging UVA and UVB rays.
Now, what are we gonna do about those damned employers who want you to risk life and limb with sun exposure, automobile transport (still the single most dangerous thing you do every day), walk the streets in high crime areas where sidewalks are littered with homemade crack pipes and spent shells, just so we can make a living? Selfish bastards. Where’s the legislature on these issues? Missing in action. Just when I thought they were concerned with my wellbeing. <\facetiousness>
Although it rarely has anything to do with eminent domain, arbitrarily depriving a restaurant (but more likely a bar) of its patrons and, therefore, its livelihood is tantamount to intentionally squeezing them out of business. To pretend that such independent establishments do not exist and that they will be unharmed by being separated from their customers is, at best, pollyannaish.
Often these establishments are located in a part of the city that doesn’t attract the fashionable, I-know-what’s-best-for-you crowd. Others are located in isolated, semi-rural areas and have a core patronage that consists of regulars. Those places are so dependent on their customers that I cannot believe, for one Alice in Wonderland minute, that they would permit smoking if it offended their regular customers.
Actually, I stopped at one of those bars during the world series. I was the only customer in the bar. After the bartender came back inside from having a smoke, I asked her if it was always this quiet. It was a weekend, the world series was on tv, and there was not one other person in the place. She said you could draw a line at the smoking ban. Before that, on any given night, there would be at least a dozen people hanging around, more on weekends. Nice lady. I haven’t been back out that way to see if that place is still in business, but I hope they’re doing ok.
Of course, when it comes to hanging out at a bar, it seems a little silly to say “thank heavens I don’t have to smell smoke while I’m pickling my liver”.
Btw, Blowero, I almost posted in agreement with you on another board. But I didn’t want to set a dangerous precedent, ya know.
Yep, pretty much. People should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own belongings. Especially if said neighbor makes a living from the scrap yard or tower. If it’s been there for X number of years, generates a profit, provides a tax base that keeps property taxes lower – then who should have the authority to take it away? But even if it does none of those things, there should be very little that prevents good, ol’ neighbor from doing whatever he wishes with his property.
Of course, in an ideal world, this neighbor would attempt to negotiate new construction with others in the immediate vicinity, but nothing would ever get done if you had to have a consensus for everything that might be simultaneously visible and offend somebody’s delicate sensibilities.
A tower that protects me from skin cancer? This neighbor is doing me a favor. I don’t have to be exposed to those damaging UVA and UVB rays.
Now, what are we gonna do about those damned employers who want you to risk life and limb with sun exposure, automobile transport (still the single most dangerous thing you do every day), walk the streets in high crime areas where sidewalks are littered with homemade crack pipes and spent shells, just so we can make a living? Selfish bastards. Where’s the legislature on these issues? Missing in action. Just when I thought they were concerned with my wellbeing. <\facetiousness>
Although it rarely has anything to do with eminent domain, arbitrarily depriving a restaurant (but more likely a bar) of its patrons and, therefore, its livelihood is tantamount to intentionally squeezing them out of business. To pretend that such independent establishments do not exist and that they will be unharmed by being separated from their customers is, at best, pollyannaish.
Often these establishments are located in a part of the city that doesn’t attract the fashionable, I-know-what’s-best-for-you crowd. Others are located in isolated, semi-rural areas and have a core patronage that consists of regulars. Those places are so dependent on their customers that I cannot believe, for one Alice in Wonderland minute, that they would permit smoking if it offended their regular customers.
Actually, I stopped at one of those bars during the world series. I was the only customer in the bar. After the bartender came back inside from having a smoke, I asked her if it was always this quiet. It was a weekend, the world series was on tv, and there was not one other person in the place. She said you could draw a line at the smoking ban. Before that, on any given night, there would be at least a dozen people hanging around, more on weekends. Nice lady. I haven’t been back out that way to see if that place is still in business, but I hope they’re doing ok.
Of course, when it comes to hanging out at a bar, it seems a little silly to say “thank heavens I don’t have to smell smoke while I’m pickling my liver”.
Btw, Blowero, I almost posted in agreement with you on another board. But I didn’t want to set a dangerous precedent, ya know.
Darn it. Sorry about the double post. The first submission timed out, so I assumed it didn’t take. Thinking it lucky that the post wasn’t lost, I resubmitted it. Dope slap has been self-administered.
Lol, Pervert (now there’s a fun name), it’s been one of * those* days. All day. Subsequently, I have no right to be posting tonight, on principle alone. Wait, is posting a right?
Facetiousness started with the claim about the health benefits from an imaginary neighbor blocking the sun from my person and property, then continuing on with a rhetorical “why not protect us employees from all the other real threats out there too”.
For example:
<facetiousness>Those sunworshippers just don’t want to listen. All they think about is going out into the sunlight. By forcing the rest of us to work in the sunshine or walk in the sunshine to fulfill our employment duties, they’re exposing us to cancer causing photons. With the incidence of skin cancer increasing dramatically, and the fact that new research shows that, while previously thought highly curable, it appears that people who have had skin cancer and were declared “cured” have a much higher risk of developing other cancers as they age, we have to be protected by law. This is a workplace hazard.
What do they want us to do? Wear sunscreen? It stains my clothing. And it smells funny. It gets into my eyes when I sweat and makes them sting and burn and get clouded up. Why should I have to put up with this irritant just to serve them food and drinks while they’re at an outdoor cafe or vacationing at an outdoor resort.
Don’t even mention hats. Wool makes me itch. The other materials just make my head sweat. I have a god-given right to not endure this level of discomfort.
And, heaven knows, I don’t want to be exposed to any sunlight while I’m dining. It’s hot. You have to squint. You get a sunburn. And red skin is not visually attractive, especially when it starts to blister, even if it doesn’t give me cancer later on. It breaks down the collagen in your skin, aging it so quickly that, by the time you’re 40 years old, you look like you’ve had a hard life at a tannery. Bright sunlight makes me sneeze.
I don’t want to eat food that’s been in proximity to sunscreen. I’ll get zinc from vitamins, thank you, not from someone else’s skin. I see no reason why I should be exposed to that distinct pharmaceutical smell of sunscreens. It’s unpleasant so it must be unhealthy. Why, that’s only intuitive knowledge. Who wants to associate with people who are red, sweaty, smelly, and shriveled up like prunes? They don’t need windows that look out to the street, ocean, ski slopes. They have no respect for other people’s rights – the right to be free of UVA and UVB rays.
It’s time to put the sun lovers in their place. Board up the windows that let the light into these dens of cancer. Close up the outdoor venues. If people want to eat and drink they can come inside where it’s sun-free. At first I was going to suggest modifications to accommodate them. But it’s impossible to know how much exposure is too much, and i really hate the sun so it’s reasonable to conclude that my rights are pre-emptive. They’ve been forcing us non-sunworshippers to be exposed to a known carcinogen, not to mention an extremely unpleasant phenomenon. Now it’s their turn to be uncomfortable and unwelcome. They don’t NEED sunlight.
There is no way to reconcile this except for a complete ban. If they want sunshine let them go home and get it.
I am righteously indignant. Why should I have to endure their indulgences? </facetious>
There. Is that better.
Maybe I should have used automobiles for this metaphor.
I’m beginning to wonder if have libertarian leanings.
OH. aMY. GOD. I cana’t type I am laugfhing so hard.:D:D:D:D:D:D
Thank you. I needed that very much.
I’m watching the latest episode of South Park right now. It is about imposing smoking bans where they are not wanted. I’m sure the punch line will gore (Gore? Nah, hes not beastial) my ox, but in the meant time we have Cartman telling Rob Riener “Smoking brings joy to so many people, and you get to take it away from them. I love you.”
Skyfire, I’ve noticed that lots of people tend to be all for allowing people to do whatever they like, such as build a skyscraper in a residential area, until it happens next door to their house.
Liberty for all! Let’s all play our stereo as loud as we like. Oh, wait - now my neighbor’s playing his stereo at 3:00 in the morning when I’m trying to sleep. Can’t somebody do something about that? How about a toxic waste dump next door? Hey, it’s their property; they can do whatever they want, right? Doing whatever you like is great until somebody else does something you don’t like.
OK, blowero, I wrote a different post, and then re read your last post. We have to get a few things straight. You keep saying that I claim business owners are or should be allowed to do anything. I have never said this. I have never implied this. I have from the begining of my participation in this thread suggested that many things are regulated and properly so. I have often attempted to link my analysis of such “properness” to simple principles of good behavior (rights to life liberty etc.). You have repeatedly refused to offer any reason for your position other than smoking is unhealthful and icky. You have repeatedly refused to offer any way to judge a regulation. Offering only “I would not want to live in a society with no rules.”
So, to end the bloodfest, let me reiterate. Choosing to smoke can be described as a freedom (or right) so long as it is not inflicted on people who don’t want it. If opening a business implies certain responsibilities, then entering one does also. If the propritor does not wish smoking, you have customers have no right to flaunt his ban. As well, entering a business assumes certain hazards. The smell of the particular quisine for instance. You have no right to demand that a proprietor ban offensive smells just in case you might enter his establishment. And absent convincing health information or a coherent argument from you proposing a right to enter any and all retail businesses, that is exactly what the smoking bans are.
I tell you what. I will concede every point we have been debating if you will simply propose a principle which limits the governments power to regulate businesses. Not an infinite limit, of course, I have said that would be inappropriate. But certainly you don’t believe the government should have unlimited power either. Do you?
I have had some good fun in here as well. Thanks for the lively debate. I have been drawn to it as well. I’ll let you have the last word.
I understand where you’re coming from. I have enough faith in human beings to believe that most people are very reasonable, even downright accommodating, when it comes to dealing with other people. Especially in a one-on-one situation.
In cases where people are ingracious or just plain crazy, you have to take it a step further. I understand that. Hey, we’ve all dealt with crazy, inconsiderate people from time to time. There are days when it seems like they took over the world while we were sleeping and it makes you wonder “where did all the sane people go?”.
Hey, didn’t your first post to me suggest that I was engaging in slippery slope arguments? Now you’re envisioning toxic waste dumps, sunblocking towers, and crazy neighbors whose only goal in life is to make you miserable.
We cannot have mastery over our lives if we’re dependent on a whole bunch of outside forces to do things on our behalf.
Have you talked calmly and politely to the inconsiderate neighbor who plays loud music at 03:00? Maybe you could work out a deal of some sort. Why should it be somebody else’s job to do something about that? I’m assuming that you’re a competent, functional person. You certainly are articulate and have a fair sense of humor as your posts here indicate. You can handle these things yourself, at least initially. I know it’s no fun but, if you’re successful at it with a minimum of investment, it will be a satisifying experience.
If you like, I’d be happy to call them and discuss it.
C’mon. It’s kind of funny.
Lighten up a bit. We don’t want you to be old and anxiety-ridden before your time. You’ve made some really good contributions here. They’re appreciated. As stated before, you’ve been a decent sport.
There you go again. Why should you be able to use the force of law to dictate the types of establishments that are available to you? If you like Chinese restaurants, and there aren’t a proportional amount of Chinese restaurants in your area relative to those that desire them, do you think the government should be able to mandate that a certain percentage of all restaurants be Chinese restaurants? **
Are you seriously trying to compare this to the sort of situation this country faced during the civil rights movement? :rolleyes:
The most obvious objection to this silly comparison is that no one is being excluded: nonsmokers can (and do) frequent smoking establishments, and smokers can (and do) go to establishments that limit or prohibit smoking. As long as each follows the rules of the individual establishment – not objecting to others smoking or refraning from smoking as the case may be – then no one is actually excluded.
Even putting that to the side, let’s be perfectly frank: civil rights laws of the kind you describe are limitations on freedom. The only question is whether they are limitations on freedom worth making. In the case of civil rights legislation, those limits are acceptable because they promote another important (and competing) value, namely equality among the races. That justification isn’t present in the case of smoking bans; surely no one can plausibly argue that nonsmokers are somehow treated as second-class citizens in American society.
Now, as I’ve said, the health argument is arguable – you could certainly argue that public health concerns justify this particular imposition on individual freedom. We could have a fulsome debate on that topic (indeed, your “a certain percentage of smoking places is OK” argument fails under that analysis: if you’re concerned about public health, why do you want to give people the option to smoke in public at all?). But that isn’t the argument I’ve been addressing. I’ve been addressing the personal preference argument, which really is an argument against personal freedom in favor of enforcing your particular aesthetic whims. **
So, you’re seriously comparing having a drink in a smoky bar to dangerous coal mines, contaminated water, and barriers to the handicapped? I’m generally suspicious of most government regulations, but I can pretty readily see the seriousness of those examples and understand why regulation might be justified. I can even see why, assuming the very worst conclusions about secondhand smoke are accurate, the health argument for a total ban on public smoking might be justifiable. What I can’t see is why your particular preference for a smoke-free environment legitimizes such an infringement on personal freedom. **
I prove it every time I walk into a smoking establishment and see a whole bunch of nonsmokers having a good time. The fact that the establishment allows smoking just isn’t that important to them, as evidenced by their continued patronage. **
I’m not ignoring anything; as I’ve said (over and over and over again), I concede the health argument has some arguable validity. If you want to justify a ban on health grounds, that’s a reasonable position upon which we can debate.
However, you’re not just arguing on health grounds. You’re also arguing on grounds of personal preference: you don’t like smoking establishments, so you want the government to guarantee you have smoke-free bars and restauarants to go to. That argument is invalid, and frankly quite chidlish. And that is the argument I’ve been addressing.
You keep flipping back and forth between the two, acting as though both rationales were equally valid. I disagree. I think one rationale is arguably valid and the other is totally invalid. My pointing that out does not amount to my “ignoring” anything. **
Actually, those license requirements exist not because of the patrons inside, but because of the third parties who live near such establishments. The concern is that a concentrated number of adult establishments effectively becomes a “red light district,” with all the vice and crime that entails. Understandably, locals want to reduce the odds of that happening by limiting the number of those establishments in a given area.
That, of course, is not the situation with the smoking ban. It isn’t like this is being proposed by non-patron neighbors who have smoke seeping into their apartments. There are no innocent third parties affected by smoke in bars and restaurants: the smoke only affects those in the establishment, who are all there by choice. **
I thought pervert stated the point nicely and saw no need to add to it. **
Again: this point is proved every time I walk into a smoking bar or restaurant and see nonsmokers having a good time.
The essential difference, one that you cannot seem to grasp, is that each of the above instances involves harm to nonconsenting third parties. Playing your stereo loudly at 3 a.m. invades the peace and tranquility of my home. Not so with smoking in bars – no one is forced into a smoky bar at gunpoint; it’s a purely voluntary activity. Unless smoke inside the bar is somehow aggravating pedestrians on the sidewalk, your analogies are inapplicable.
Pervert, my last post was directed to Skyfire, not you. It just bugged me because I thought you guys were making a lot of great points, but that last thing from Skyfire just went completely off the deep end. I mean, if you can’t even concede that people ought not to build 10-story buildings in residential neighborhoods, we are WAY too far apart to have any kind of discussion about anything. And I guess I have a pet peeve about people just being sarcastic and filling up an entire screen with a silly lampoon of one very minor facet of their opponent’s position. My argument had nothing whatsover to do with the sun; that was just an off-the-cuff example. I could have easily come up with a million other examples, and Skyfire knows that perfectly well. I wouldn’t mind if it was in any way amusing, but it really wasn’t. But anyway, I’ll lighten up as Skyfire suggests.
I don’t feel any need to get in a parting shot, pervert. I think we both made our points, so I’ll leave it at that. Perhaps I’ll go celebrate by having a drink at the local tavern and enjoying the smoke-free air.
<great name BTW>
I think there are many very good reasons to regulate smoking. I am not in favor of passing laws for no reason. (Duh)