I find the opposite to be true. While exceptions to the rule can always be found, property owners tend to be the best custodians of property. The only problems that are encountered are found by those who wish to use the property in ways that are counter to the property owner’s.
Funny thing about those who rail aginst “private property”. They seem to ignore the great “experiment” that has been on-going for the better part of the past century.
Just look to your inner-city tenements and housing projects for a glimpse into a “collectivist utopia” without private-property ownership.
Look, I think you’re using that word “strawman” a little too much. You said this:
“Private ownership is an extension of the concept of liberty?” What exactly does that mean? You say things like “the principle is private ownership of property”; this sounds to me like you are proclaiming the the owner of a business gets to be the final arbiter of what occurs there. That is not true, and never has been. He can’t nail the fire exits shut; he can’t smear feces all over the walls; he can’t disable the sprinklers or the smoke alarm. The government CAN AND DOES tell him what he can and cannot do. If that’s not what you meant, then you need to be more clear in your writing.
This is getting humorous. You seem enamored with the concept of a “strawman”, yet cannot recognize one in your own writing.
Well, fine. Then I guess you concede that the government is justified in enacting certain regulations that apply to property owners.
Another strawman. I didn’t say a privately-owned business is the same in every way as a government entity. I merely showed the statement “a business on private property is not a public business” to be false. Go back to page 1 - it was discussed at great length. If your business is open to the public, it is not a “private” business.
We aren’t talking about a “whim”. Where on God’s green earth did you get the idea that this is a “whim”?
Nobody’s rights have been taken away. The government can and does regulate businesses. They have done so since this country was founded, and still do.
There are lots of things you can’t do in your business, and there are lots of things you can’t do at home. There do happen to be more things you can do at home.
I explained this before, but you seem to have ignored it: These laws are NOT about preventing people from doing what they want to do, they are about PROTECTING the people who aren’t smoking from the effects of cigarette smoke. I guarantee you that nobody would give a fig how much you “indulge” were it not for the fact that your indulgence produces smoke that OTHER people have to breathe. So please, let’s drop this false argument that these law exist to disallow things people “like to do”. That’s not the purpose.
You know I never said the state should have unlimited power. Let’s stick to the subject, shall we? We’re talking about nonsmoking regulations, and I don’t believe that such laws differ in any material way from any of the myriad other regulations that exist. Does the state have the power to pass such laws? Yes - they can and they did.
I most certainly do object to such “nanny” legislation. That’s exactly why I drew a distinction between that and the smoking laws.
Yes, we just completely ignore the question of automobile safety, don’t we? If we really cared, we would have safetly regulations, seat belts, crash tests, traffic laws, and air bags. Oh wait - we DO have those things.
This was pointed out already, but since you missed it - people NEED to drive cars. They do NOT need to smoke cigarettes inside of a closed room in all restaurants and bars. For Pete’s sake - they’re not even saying you can’t smoke, just that you can’t do it under certain circumstances when it affects other people.
Let’s turn the tables on you. Do YOU believe that every law ever passed is evil and repressive? Can ALL things be handled by the private sector. Is all legislation unecessary?
I disagree.
The first one is PDF, which I just don’t have time to mess with right now. The second one says nothing about it being the same people who were behind the smoking laws. The 3rd and 4th seem to be referring to attempts to limit the amount of junk food sold at schools, so it’s not really comparable. One article talks about taxing junk food, which isn’t the same as banning it. But FWIW, I don’t think I would support such a tax.
But the long and short of it is, you’re trying to say that because this certain type of other law is bad, that the unrelated type of law that we are discussing is bad. That doesn’t follow.
Yes, you’ve been a busy boy.
[And just a nitpick: saying “If you think x, then that would make you y”, is not the same as saying “You are y”.]
If the owner is a smoker, the waitress is a smoker, the cooks are smokers, and the customers are smokers, then no one is being protected. Instead, a group of people who are aware of the risks, and willingly accept them, are being prevented from coming together to do business.
No one has to breathe it unless they choose to come inside the restaurant.
Yes, we DO have those things. Yet 50,000 people are killed each year (wish i had statistics for other countries) despite those devices and mechanisms.
**
I don’t know if “NEED” is the right word. There’s a practical component that makes them extremely convenient and time-saving. That we rely upon them so heavily doesn’t make them a need, although the health of the economy is now dependent upon them. But dependency is not automatically equal to necessity. Less than 100 years ago people managed without them.
Otoh, I know I wouldn’t want to walk or bicycle or ride a horse for that 15 mile commute to work. And, sheesh, bringing boxes of recyclables to the transfer station would be a major chore.
**
Ok, you can buy the car, pay the taxes and fees, but you don’t need to drive it, except maybe in certain areas – if we’re feeling generous about it.
**
Well, there are some pretty silly laws out there; some old, some new. People make money by writing books about them. You know, those spitting on the sidewalk laws, gum-chewing laws, etc. Amusing little laws, some of which are still on the books in some places, but talk about trying to micro manage people!
There are some well-intentioned (?) laws that have gone completely awry, such as sodomy laws, and laws that make oral sex illegal.
The consitutional amendment that launched prohibition turned out to be a complete loser.
Jim Crow laws which, for reasons that most of us cannot fathom today, must have made (convoluted) sense at the time.
And, of course the drug laws, which are extremely useless. They may be necessary, but I don’t know how effective they are at either prevention or prohibition. No, I don’t advocate removing those laws, but their effectiveness is questionable. And, with ever increasing mandatory penalties, they place great burden on various judicial and corrections systems. They remove judicial discretion too, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad for society, I suppose.
But, no, not all legislation is unnecessary.
**
Argh! PDFs are a nuisance. You’re preaching to the choir on that count.
**
Yeah, but that’s they beauty of it – it doesn’t have to be exactly the same people, but the tactics, not to mention the militancy, are quite effective. Then, they find an arena, like schools, in which it’s acceptable to do things “for the good of the children”. When that sacred appeal is invoked, no one objects because it’s social/political suicide to appear to not want to do what’s best for the children. Before you know it, more and more people are insistent that, if it’s good for schools, it’s good for the rest of society as well.
Btw, that’s the notorious mentality that i hate – when special interest groups purport to be doing things for the good of everyone. They do everything but come out and pat you on the head and say “There, there. Everything will be ok. We’ll protect your simple little self from all the big, bad junk food”. Patronizing SOBs!
And, dammit, not only should we be thankful, but we should get behind their storm trooper attitudes and pass legislation to give teeth to their crusade. After all, it’s for the greater good. Down with junk food! (Do I hear a rousing chorus of Glory, Glory, Hallelujah!) </rant, intended to be humorous>
Actually, I’ve been approached by one of these groups to assist in just such a cause. Boy, did they pick the wrong person. Out of curiosity, I read the literature and went to 2 gatherings, pretending to be on board, but just wanted to see what it was about. They have a zeal that would put Southern Baptists to shame.
I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any such animal as a harmless nut.
The part that causes cranial alarms to go off is *“The early battles, they say, will be fought in the schools because of the serious dangers to kids’ health and because that’s where the government has some control.” * This was an undercurrent at the meetings I attended.
Because that’s “where the government has control”? Meaning?
Dangers? What dangers? (oooo, sounds grave). And, early battles? What are the later battles? Imho, one doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to suss out that something’s up.
And, by association, they want to tax those items AND movie tickets, dvds, and who knows what else. Ah, the guardians of the public morals. I say “morals” because it seems, to them, that this is a moral issue. If you get enough “research” together, mislead a scientifically illiterate public, make it appeal to the public’s intuition, you can make a bid for public health legislation. I bet they’ll get it, too, if they put more time, effort, and publicity into it. They’re making inroads, having already been featured on network news programs, and in popular magazines (i.e. “Redbook”), and they’re getting audiences with some legislators.
**
On the micro level they may be different animals. On the macro level I’m unconvinced that there’s a real difference. But I will give it more thought. Thank you. And thanks for being a good sport. It’s fun AND enlightening.
Btw, in an earlier post you gave examples of being treated badly at the hands of flaming jerks. I’m afraid that I wouldn’t have been as generous as you were under those circumstances. And, if I had been there with you, I probably would have created a quite a stir with those a**holes. Maybe to the point of requiring bail money.
It only accomplishes the goals if there is an ALTERNATIVE to smoking venues. If, as was the case here in California before the legislation, there are virtually no places for nonsmokers to go, it doesn’t do squat. If there is no alternative, putting up signs (and you still haven’t said what your proposal does besides that) only has the effect of saying, “There are problems x,y, and z with this venue, but this is your ONLY choice.” How does that help?
Not even, dude.
This is at least the third time you have brought up this il-conceived argument. I keep saying that it’s not about protecting people from themselves, yet you keep repeating it. What gives?
I’m saying that the government should protect NONSMOKERS from the smoke produced by SMOKERS, if need be. Whether the government should protect smokers from THEMSELVES is an entirely different matter. Are we clear now, or do you plan to continue raising this strawman?
Please stop saying “the venues you like”. I don’t “like” fresh air, I REQUIRE it to breathe. That’s like saying I “like” buildings with fire exits, or I “like” my drinking water to be free of contamination. We aren’t talking about the government forcing bars to play classical instead of rap, or have blue cocktail umbrellas instead of pink. You’re trying to trivialize the issue to make your position seem stronger than it is.
No, that’s not my goal. But in all honesty, I think you make a good point here in that I believe there is a certain segment of society that is interested in reducing smoking in the U.S. - For what it’s worth, I think it’s a laudable goal, but I think education is the way to go about that, not force. I’m not aware of anyone who supports total prohibition on cigarettes. I think we learned our lesson as a society with that issue.
So for the third or fourth time (I lost count), I’m saying that I do NOT believe in forcing people to quit smoking for their own good. But I do believe that the government is justified in stepping in so that nonsmoking citizens do not have to suffer simply for the convenience of smokers.
That would be one way of doing it, but I personally prefer the licensing suggestion made earlier. Why not just give a finite number of licenses, like we do with alcohol licenses? Or for that matter, what’s wrong with the way it already has been done in CA and NY, where you can smoke at smoke shops. What’s wrong with smoking at a smoke shop? Is it no fun if you don’t get to annoy anyone?
Do you really believe this argument you are making, or are you just splitting hairs? I’m having a hard time believing that you honestly don’t see any qualitative difference between the “need” to smoke cigarettes and the need to drive an automobile.
Right; so wouldn’t you say that each issue should be debated on its merits, and that there really is no general principle that says a regulation is automatically bad? And conversely, I don’t think they’re all automatically good.
Well I don’t feel this connection that you seem to feel where everything wrong with society is due to evil PC-Nazis. Like I said, I think every law should be considered on its merits. I forget what it’s called, but isn’t that a recognized logical fallacy when you say “A is bad because B is bad, and because A is the same ‘mentality’ as B.”?
As for the school thing, I’m kind of on the fence on that one. I don’t know that it’s automatically a bad idea to reduce the amount of junk food pedalled to kids. Children are entrusted to our care; they are not considered to always be capable of making their own decisions about what is best for them. On the other hand, that stuff was available to me when I was a kid and I can’t see how it has hurt me that much. In fact, I ended up prfeclty saf#dj&ne@ub.
Look, if the government tries to say I can’t drink a soda in my own home, I’ll march right up to City Hall with you. I guess we just disagree on whether this thread is an example of such thinking; I don’t think having nonsmoking bars and restaurants is an example of that.
Not at all; I figured you guys were mad at me for being too snippy. You and pervert make some great points.
Well, it was the only job interview that I’ve ever walked out of in the middle. And with the guy at the gas station, I just figured anyone who doesn’t seem to care if he blows us all to bits is probably not somebody I want to mess with.
Oh, one more thing. Pervert, I think I should apologize for one of my snippy remarks. I just looked at what you wrote again, and I think I misread it the first time:
I’m thinking maybe what you meant by “assuming the risk”, is in reference to nonsmokers assuming risk by entering the venue. So you probably weren’t making the same argument again, and I apologize for saying so.
Although research is my shtick, I haven’t done enough research on the topic of drug laws to make an argument either way. But my gut instinct is that they’re pretty much a failure in many aspects (in much the way that prohibition was a dismal failure), so perhaps they should be reassessed.
What people do in the privacy of their own homes should be inviolable, unless it involves murder, assault, and neglect.
I nicknamed the married couple next door “the Herbs”. It’s just one of the things that people do. They’re not bothering anyone. And it seems that throughout history people have enjoyed a variety of drugs/substances that make the Carrie Nations of the world absolutely apoplectic.
It would seem that humans are wired for that sort of thing, and certainly the brain responds to, and enjoys (for lack of a better word), a variety of substances.
The research on SHS is still inconclusive. And, a lot of it is not very thorough, particularly when it comes to controls. One famous study doubled its margin of error and left out some of its data. Very sloppy. Still, we should keep looking.
Don’t worry about it. If it makes you feel any better, imagine me reading the remark and jumping up and down with my arms flapping yelling at my computer “I didn’t say that! I didn’t say that!”
Besides. I deserve a little beating up. Many of my comments have been as much or more snippy than yours. I seem to do OK in the first couple of sentences, but then my knee gets to jerking so badly that I don’t seem to type clearly.:smack:
I’m formulating a response to some or you points. I’m going to try and tie my knee down while I type it.
But that’s not the case; not everyone is a smoker. Some people don’t like the smoke.
As I said before, as long as an alternative exists for us, the nonsmokers, I wouldn’t have a problem with having venues for smokers, and I will gladly refrain from stepping inside those places. For example, I see smoke shops where people are smoking, and I don’t go there - no problem. But the alternative needs to be there for us; it would not be adequate to allow smoking at all bars and restaurants.
The “if you don’t like it you can stay home” argument falls flat with me. I could just as easily say if you don’t like non-smoking places, YOU can stay home. That gets us nowhere.
The difference, of course, is that the former situation arises out of the voluntary activity of market participants, while the latter arises out of one set of market participants imposing their preferences on everyone else by force of law.
While I’m skeptical of the health justification, at least it is arguable. The “waaah, nonsmokers don’t have restaurants they can go to” argument is just beyond absurd. It’s like passing a law requiring that a only a certain percentage of summer movies can be big-budget action popcorn flicks.
Can you explain how this is not a claim to a right to nonsmoking venues? I understand that you want this (hell, I do too), but where do you have the right to it?
Pervert or Dewey, can you explain why we should prohibit drug use in private that doesn’t affect others, but at the same time allow without restrictions smoking that harms others in public places?
Actually, it seems like what it really comes down to is the evidence.
I find the evidence that cigarette smoke is harmful to be compelling, while you do not.
If I believed that the myriad chemicals in cigarette smoke were a godsend for the human body, I doubt I would favor restrictions on smoking either.
Sure, of course. But a flat-out ban on smoking in restaurants doesn’t discriminate. Even if a vast majority–or 100%–of the people at a restaurant want to smoke, they can’t.
If the problem is that there aren’t enough nonsmoking restaurants for the people who don’t like smoke, there are better ways to solve it without hassling everyone else.
Well, no. I don’t think that drug laws are very sensible when enforced in private homes or private businesses.
Although I agree that smoking is pretty destructive, I think the claims of Second Hand Smoke risks are probably overblown (get it? overblown smoke:)). I personally do not indulge in smoking, drugs or drinking. However, I think it is a personal choice. The government has no business deciding for me (or you for that matter) what to ingest.
OK, let me try and summarize my position with a couple fewer knee jerks than my earlier posts.
I believe that governments should only interfere in the affairs of its citizens in order to protect certain rights from violation through force by itself, other citezens, or other governments. All other interference is a violation of rights. I’m not making a legal argument here, I’m simply stating the principles I use to evaluate proposed laws.
As I’ve said before, I do acknowledge that cities and states have the power to ban smoking in retail businesses. I’m just not sure they should. I think it may violate this principle of good government.
This principle does not exclude the regulation of retail businesses. Fire and health regulations amount to laws requiring reasonably safe operation of retail venues. Think of them as enforcing the contract between the business and its clients. That is, they require that providing a space to engage in retail operations means that such a space should be free of undue health hazards. One could argue whether a particular city applies these regulations with the fairness necessary to assure the rights of businesses. But no one could argue that a business has the right to sell tainted food as if it were not tainted. Nor does anyone propose that a retail venue should have the right to expose its clients to undue fire risks in a space offered for recreation.
The smoking bans have a certain similarity to these sorts of regulations. They are certainly based on the same claim to power by the governments which impose them. In California for instance, written into the law is a claim to protect workers from the effects of second hand smoke.
However, they have several material differences. I’ll leave aside the issue of the inconclusiveness of the health risks of SHS. While it may not be as dangerous as fire, nor as contagious as bacteria, it is certainly noxious stuff (at least to non smokers).
Difference of scope: Smoking bans apply to locations regardless of the chance of non smoker exposure. That is they do not protect clean air for those who want or need clean air, they impose it on smokers and non smokers alike. It can be argued that everyone needs clean air, but this requires that the health risks be taken at face value. In the absence of such acceptance, the imposition of clean air on smokers is just that, an imposition.
Difference of implementation: Smoking bans do not clean the air, they prohibit behavior. Health regulations do not ban the serving of raw meat. They simply require that it be free of bacteria. They do not ban the handling of raw meat. They simply stipulate that it be done in a way which does not promote infections. Similarly, fire laws don’t ban dark difficult to exit rooms. They simply stipulate that reasonable fire precautions are taken, and that reasonable safeguards are in place in case a fire does take place. If smoking bans were primarily about cleaning the air, they might stipulate an acceptible particulate level for instance. Or, they might mandate filtering of recirculated air.
Difference of principle: Smoking bans do not protect any reasonable rights. Noone has a right to be provided with a restaraunt or bar. If anyone has a right to breath smoke free air (and I’m sure that such a right could be argued) then that right should only apply to your own spaces (or at least to those spaces where a reasonable expectation of smoke free air exists). That is, I can understand a right to breath smoke free air in your own home. I might even be able to accept a right to breath smoke free in public spaces. But smoking bans do not apply to such spaces. If anything, they drive smokers out onto the sidewalks. I’m not sure a claim can be made to a right to breath smoke free air in any and every building (or even in every retail building). Primarily because this implies a right to enter each and every building. And I don’t think a coherent right to such a thing can be formulated.
I agree. I brought this up in a prior thread, and this notion was treated similarly by the “But I must have a smoke-free environment where I want one!” crowd.
This is not a hospital, folks. It’s not a library or a subway platform. If you don’t like being in smoky bars, don’t go to them. I agree you have the right to a smoke-free environment. It would be wrong, for example, for the law to demand that all bars must permit smoking. But this does not logically lead us to conclude that all places must be smoke-free.
Right, and in reality, most establishments that have non-smoking/smoking sections are very careful about the quality of air in the non-smoking areas. Or, they should be.
Bars are different. People tend to smoke more when they drink. Those that dont smoke tend to not care about the SHS when they are drinking. Again, Ive been to very few bars that dont have some sort of circulation system to at least move the air around if not exchange it with outside air. I know of VERY few people who dont go out because of the quality of air in the bars.
I know of no-one who doesn`t go to any particular restauraunt because of the quality of the air inside.
The fact is that MOST people are not bothered by it. If MOST people are not bothered by it then it should not be tackled in such a manner by the State/City. Allow the market, if there is a problem, deal with it.
I don`t see a plethora of smoke free establishments opening up anywhere.
