Danceswithcats, aren’t you a PA doper? Aren’t you being the busybody complaining about a possible NJ law?
Liberal, I know you love the arguement that a privately owned business is not a public space. But the state does have loads of rules for them besides no smoking rules. Health codes that protect the public, labor laws that protect the employees. Rules on reporting income, all about stuff they are doing on their ‘private’ property. The fact is, they are not private property in the sense you seem to think. They are public spaces. If you put an OPEN FOR BUSINESS sign on a building you own, it becomes a public space and subject to legislation.
Oh and I think this bill is stupid.
"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and never can be erased or obscured by mortal power."
-Alexander Hamilton, 1775
‘Hands-free cell phone’ regulations in automobiles - but for some reason, using CB radios while operating a vehicle is still legal. Come back, good buddy.
Smoking banned in night clubs that don’t serve food (under the prentence of protecting employees from 2nd hand smoke) - but for some reason, DJs are allowed to crank the volume up well over 140 Dbs night after night.
Employers allowed to reject prospective employees if they use tobacco.
Laws & regulations that fine, punish & threaten license revocation to business owners where a patron is caught using tobacco. Think about that for a moment. Lawmakers crafting legislation that automatically deputizes proprietors of drinking establishments, requires them to forcebly remove any people who ignore the ban & punishes them more severely than the person using that product if they don’t.
Backwards. You have the right until and unless it is declared illegal. If there is no law against growing pot, then it is legal until a law is written against it. There was a time when it was legal. Drug laws are a fairly recent thing. A right does not have to be recognized anywhere at all. If it is not MADE to be illegal, and is not mentioned anywhere, then by default it is legal.
You said we have no rights unless they are listed somewhere, like a “list of permission”. That would mean you can’t do anything not on the list. That would mean all rights and priviledges have to be specifically granted to you, like a good little slave, from the government.
Again, you have it backwards. Anything not “specifically enumerated” defaults back to the individual or the states. Some things were specifically listed, because there had been an experience of them being denied. And, these were not written as things we are allowed to do, they were written as things the government will not take away. In short, we already had them, and government was being expressly forbidden from denying them - due process, speedy trial, all that. I have the whole constitution, the bill of rights, the declaration of independence, federalist papers, anything you want right here on CD. Nowhere do any of them say you have no rights uless they are granted. None of them talk about limiting the individual. They all talk about limiting Government.
Now do you want to discuss, or do we go back to the insults? Your call.
Woohoo, someone found a dodge around the “it’s for the children” whine at last! I bet messing with the radio dial or CD player accounts for way more than one percent of distraction linked accidents, why isn’t he harping on that?
Hmm, driving with children is often a huge distraction, for their own safety shouldn’t we make it illegal to drive them anywhere?
Wow, could I get you an electron microscope to assist in that hair-splitting?
As long as hairs are being split, the federal government has no “rights” under the Constitution. It has powers.
And whether or not one has a right to smoke in or on one’s property, you know as well as I that rights are not absolute. A ban on smoking while driving to improve public safety would most likely easily pass Constitutional muster. What provision of the Constitution is it that you think protects the right of the people to smoke while driving?
And please, the Fourth Amendment has never been construed as offering the same level of protections in a car as in a home. Try having sex in your car sometime that would be legal to have in your home and see if you don’t get convicted of a public sex offense.
Not saying that this smoking ban proposal is or isn’t a good idea; just saying that it appears to be within the power of the state of New Jersey to enact without being an infringement on anyone’s “rights.” IMHO claiming infringement of rights when no rights have been infringed cheapens the notion that rights are important and should be defended. The way some people yammer about their rights sometimes when the thing they’re yammering about has nothing to do with an actual right, it’s a wonder that actual rights violations get taken seriously at all.
The above are verbatim. Just like I said, just because some rights are enumerated (listed) does not mean that any others must be listed. Any powers not claimed by the Fed default to the states, and if they don’t claim them, they belong to the individual. These powers have to be actively claimed and written into law.
This should put to rest any argument that all rights come from the government. Rather, exactly the opposite is written (hard coded) in. All rights or powers the government have, are granted by the people to the government.
Hopefully there are some constitutional attorney people out there who can verify this for me. Not that I personally have any doubts.
Why wait for the camps to open before you protest? We’ve already gone too far and it’s time to stop any more encroachments. Once they’ve trained not to complain about the little things, they take a little more. Liberty will surely die by a thousand cuts not an war.
I promise you, the moment anyone suggests opening a prison camp for people who smoke in their cars, I’ll be right there chaining myself to the gates. Or something. But as long as it’s just a ticket, I just can’t muster the outrage.
Sex in public is not a legal means of pursuing happiness, so the fact that it is illegal when combined with voting means nothing. In that context, your statement is wrong.
But you can also fill out an absentee vote, having as much sex as you want while you do it. In that context as well, your statement is wrong.
Gee, that’s a super attitude. Tell you what, the moment anyone suggests opening a prison camp for people who want to marry someone of their own gender, I’ll be right there chaining myself to the gates. Or something. But as long as it’s just a simple “no, you can’t”, I just can’t muster the outrage.
If you actually think that not being allowed to smoke in a car is in any way comparable to being denied 1000+ federal, and hundreds of state, rights and privileges associated with marriage, then you’re a complete and utter dumbass fucking moron.
And as far as putting people who want to marry members of their own sex in camps goes, and at the risk of Godwinizing the thread, it’s been done. Stupid fuck.
Personally I wish they’d make a law REQUIRING people to smoke in their cars. That is, actually inside the car, and only inside of the car.
Rather than what most seem to do, and that is to hang the nasty things outside their window, nice and low so that they can “share” and waft all that smoke up into their fellow motorists’ windows at lights, in parking lots and the like.
He’s upset about the loss of liberty as pertaining to smoking in his car, you’re upset about the loss of liberty as pertaining to who you wish to marry. The only real difference from that perspective is a matter of degree.
Your situation may have far bigger implications, but it doesn’t his mean the loss of liberty he feels is being imposed on him should be scoffed at.
You meant to specify tobacco, didn’t you? Because you’re too late. There are already prisons for people who smoke pot even in their own homes. You’ll chain yourself to the gates when people can’t smoke tobacco. Surely, you will.
You seem to be saying the property isn’t private by virtue of the fact that government has invaded the privacy. Well then, homes aren’t private either. Do you have any idea how many “protective” regulations apply to a frigging house?
Damn. I reckon I better toss out the mat on our porch that says WELCOME.
I cannot imagine why. Did you flip a coin or something?
I see. So reading comprehension not something you ever felt the need to acquire. Gotcha.
Look. My reponse to Homebrew was addressing his ridiculous hyperbolic sputtering that getting a ticket for smoking in a car was the first step to concentration camps for smokers.
