| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
|
|
tabletop
Frequent Poster
USA
267 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2010 : 5:00:14 PM
|
| First off I am a veteran and respect all who have served. But this could open up a door to all kinds of places wanting exceptions. The law was passed to protect those who want to enter an establishment and not have to endure the smells and health risks of second hand smoke. Secondly, many of these veterans are receiving all of their medical care on our nickel from the VA(deservingly so). Do we reward them by shortening their lives by encouraging unhealthy behaviour? |
 |
|
|
cuzimrite
Frequent Poster
922 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 8:41:02 PM
|
I quit smoking (tobacco) 31 years ago. I swore then that I wouldn't be one of those militant ex-smokers that insist that everyone stop that filthy habit as well.
This law is wrong. Private clubs and lodges (Eagles, Elks, etc.) should be exempt, or at least have an option of having a room devoted to those who actively seek shortening their lives. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2010 : 8:51:59 PM
|
Cuzimrite I couldn't agree more with you. One should be free to set the rules for what one does on one's own property (assuming everyone is a consenting adult and no one is held there against their will).
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
silentTRobserver
Frequent Poster
770 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2010 : 11:33:13 AM
|
| The problem is the power of the American Cancer Society lobby... |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2010 : 11:02:52 AM
|
I believe that part of the reason the law was written to be so restrictive was not to punish the smokers but to protect the health of the employees of the establishments. Who previously were forced to suck it up or quit their jobs, not exactly fair either.
I think the tobacco industry's lobby is a little bigger than the ACS's. I think the 'problem' is people's attitudes towards smoking have changed slowly from the day they told everybody it was bad for you. Look at the size of the smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants from 10-15 years ago - or whenever they started separating them. They went from being equal to smoking being a relatively small area.
As far as letting people to what they want with their property I agree they should be able to but how far should that go. I would like to open a strip club in downtown Three Rivers, or maybe I would like to produce toxic or explosive chemicals. As long as we are all consenting adults and free to leave whenever we want it should be okay. right?
The biggest problem I have with smoking over say alcohol is that unless you get in a car or you pee on my shoe drinking doesn't directly effect me when I sit next to you. When you smoke, you pollute the air around you and that does effect me. Both habits do effect everybody when you talk long term but only smoking effects me directly when you do it sitting next to me.
|
|
|
|
cuzimrite
Frequent Poster
922 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2010 : 9:17:57 PM
|
| If you're wondering, I vote for the strip club. All in favor????? |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2010 : 1:06:51 PM
|
quote:
I believe that part of the reason the law was written to be so restrictive was not to punish the smokers but to protect the health of the employees of the establishments. Who previously were forced to suck it up or quit their jobs, not exactly fair either.
Why should the rights of an employee outweigh the rights of the property owner? Or for that matter the rights of the customer who may enjoy smoked filled rooms? And how can you talk about fair when the individual property owner has been deprived of his or her own rights? Is that fair?
It would be different, possibly, if cigarettes were a banned substance but they are not. The law allows consenting adults to smoke and be around others who also smoke, if they choose to do so, why should this situation be different?
quote:
I think the 'problem' is people's attitudes towards smoking have changed slowly from the day they told everybody it was bad for you. Look at the size of the smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants from 10-15 years ago - or whenever they started separating them. They went from being equal to smoking being a relatively small area.
I agree. People's attitudes have changed and that is a good thing. My problem is with the nanny state and its supporters, the "behavior bigots", telling people how to live their lives and run their businesses.
quote:
As far as letting people to what they want with their property I agree they should be able to but how far should that go.
It should go as far as the parties involved think it should go. Again assuming that everyone is an adult and no one is being held against their will.
quote:
I would like to open a strip club in downtown Three Rivers, or maybe I would like to produce toxic or explosive chemicals.
I'll take these separately. If you want to start a Strip Club down town and you can get all the permits that are required. Why not? I wouldn't go to it but I am sure there are other that would. I don't think it is my job to be the moral police for my neighbors and I am happy to let them decide what is a proper form of entertainment for themselves.
Now as far as the toxic or explosive chemicals go. You will have to be more specific of which toxic or explosive chemicals you are talking about. But in general there are probably many business already in the city that have both of these types of items and I don't see any signs that it is any kind of a local catastrophe.
Keep in mind you put a toxic and explosive chemical in your car on a regular basis that is available at multiple locations in town. Are you going to be OK with the consequences that will come when those "behaviour bigots" get around to limiting your access to that?
quote:
As long as we are all consenting adults and free to leave whenever we want it should be okay. right?
In general I agree. Yes.
quote:
The biggest problem I have with smoking over say alcohol is that unless you get in a car or you pee on my shoe drinking doesn't directly effect me when I sit next to you. When you smoke, you pollute the air around you and that does effect me. Both habits do effect everybody when you talk long term but only smoking effects me directly when you do it sitting next to me.
I don't smoke but if I did I would not do it around others in public who didn't out of respect for them. However my feelings are that if a private business wants to allow its customers to engage in a LEGAL behaviour it should be allowed to do so. If you as a consumer don't want to set next to a person smoking go somewhere else or stay home. I promise you I will never come in your home (your private property) and tell you what you can and cannot do there.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
Lefty
Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2010 : 5:08:24 PM
|
I think smoking can be classed as an ethical dilemma as ethics are all about putting aside personal morals.
If an individual chooses to smoke it is his/her own decision (is autonomous) and people should respect that decision.
You can offer to educate smokers and help them to make informed choice but not impose, inflict and enforce.
Pro-smoking: America is about freedom, and freedom should mean individuals should be able to do whatever they wish as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.
Anti-smoking: There are legal restrictions for activities that impinge on the private property, use of public facilities, and health and well-being of others.
This argument can never be won by either side; it will always be thrown back and forth. In some instances smoking does not affect others, and in some it does. The task of legislating a law that justly divides this situation is simply impossible.
I must lean towards freedom on your property, as long as it is contained and not interfering with the rights of others then smoking should be allowed. If smoking is offensive, simply do not visit, there are other places.
This is in similarity to a particular neighbor who strongly expressed my flag was too big My American flag, Im proud to fly it, it is on my property and doesnt affect or demean the general area and I made sure it did not blanket any views or adjacent properties. I told the person to simply not look at, just respect it.
"No man's life , liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session ." - Mark Twain
'The true Soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but
because He loves what is behind him.' -G. K. Chesterton
|
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2010 : 3:48:03 PM
|
quote:
Why should the rights of an employee outweigh the rights of the property owner? Or for that matter the rights of the customer who may enjoy smoked filled rooms? And how can you talk about fair when the individual property owner has been deprived of his or her own rights? Is that fair?
Fair enough. Let's eliminate OSHA and any other restrictions on employers. It is their property. All those people who have died from black lung disease, exposure to asbestos, lead or any of the other highly toxic chemicals used in manufacturing processes should have gotten a different job. It's not like employers have every hid the dangers involved in working with some of these products. And certainly if you get hurt on the job it's your fault and employers have no responsibility for your well being. The history of employer / employee relations is filled with feel good stories of how the honest and well meaning business owners have been mistreated and maligned for sticking up for their property rights and polluting waterways, ground water, soil, and the air. In fact I just read an article stating that China had determined that they had fixed the problems of exposure to high levels of lead in people's bodies and that it wasn't a problem anymore so they reopened many of the lead smelters that they had closed.
The reality is that because we live in a society it is sometimes necessary to limit rights of one individual to protect someone else's rights. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded room when there isn't one. The greatness of this country is that everyday we attempt strike a balance. We don't always get it right but I hope we keep trying. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 12:41:46 PM
|
quote:
Fair enough. Let's eliminate OSHA and any other restrictions on employers.
Let's slow down here a little bit. I am not necessarily advocating the elimination of OSHA or any other restriction put on businesses today. I simply believe that when we the people have all the information and are willing to take responsibility for our actions we should be allowed to engage in behaviors, that we enjoy, without the interference of the nanny state or any of its subjects.
Please remember that we are talking about a legal product (cigarettes) that can be bought at most convenience stores. I am not a smoker but I pretty confident that there are warnings contained on each pack sold that they are not considered a health food. Anyone who smokes today and doesn't know that it is hazerdous to their health will not be helped by this ban anyway.
quote:
All those people who have died from black lung disease, exposure to asbestos, lead or any of the other highly toxic chemicals used in manufacturing processes should have gotten a different job.
If they knew the risks going in and chose to work their anyway and consequently died from it then yes, I think, in retrospect that they should have gotten a different job.
quote:
It's not like employers have every hid the dangers involved in working with some of these products.
Now if information was held from them then all bets are off. Any company that knowingly exposes its employees to something that they knew would cause harm to them without proper safety precautions should be punished to THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW.
quote:
And certainly if you get hurt on the job it's your fault and employers have no responsibility for your well being.
If there is gross negligence on the part of an employer then I believe they are absolutely (and 100%) responsible for a injury. However, if I am goofing off at work and am doing something that is against the rules and or common sense and become injured. It is I who is responsible for the injury.
quote:
The history of employer / employee relations is filled with feel good stories of how the honest and well meaning business owners have been mistreated and maligned for sticking up for their property rights and polluting waterways, ground water, soil, and the air.
Again I am not about no regulation. I am about letting people engage in behaviours that they enjoy and that are (or should be) legal.
quote:
In fact I just read an article stating that China had determined that they had fixed the problems of exposure to high levels of lead in people's bodies and that it wasn't a problem anymore so they reopened many of the lead smelters that they had closed.
Well now you are talking about a communist government and not about businesses but I get your point. In general I don't trust anything said by anyone in government communist or not so that point is lost on me.
quote:
The reality is that because we live in a society it is sometimes necessary to limit rights of one individual to protect someone else's rights.
I don't agree. I think we all should have the same access to the same amount of liberty and any consequence that results from it.
To be clear I DON'T EVER THINK IT IS OK FOR ONE'S RIGHTS TO OVERRIDE ANOTHERS. In other words I don't believe that people have any natural right to do harm to an innocent (non participating) party.
Put another way one's rights end at the end of their fist and at the beginning of the other's nose. That is unless their is a contract or understanding for them to exceed that limit such as in a boxing match etc.
quote:
You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded room when there isn't one.
Yes you can. There MAY be a consequence of doing it but it can certainly be done.
quote:
The greatness of this country is that everyday we attempt strike a balance. We don't always get it right but I hope we keep trying.
No the greatness of this country is that it re-introduced the concepts of individual liberty and freedom to the world. It is too bad that we know little about what the world was like with out it but unfortunately I think our children's children will.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 1:33:14 PM
|
quote:
If they knew the risks going in and chose to work their anyway and consequently died from it then yes, I think, in retrospect that they should have gotten a different job.
So it's acceptable to you for a company to expose and eventually kill it's workers as long as they knew the risks and continued to work there.
quote:
To be clear I DON'T EVER THINK IT IS OK FOR ONE'S RIGHTS TO OVERRIDE ANOTHERS. In other words I don't believe that people have any natural right to do harm to an innocent (non participating) party.
Put another way one's rights end at the end of their fist and at the beginning of the other's nose. That is unless their is a contract or understanding for them to exceed that limit such as in a boxing match etc.
You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded room when there isn't one.
So if I'm getting this right, I like to drive 75 mph in the middle of town and I should be allowed to do so because I am not doing any harm to anyone. But on the occasion that I do hit and kill that child running after her ball as long as I am punished to the full extent of the law it's okay. We wouldn't want to infringe upon my rights. I'm saying that we put limits on individual rights because in retrospect we can't go back in time and undead the people trampled when you yelled "FIRE" or unkill the child when you hit her driving to fast. Some of the consequences of your freedom cannot be undone and that's why I say we try balancing your freedoms against mine. Just punishing someone after the fact doesn't fix the problem their action caused.
This is fun. Spirited debate is good for the soul.
I do think that people should be allowed to smoke. I'm just looking for a way to do it that allows everyone to get what they want. A job, a place to smoke and a business. |
Edited by - Shutesie on 07/07/2010 2:15:38 PM |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 2:27:47 PM
|
quote:
So if I'm getting this right, I like to drive 75 mph in the middle of town and I should be allowed to do so because I am not doing any harm to anyone. But on the occasion that I do hit and kill that child running after her ball as long as I am punished to the full extent of the law it's okay. We wouldn't want to infringe upon my rights.
When you apply for your drivers license you essentially sign an agreement with the state that you will follow their guidelines when you are behind the wheel. Therefore in this case you voluntarily give up your right to drive as fast as you want on their roads.
quote:
I'm saying that we put limits on individual rights because in retrospect we can't go back in time and undead the people trampled when you yelled "FIRE" or unkill the child when you hit her driving to fast.
By that logic any behavior that could potential kill a child should be banned including things like backing out of your driveway.
Since I have already stated that a drivers license requires you sign away some of your rights voluntarily I don't have (too many) issues with traffic laws. If I owned all the roads I would feel differently about it but I don't so I am OK with the compromise that I made with the state to get my license (in this case).
quote:
Some of the consequences of your freedom cannot be undone and that's why I say we try balancing your freedoms against mine. Just punishing someone after the fact doesn't fix the problem their action caused.
Come on. All our laws are based on punishing people after they cross some line. You can not prevent someone from committing a crime or causing an accident preemptively. All you can really do is make the risk of doing it so high that those who care about risk and laws will comply with the law.
Those who don't care about risk will only be stopped by the consequences. That is unless you think someone should be arrested and punished for admitting that the like to drive 75 miles an hour down town on a public forum.
quote:
This is fun. Spirited debate is good for the soul.
It is. Thank you for having the courage of your convictions to speak up for what you believe in.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 5:08:28 PM
|
My argument is that I'm telling people ahead of time to not do something
Thou shalt not kill.
Your statement "Yes you can. There MAY be a consequence of doing it but it can certainly be done." suggests the wording would be...
You can kill but you might get in trouble.
See the difference.
Anyway, moving forward.
You just said what I've been saying. Because we live in a society we must necessarily give up some of our personal rights to do certain things in the interest of everyone including ourselves. I can't drive 75 in town - a right I gave up voluntarily by getting a driver's license - because somebody decided at some point in the past that it was a bad idea to drive at 75 in town. Presumably after seeing several people die or the statistics about deaths involving high speed travel in town. I wasn't there but a would say that there were people who complained that it was unfair and that we should be able to drive as fast as we want but society decided that that rule would be best for all.
Now we have the same thing with smoking in public places. It has been determined that first, second, and even third hand smoke is harmful. Society has changed such that the majority feel that it shouldn't be allowed in public.
Following my point about this country being great in that it tries to find a balance between the rights of individuals, we see this exception to the law being put forth.
I would argue that rather than creating exceptions to the rule an attempt to remove the risks to non-smokers either customers or employees in any situation would be the better course of action. In manufacturing situations, companies are required to keep harmful chemicals, noise, etc to within predetermined limits. I say do the same for the chemicals involved in smoking. The tobacco lobby has been pretty successful at excepting smoking from workplace rules until now.
I'm curious about other nanny state topics and your opinions.
Gay marriage, legalizing of drugs, or assisted suicide among some topics where conservative types seem to be all for government involvement. Libertarians I believe see these as a stay out of my business topics like smoking or seat belts.
A side note I just was reading a clip on Walmart fighting a OSHA fine regarding the trampling death of an employee. Not knowing all the facts, on the surface I'd side with Walmart unless of course there have been a lot more "Real Good Sales" trampling deaths and that they should have known better. |
|
|
|
Buck
Forum Admin
USA
5761 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2010 : 6:46:31 PM
|
Saying Thou Shalt Not Kill does not stop any killing. Laws will never prevent people from doing harm to themselves or others if they are intent on doing harm.
Now onto the second part of your post. If a person voluntarily gives up there rights then that it is OK with me (driver's license example above). As individuals we have to decide for ourselves whether the convenience of driving our cars is worth the loss of some of our liberty. I happen to agree that it is so I signed the contract and abide by the rules (most of the time). I am also completely aware of the consequences of violating those rules so I am in complete control of my liberty.
In the case of banning smoking in a restaurant the owners were not given the opportunity to voluntarily give up their rights. The law was imposed on them against their will (in some cases). Where it wasn't it shouldn't have been an issue anyway because the owner already had the right to ban it on their own behalf.
Now onto your last questions.
I don't think the government has any business telling people who they can and cannot marry. Where in the Constitution do they derive that power from? We all have the natural right to enter into a marriage contract with whomever makes us happy (consenting adults and all that considered). I beleive that governments should get out of the marriage business completely. I will admit that there are probably some cases where the government should be able to intervene but it should always be the exception and not the rule.
There are some gray areas for me concerning drugs but for the most part I believe that people have the right to destroy their own lives if they choose to do so. Having said that I should say that I believe they alone (and possibly charity) are solely responsible for their actions and they in no way can cause harm to another with their recreational use of drugs (physically or monetarily and no second and third chances either). The laws have done nothing to stem drug use and you could probably make the argument that more people die with the prohibition in place then would without it. We could also work on treatment instead of punishment if it wasn't illegal in the first place but that is a argument for another day. As I mentioned I am some what wishy washy on the harder drugs but have no problem with marijuana at all (don't do it myself but don't intend on trying to prevent others that do).
I have never gave assisted suicide much thought but I can see arguments for this from both sides. I guess as long as a person is of sane mind and wants a doctor to help them kill themselves and we are not just offing people with mental problems or who are a burden to someone I could go along with it. We just have to go into something like this with eyes wide open and are careful to consider all of the unintended consequences that could result from such a practice.
I am mostly a conservative leaning libertarian but I put principles above all else so when in doubt I always default to the side of personal liberty.
Liberty First. Everything else second. |
|
|
|
Shutesie
Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2010 : 7:20:40 PM
|
The Thou Shalt Not Kill reference was merely used as an example of how I perceived the differences in how laws would be written based on the differences in our view points. As you said people are still going to break the rules.
To your second statement, I would argue that the owner did have a say in the creation of the law or are you saying that the restaurants & bar assoc., the tobacco industry and any other lobbying groups that were against the law didn't do everything in their power to stop it's passing. They merely lost the battle. The same battle that they have been winning prior to the passing of the bill.
With our system of government the owners can vote for and possibly elect people who will view the law as wrong and can then get rid of it.
I am surprised that you never came back with my biggest concern when you take the side of the arguement that I have taken.
Slippery Slope.
If you accept the fact that it's not a bad thing for the government but more importantly society to decides what is good and bad for you, how far do you let that go. Okay killing is bad, going 75 in a 25 is bad, smoking is bad but what about sky diving, driving a motorcycle, leaving the toilet seat up or down.
How far do you let the "Nanny State" control your life. It's easy to say it's okay to have laws against "clear and present dangers" like speeding but it is really easy to go too far. I've seen a least one republican advocate for controlling people's bad health habits as a way to control healthcare costs. I can't remember who - I'm looking though. Republicans also seem to be against legalizing drugs, assisted suicide, and gay marriage which are just as much a "Nanny State" issue as whether I smoke or not. It seems that whether you are for or against the government telling you what you can or can't do depends on what you are speaking about.
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Legislation introduced to allow smoking in VFW
