ACLU says bathroom sexcapades are none of the gov's damn business!!!!

I have no problem with smoking being outlawed in public establishments.

I have a major problem with the government making laws that make it illegal to smoke in private establishments, like bars and restaraunts.

That is where the line should be drawn.

If I own a bar and want it to be filled with smokers that should be my choice just like it should be non-smokers choice to go to the bar across the street where they don't allow smoking.

This is still America and it is still a free country.... well, I think.

 

For what it's worth, here's a Libertarian's take on the answer to that:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.

 

A bar is a "public" establishment.

And smoking is both a public and workplace health issue.

If you spent any time at all reading about the issue over the last, oh, 15 or so years, you'd find that the banning of smoking in restaurants and bars was initially about a safe workplace environment.

In any case the "right to smoke" idiots are losing the battle on just about every front so save your indignation for something else---how about evolution?

 

A bar is a private establishment open to the public. Huge difference. No one is forced to work at a bar or patronize a bar. Period.

No matter how many times you say otherwise, that doesn't make it so.

 

Of course no one is forced to work anywhere. That is not the point.

Workers have the expectation of working in a safe environment. That's hardly a radical position.

It's like telling a coal miner, "Hey, we know our wretched record on safety has caused the deaths of 30 people over the last two years but hey, don't like it, find another job".

 

Of course no one is forced to work anywhere. That is not the point.

Workers have the expectation of working in a safe environment. That's hardly a radical position.

It's like telling a coal miner, "Hey, we know our wretched record on safety has caused the deaths of 30 people over the last two years but hey, don't like it, find another job".


[/quote]If, as you insist, being near smoke is not safe, then you and your big-government friends should be working to ban tobacco. But as long as it remains a legal product, you have no leg on which to stand. It's a legal product, and a bar is a private business.

 

Governments are working to eradicate smoking despite the best efforts of the tobacco industry. If you've been paying attention, jurisdictions all over North America are restricting its use.

A bar may be a private business but it's also a public place.

The big old bad government has as much a right to legislate where you may or may not smoke the same way they legislate alcohol.

Go find another fish to fry. This one is a non-starter.

 

Sorry, kid, but your post is the first one where the quote function started malfunctioning. That aside, government has no business telling a business owner that he can't allow something that's perfectly legal in his establishment.

That some governments are doing so does not make it right. It makes those governments over-reaching. If you can't understand that, there's no hope for you.

You want it banned, ban it. But until it's banned completely, you have no right to tell a private business owner he can't allow it.

 

Come on. You know a true smoking ban isn't ever going to happen. The tobacco industry brings in too much money and has too strong of a lobby.

I guarantee you that if tobacco were a new product today, it would never be legalized in the first place given the wide-ranging health risks to smokers and those around them.

 

My apologies about the quote function. You're right. I fixed it.

Governments legislate all sorts of things about legal products. There are health and safety laws about food, for example. And last time I checked, food was a legal product.

Smoking is a health issue for both the workers and the people who frequent said bar. This is not an example of "over-reaching" any more than there are laws against underage drinking.

 

I agree with your second point

As far as your first point goes, empirical evidence indicates otherwise.

Ireland banned it countrywide.

New York has banned it.

In Toronto about the only place you can smoke is in your house and there are cities and towns who are passing legislation where it will be illegal to smoke in your car if children are present

Sorry, but smoking will eventually be effectively banned everywhere in North America.

You can take that to the bank.

In most place it's about as socially acceptable as waving your dick in public

 

No need to apologize and I shouldn't have been so snooty about it. Just so you know, I don't smoke and I probably would be married now if a girlfriend years ago hadn't taken up smoking. I despise it and will not date a woman who smokes.

I am, however, very committed to property rights. Yes, food is a legal product. And governments don't and can't ban it being consumed in public. And they certainly can't and don't ban it being consumed in privately owned businesses.

I agree with your point to outofplace that it's socially unacceptable. But as far as I'm concerned, either ban it or leave it alone. It would appear to me that you're trying to ban it a little at a time because you know you can't ban it all at once. In the process, you are trampling property rights. And you don't seem to care.