SOUND THE ALARM!!!! BAN TANNING BEDS!!!! SAVE US FROM OURSELVES!!!!

You really can't argue that second-hand smoke isn't dangerous, either, unless you don't mind being wrong. Then again, as often as Tony is wrong on here, maybe he's just used to it by now.

 

I mean, I told him exactly why Joe's rights aren't absolute even though he owns the bar, and Tony answers with "It's PRIVATE property" as if it's black-and-white and so obvious, skipping over the part where he got his ass handed to him by me.

 

Problem with all this thinking (or non-thinking) on your parts is that there is no "right" to go into Joe's bar. And tobacco being a completely legal product to use, government has no right to tell a private property owner that he can't allow a perfectly legal product to be used, whether it's a business of not. Customers are not required to go to Joe's. Workers aren't required to work at Joe's. They can get jobs elsewhere if they don't like smoke. Joe owns the bar. Joe makes the call.

Unless, that is, if you really, really hate freedom.

 

Let me speak really slowly, Tony so you can get back to making license plates.

Smoking, based on scientific evidence, is an individual and public health hazard. You understand that, right?

Many forward thinking jurisdictions have decided, that in the interests of public health, smoking will not be allowed in public places.

Despite your inability to understand this centuries' old concept, a restaurant is a public place.

And finally, there are dozens and dozens of legal products that have restrictions placed on them. You do understand that, don't you?

And to top it all off you're arguing legalilties with Waylon, who's a lawyer. But then, you're the guy who maintains that "evolution is just a theory" .

You should really give up. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

Again, the public is invited into Joe's Bar as "invitees," to use legalese. He therefore owes them protection. If this was his house, and the danger - i.e. second-hand smoke - was out in the open, he doesn't have to stop. They can leave. At a public restaurant, that's not the case. He owes them a duty not to subject them to unreasonable harm, which some towns have apparently decided includes second-hand smoke.

Smoking is legal, yes. But some legislatures have decided that isn't legal in a confined space. Burning leaves is legal in most places, too, but you can't start a burning leaf fire in the middle of American Eagle at the mall.

It's not about "hating freedom," Tony (and we all know how much you respect gay Americans' freedom), though that sounds good when Hannity or Rush are spewing to a self-selected audience. It's a public safety issue and as soon as Joe opens his doors to the public, his responsibility climbs. That's the law, and it always has been the law, for centuries.

 

Again, a representative republic's representatives have passed the relevant laws, so they're perfectly legal limits we've placed on our freedoms. So, no, you're not a 4-year-old who can shit wherever he wants.

Man, Rousseau should be required reading for some folks here.

 

Actually, if it's open to the public as a place of business, everyone has an absolute legal right to go into the establishment, guaran-damn-teed by the U.S. Guvmt (provided they wear shirts and shoes, if required, and of legal age if they are serving alcohol but not food). I thought we got that legal issue resolved in 1964 or 1965.

 

Fixed.

 

Did the ref stop this one yet?

 

He has, but tony took too many shots to the head to realize it.

 

Didn't need to. It. Is. Over.

And just because it's one of my favourite Joe Bowen calls here's "Down goes Brown".

 

Why is everyone so hung up on what's "legal"? Legality is a matter of convincing 51% of the lawmakers that there ought to be a law. Way too many people confuse "legal" with "just" or "right". Just because our legal system treats Joe's Bar as a "public" place doesn't mean that it should be treated as such. Even if 99 out of 100 people want it to be under the legal umbrella of "public", with Joe himself as the only dissenting vote, it still doesn't make it right to say that Joe has some sort of obligation to the public. He doesn't. It's his private property, which happens to be the foundation from which all of our other freedoms spring. Life, Liberty, and to keep the fruits of our labor -- this is a free society.

And yes, to that end, if Joe wanted to tack a sign to his door saying, "no black people allowed", he should be allowed to do it. Does that make his action moral? No, it is immoral to discriminate against someone just because of his or her color. But it is many times more immoral to deprive an individual of his private property. It is the difference between Liberty and Enslavement.

And it breaks my heart that most individuals can not see this.