Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Well, it is kind of vague. Depending on how much of a badass you are, the only person who can allow something to affect you personally is you. So if you go by that definition, there should be no laws.
|
Okay, I guess this part
is kind of vague. Let's replace 'them' with 'people'. Restaurant smoke need not ever affect
people personally. Because avoidance is always possible.
Quote:
|
Smoking bans are pretty cut and dry. Coming up with criteria for the kinds of jobs which are acceptable for children to do with their parent's permission is probably a bit more complicated.
|
They're pretty cut and dry, until you get to the issue of when a business is allowed to get the exception in the form of a smoking licence, when a bar can qualify as a smoking lounge, ect. Then the law either gets convoluted or becomes neutered, pointless bureaucracy.
Of course, you can keep it cut and dry by banning smoking lounges as well, but then it gets
reaaaaaaly hard to deny that you're just being nosy out of some strange spite.
Quote:
|
The idea that one could just walk into a restaurant and smoke without buying any food is ridiculous. Of course private businesses charge their customers money.
|
Uh, then reality is ridiculous. They might get you for loitering after a long while of no purchases, but many places even let you use the bathroom without so much as a pretzel purchase. And they're not going to kick out the one person in a party of three or four who settles for tap water. The food may cost you, but the space frequently doesn't.
It's certainly not an altruistic gift, but it is a gift.
But this is kinda beside the point, anyway. If owner and customer both decide they're willing to make a deal that involves secondhand smoke - and yes, a customer who walks into a restaurant with smokers IS making that deal - then the government should probably slip out of the mommy role and let both parties take the risks they want to take.
And if the customer accepts the smoke but
really doesn't want it, the customer is conflicted in a needless and stupid way. Decide which is more important - restaurant food or secondhand avoidance - and choose accordingly. Don't use the gun of government to coerce someone into your idealized choice. Avoid that self-centered childishness.
Quote:
|
Is that what you were doing?
|
IknowyouarebutwhatamI.
Quote:
|
There's more to freedom than property. You said you'd prefer to eliminate the right of underage children to frequent smoky private businesses before you'd limit the right of private businesses to make their buildings smoky. Freedom of business trumps freedom of the individual. This says nothing about the right of individuals to control the smokiness of their nonbusiness property.
|
I'm also against convicted murderers and illegal aliens frequenting the local indie rock venue. Contradictions ahoy!
If you're looking for symmetry, I think private businesses should also not be allowed to
serve secondhand smoke to minors. Penalties all around. I also think that underage children shouldn't be allowed to own smoke-filled bars. And there should be a moratorium on the use of the word 'hypocrite' until you're at least 35. (That's a view with personal sacrifice. I've 11 years to go!)
If that doesn't cover it, you'll need to clarify what exactly the inconsistency here is. It's looking too much like
"A can do B, but X can't do Y? Don't you see the problem with that?"
No, no I don't.
Quote:
|
Well, its arguable whether prohibiting smoking in a restaurant is a violation of rights, given that smoking isn't necessarily protected in the constitution. It's just as much of a right as the right of the average person to eat out without smelling cigarette smoke while they eat.
|
Well, sure, I could agree with that. But if I wanted to eat out in a non-public place, I'd still need the owner's permission, right? Or can I crash your house at 2am unannounced? And I'd probably have to agree to the owner's term's, no? If I barged in and insisted that your godawful techno/smoothjazz/nucountry/MindofMencia was causing long-term health risks and must be shut off immediately, you probably wouldn't invite me back. Even with my totally awesome sense of humor!
Show me where in the constitution it says that you can make coma-inducing sounds. It's not there. Our Founding Fathers made allowances for the possibility of Kenny G.
Quote:
|
That's actually Sean Hannity. He's a top, I need a bottom.
|
Pfft. Hannity isn't smart enough to use the internet.
Quote:
|
You brought it up. I'm not saying they're the same, just that the words you use to describe your position are a tad overly inclusive.
|
It's a saying, jerk. How was I supposed to know that you actually beat your wife? You screwed up my cliche.
Quote:
|
That's the price of doing business in places where most people don't respect the rights of the lazily suicidal.
|
It's a really poor way of committing suicide, don't know think? They might try a way that doesn't often allow for a long and happy life.
Quote:
|
Notice how nothing is being accomplished here at all... I'm kind of having fun though.
|
Same.