Ohio Proves YOUR VOTE does not matter
 

I'm a smoker. I believe owners should be able to have a say whether they allow smoking or not. FACT.

58% of Ohio voting disagreed with me and made Ohio a totally smoke free state inside businesses. FACT.

The people spoke, I didn't like it, but they had their say and I have found ways to live with it. FACT

Recently, the state of Ohio, came out saying it cost 2 million dollars more to enforce the laws than it took in on fines and even the fines aren't being paid, by all. The small bars and places getting fined are simply closing down, or changing ownerships. FACT

Critics of that law are saying that 2 million could go to better programs. I agree. FACT

There is a congressman from the Cincinnati area, now, who is fighting for legislation that will ALLOW bars, restaurants and casinos to purchase what is called smoking licenses to allow smoking in their establishments. FACT.

3 things come to mind:

1) 58% of voters said they do NOT want smoking ANYWHERE in public buildings. But, there are those saying that doesn't matter and working on changing that rule. So the votes don't matter.


2) No smoking in a casino is very bad for the casino. Could this have anything to do with the new casinos coming to Ohio?

3) I can see it as a good SHORT TERM revenue source and in some ways, think it is a very good idea.

3 however, goes against 1. While I may see the benefits of changing the law, the people did vote and who are the legislators to pass and change laws the people voted to put into place?

Should this not be put upon the people to vote?

This is why referendums are a waste of time.

Democracy is a messy device. Direct democracy by way of referendums is a even messier.

Elect officials to enact the platform you want. Let them represent your vote.

people will always find ways around, under, over, or flat ignore rules and laws that infringe on their liberties. it's all a matter of the government caring enough if the penalty collections are worth the effort.

where is the liberty infringement here?

We're not a democracy. The word democracy isn't found anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We're a Republic, and I think these things should be voted on by our elected officials. As soon as you let the people vote, the shit hits the fan

If it is costing more to enforce the fines then you get from the fines then raise the fines. If the fines were much higher I bet less people would break the laws.

Smoke smells like shit, second hand smoke kills, and its horrible for asthmatics like myself.

If you want to kill yourself, do it in the privacy of your own home, not in a public setting.

Owners of businesses do not have the right to enforce laws as they see fit, they are subject to the law just like anyone else.

Smoking in public should be illegal, and eventually it will be. Anything that occurs in the meantime is just delaying that.

People are always going to look for a recourse against what they see as an unfair law. In this case business owners see this as a direct threat against their ability to make a living so they turn to the state govt to fix it. Our republic in action I suppose.

I don't know, referendums are fine I suppose and they have their place but I don't really care much for the overall practice and never will.

But the true state government (the voting public at large) said that we don't want smoking in bars and other public places. While I'm not a big fan of the fines (99% reduction is enough for me just by having businesses stop smoking in their indoor areas), and unless they are outright ignoring the law, then I think they are wasting their time going after one-off violations.

The court system just ruled in favor of the business today, so that is another example of the will of the people not being upheld.

Interesting that most cities in North Carolina - the heart of tobacco country - banned smoking in public buildings long ago.

I wonder how much business fall off this causes? Here in DC, it's been banned from bars for a long time, that's why so many bars developed rooftop rooms that are thriving. I go out with my cow-orkers and the smokers just go to the rooftop. They don't even think about complaining. In a generation or so, nobody will think much about this, and it certainly won't go backwards. Once a toe hold has been established, it never lets go.

I avoided the bars and clubs where smoking was allowed. I'm allergic, and it just plain smells bad. Now I can go and have fun too.

Personally I like the way they handled the issue here in Tennessee. You can have a smoking establishment but only if you cater to an over 21 clientele and have a sign stating the business is a smoking establishment. If a business owner wants to cater to smokers he can by simply selling beer and carding at the door and customers can decide weather or not they want to go inside. Winners all around! YAY!

I'd be curious also to see what kind of effect these laws have on business. I remeber when they passed the no smoking law in Maine in the late 90's there were a lot of small bars and diners that went under but I've never read any stats on the real numbers and overall effect one way or the other.

OR - stop being a child, and find a different place that suits your needs and desires.

Thanks to the puritan way Charlotte treats alcohol, smoking IS allowed in bars, but they're not bars. They're clubs that you pay a dollar to join. This makes them private buildings. This also is a totally messed up way to do this because there's also a WHOLE lot of drug dealing in these private clubs because they're basically houses to the police. Not some place they might drop by just to make sure things are on the up and up.

Virginia looked at the signage idea. I don't remember if they ever passed that though. It seems simple enough. I would worry that every bar would go with signage and allow smoking, but then I only go to the DC bars.

I would worry about this as well. Or the employees working there would have to breathe in the second hand smoke for 8+ hours each day even though the voters put these laws in place.

exactly. the smoking ban isn't just about the patrons, it's also about the employees.

Back to the OP, though, about "your vote doesn't matter"...

Referenda are a convenient way for lawmakers to pass the buck and keep their hands clean on decisions where there's a powerful or vocal minority (in this case, bar owners). IMO there's really no place for them in a real Republic. They're a backdoor legislative loophole designed to provide the illusion of control to the public. So yeah, your vote doesn't matter, nor should it on issues like this. You elected representatives to represent you. THAT vote is the one that needs to matter.

As a former smoker, I'm entirely happy that my county just passed an indoor smoking ban. I've given quite a bit of business to my local service industry since that went into effect, as have all the non-smokers I know.

(I also note, pan, that it strikes me as very strange to describe your feelings and personal attitudes, and the follow that sentence with "FACT". Your opinions are opinions, not facts. You're entitled to them, and I guess it is a fact that you have them, but putting "FACT" behind them the same way you do the percentage outcome of the vote leads to strange logical consequences.)

I understand the debate about referendums, but once used and the voters have spoken it should be done and over with.

I believe in the people's voice and believe that people should have more voice and politicians less. Giving politicians more voice allows more corruption, especially with the latest Supreme Court ruling. Money is everything in politics and the people mean nothing.

It is for that reason I find this appalling. Again, I am a smoker (soon to be using Chantix again to quit... it's really fucking with my Sarcoidosis) and I dislike having to go outside and freeze to smoke but I live with it, because the people have spoken.

Once government allows a referendum like this, they should put forth another choice for the people. Let the people decide if they want to allow licenses.

I think a major part of the problems in this country is that we do not allow people more power through voting. I find people who want to give government more control and the people less voice are those who either believe they are far more educated and well versed than the general populace and look down on average people as lazy, worthless, uneducated, not smart enough to vote for the laws. These are also people who believe that we should just keep electing the same corrupt parties over and over again because those people like being babysat and/or have agendas and like the control over people.

I believe the opposite. I believe the people should be given more of a voice and allowed to define their communities and states anyway (with the exception of civil rights) the majority sees fit. I don't believe you'd have as many problems financially or with corruption of politicians.

There is no doubt in my mind that all this smoking license bullshit comes Penn National and Dan Gilbert getting ready for their casinos. And it is disgusting to me, to think that we give our voices to these politicians.

The argument can be made that we elect these people and can vote in new people if we do not like what they say. However, that is not the way it truly is. The 2 party system tells us exactly who the candidates will be, those candidates MUST pretty much stand the party line and not what is best for their district. Our system also demands that you need money to be elected. Thus Joe Schmo won't ever see a chance because the people in power already have the money and know how to get more (sell their votes).

When you take the people's votes away, it all becomes about the money and the people, as shown clearly in this case don't matter.

The ONLY way to remedy that, give the people more say and the politicians less.

?

No.

I have no problem if you want to smoke in your own home, but if you do it in a public setting, it affects me.

It makes my clothes stink, it makes it harder to breathe, and second hand smoke kills.

It has nothing to do with "being a child". Smoking, in public should be illegal. If you were smoking water vapor I wouldn't care, however, you are smoking a carcinogen, and I'd rather not have going to a bar be a health risk to my lungs and heart.

so you're perfectly fine with telling private property owners what they can and cannot do/allow on their own property?

---------- Post added at 12:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:24 PM ----------

it actually does have something to do with your childishness. You want to enforce a business practice or policy via law on a business that you don't even own. That is so wrong on an unbelievable number of levels.

What about consumer and labour laws? They're enforced on private property.

does the government force people to eat or drink in that restaurant or bar? Does the government force people to work in that restaurant or bar?

your patronization of any establishment is yours to choose, just as your employment status is your choice. If the property OWNER wishes to allow smoking and you don't like smoke, don't spend your money in there. It's really that damned simple.

No, it's not that simple. That's why we're here.

Does the government force people to work in specific environments? Does the government force consumers to shop in the marketplace?

There are reasons why a property owner isn't allowed to do certain things to employees and consumers. There are sets of laws outlining what these are. And in this case, there are laws that bar owners from permitting smoking in their establishments. It's based on public health, not dissimilar to many labour and consumer laws.

Can I interject here and point out that telling people what they can and can't do on their private property is nothing new, and actually has a pretty solid foundation in protecting liberty? For instance: murder is illegal, even if you do it on your own property. Fraud is illegal, even if you do it on your own property. etc. You can't steal from me just because I'm at your house.

The people, via the government, have a very just and compelling interest in regulating the behavior of private businesses and private property owners. I would wager that there are some of us who wouldn't be here to argue if workplace safety and environmental regulations weren't in place.

"You can't tell a private business person what to do on their own property" is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard. Even if it weren't demonstrably false on many completely established and constitutionally acceptable ways, when taken as an absolute it's a completely misguided and naive personal philosophy to hold. Really. Have you ever thought about what would occur if all property owners were entitled to do whatever they wanted provided they were on their own property? This seems to be what you're advocating.

Childishness is thinking that because someone owns land or a business they can do whatever the fuck they want regardless of how it may affect the people around them.

total strawman. murder and fraud can't even come close to the comparison of making smoking in the establishment illegal.

using this argument, public health and safety, you'd better be hiring 5 million more cops and outlawing every single thing that's dangerous, including toothpicks.

i'm actually getting real sick and tired of advocating every regulation for public health and safety. It's just another progressive method of controlling the populace. It's absolute insanity to push for this kind of totalitarianism.

His following examples are the important ones, as I hinted at above.

Slippery slope much?

Okay, slippery cliff.

Okay, so you admit that there are some things that private property owners shouldn't be able to do even if they're on their own property. So stop resorting to simplistic platitudes that you don't even believe in to make your point. Either the government can tell private property owners what to do on their own property or they can't. Which is it?

That's has nothing to do with anything I've said. All I'm saying is that it's foolish to embrace the notion that private property owners should be able to do whatever the hell they want, just because they're on their own property. I'm not arguing the absolutist position, you are.

It's not insanity and it's not totalitarianism. A lot of it is actually pretty well supported by scientific data. Which is often more convincing than vague platitudes lamenting rights you don't really even believe actually exist.

The vote indirectly matters, as YOU vote for who YOU want in office that represents what YOU want.

Like Baraka said, those laws are put in place to protect the customers and anyone who chooses to do business with them. Of course, you can choose who you do business with, but they can't just let the owners have free will to do whatever they want. Private business to provide a service to the public. Protect the public.

I have no say in the matter about smoking/non smoking, I just look at this as a business/law type topic. I do, however, agree with the theory of letting an owner choose whether to allow smoking or not. At least give him the opportunity to designate an area.

Where to even begin.

I suppose you're opposed to all sorts of laws on businesses that I don't own. Like child labor laws, safety regulations, food and environmental regulations, and all those sort of other bad "progressive" reforms.

It's a law, who owns it is irrelevant. Laws are to be followed.

The government does have a say in what business owners can do. Smoking is a PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN.

It is not just a matter of preference, its a matter of public health. Smoking in public places should be illegal, and thankfully, in most places it is.

we get it, pan prefers to do everything that 50.1% of the voters decide, even if the number of voters is far less than the population, so really, the "majority" vote represents, what, 15-20% of the population? THAT'S who we want deciding things?

That's one of the main reasons I HATE referendum voting, it rarely represents the majority of the population. Couple that with badly worded black and white questions, little to any proper deliberation or debate, no rewrites or compromises and very little thought to the aftermath and consequences it looks even worse. Honestly if what the "majority" wants is supposed to trump all other branches of govt why don't we simply switch to a pure democracy and let the people vote on everything? I'm sure that would turn out just wonderful.

I vote very carefully when it comes to my representatives because I want somebody that properly represents me and would lean the way I would on most issues and I would prefer letting them do their jobs. I simply don't have the time to properly read, educate myself, debate and vote on every issue that comes up and neither do most people.

Different places carry different risks. If you don't want the danger of falling off a cliff, you avoid Mt. Rainier rather than insisting upon special accommodations. If you don't want to be mildly injured by out-of-work rebels listening to bad music, you avoid the punk concert's mosh pit rather than insisting upon special accomodations. If you don't want to hear dumb Down's Syndrome jokes on a mediocre show, for Christ's sake Palin just change the channel.

Every time you find a place that doesn't quite serve your desires for comfort and safety, you can take the adult route of finding an alternate place that does.

Or you can be a child.

I'm still baffled as to why people just don't leave a bar or restaurant if they don't like the way its run.

The other day I went out to lunch at a new place I wanted to try but when I got inside they were playing incredibly loud music. Now I personally don't like being around ear splittingly loud music without ear plugs, it can damage hearing and as a musician I just don't like taking that risk. So I decided to leave, I went across the street and ate at a restaurant with a better atmosphere. If the business owner wants to cater to people that like that kind of setting then more power to him and his customers, its none of my business. Honestly why would I care how he chooses to run his business?

I get the argument for a healthy work environment for employees and I support it. However I'll never understand the argument from the customers perspective and I don't think I ever will.

It's because before the ban there were 0 non-smoking bars. Customers were not given a choice. And getting a liquor license here isn't easy to take a risk starting a smoke-free bar.

Quoted for truth!!!!!

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Yours makes the most sense and I'm extremely in agreement with you.

The arguments of child labor, safety, etc are all bullshit. This is about SMOKING. It is a LEGAL substance that communities, states and even the Feds tax the Hell out of to support their programs, stadiums, etc. Local and state government COULD NOT SPEND nearly what they do without "the sin taxes". In fact some areas are crying because smoking is actually going down and thus that tax revenue is shrinking and they don't know where to find the money for programs.

My feeling is if you don't like smoking vote to make it illegal and before such vote... don't use ANYTHING supported with tobacco tax money, see how easy it is and how much YOU NEED smokers.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

That's not true. I have known several bars that tried to go non smoking but financially could not make it.

Here in Canton where every restaurant and bar had to have separate ventilation, paid for by THEM. A bar owner tried to follow the law, spent a lot of money making it happen and when the ban passed business plummeted and they could not afford the payments on the "separate" ventilation systems and were forced to close down. There are several other bars and private clubs that are also hurting financially because of this reason.

It's only true if you haven't been following the conversation.

First, in this case don't let people vote and then change the rules because that vote didn't work the way you wanted it to. Go back to the people and show them what is going on.

Secondly, far more of the population votes than 15-20% so that is just a bullshit number you pulled out. Maybe in an odd year, turnout is low but statewide/nationwide.... I want to see proof of your number.

And if you are trying to make a case as to why this should mean we should just give more power to the Legislature, you're shooting yourself in the foot because ANY AND ALL politicians in the end care ONLY about those voting. And according to you that would be the 15-20% you are crying about.

So, to me that argument makes no sense... UNLESS you like having freedom and the choice of how government should work taken from the people all together.

Thirdly, if people were given the chance to have a say, more than just voting for 1 of 2 corrupt agenda ridden party candidates, we may actually see 80-90% voting.

It seems no matter who we vote for ("Change" comes to mind)... we see agendas that are NOT in the best interest of ALL people not even the majority and we see corruption and scandals and just total disregard for the people, voters or not. This disenfranchises people. How many times do you think someone is going to vote for "Change" or believing this candidate will be different only to have him be a partisan puppet and owned by corporations, before they decide their vote just doesn't matter?

How many times does it take for someone to vote for something like "no smoking" only to see politicians take that away and change it before they believe their vote doesn't matter and so they stop voting????

The lack of voters is not because they don't care, IMHO, it 's because they did care but were burnt too many times and decided their vote didn't matter.

IF we make their vote matter, by giving them the decision and not changing those laws, then we may see more people voting.

....or if you like to make a mockery of the idea of truth.

I didn't say only 15-20% of the population voted. I said that 15-20% of the population would represent a majority win in a vote, as local elections only garner about 30-40% of the eligible voters.
so in your ideal world, do you think the citizens should get to vote on absolutely everything? should the elected officials have no power?

its even more true when you refuse to follow the actual logic. when you can't differentiate between labor laws and laws of commerce vs. private property rights and private business practices, it's quite simple to just let majority rule.

I guess that means you are not a fan of public accommodation laws?

You dont think in some communities, the populace would vote to return to "whites only" establishments?

There wasn't any actual logic to what you said. I'm not saying that there isn't any logic to your perspective, just that you failed to present any.

I do find your sudden swerve towards nuance intriguing. Tell me, when is it okay for the government to tell private property owners what they can't do on their own property and when is it not okay?

see, this is one of the strawmen i'm talking about. you want to equate discrimination laws or commerce laws with the right of patronizing a business based on personal preferences. it's apples and anal lube comparison.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 PM ----------

when doing so would violate the rights of others, like not murdering someone on their property, but NOT mandating that someone patronize their business because we made it non smoking for you. It's like making bars alcohol free because people want to go there, but not be around alcohol.

Um, how?

You like to say things...confusing or obscure things, but you fail to demonstrate or explain yourself. You've done this many times in this thread now.

First, second hand smoke is an issue that there is no parallel in alcohol.
Second, we already outlaw drunk driving regardless of where the drinking takes place.
Third, there are several dry counties around the country already, so the parable there doesn't make sense.


I'm not arguing that bars SHOULD ban smoking. I'm merely pointing out that it is not unprecedented nor extreme. In fact, given the public health aspect of it, banning indoor smoking in bars and restaurants is a lot more understandable than banning private consumption of illegal drugs, age restrictions on drinking, and so on.

I think in terms of smoking yes. Hell, Ohio set its minimum wage by vote of the people. I think in terms of personal freedoms it should be 100% up to the population and NOT legislature.

some personal freedoms to me are:

Gun laws

Abortion laws

Smoking laws

Laws such as labor (protecting the rights of workers), chemicals and food additives, transportation etc (safety of the consumer) those are up to legislature.

Legislature is to protect the people as a whole. Other than that moral laws and laws affecting personal rights should be left up to the voters in that community since they are the ones living there and not the politicians, who live in Columbus or DC and visit when it suits them.

I think if second-hand smoke were found to be harmless, this would be a completely different issue.

if Ohioans got to vote on abortion, it would be illegal.

Well, sure. I mean, you can't kill someone just because they're on your property, right?

Or is this the happy fun point where we drop that line of argument because it suddenly suits us to do so?

Would it be a violation of someone's rights to murder or assault them on your property if you told them in advance you were going to do it? If they could choose between coming to your property and getting maimed and/or murdered or staying off your property and avoiding your wrath? Yes, it would be a violation of their rights. My right to be alive doesn't end when I step onto your property, even if I have a reasonable expectation that you're going to kill me.

How about this: what if, instead of outright murdering/assaulting someone on your property, you hired them, and then over a period of several years you exposed them to constant elevated levels of substance known to cause several types of cancer and heart disease. And then, what if this chronic exposure resulted in debilitating or terminal health problems? Would that violate their rights? I think it would.

Criticisms of smoking bans are often directed at the patrons, when really the focus should be on the employees. The belief that employers should provide a working environment which isn't likely to cause chronic health problems and/or death in their employees is pretty well established. You can call it totalitarianism if you like.

Or, how about we allow unregulated use of asbestos, so long as there's a sign "this building contains asbestos." It's our choice to enter the building or work the job after all.

I don't grok this argument at all.

The principle seems to be that Government edict (aka force) should be used to protect people from the consequences of knowingly making what could be unhealthy decisions; ie the decision to eat and drink in a place where people smoke. The argument seems to be that people are somehow -forced- to enter smoke-friendly businesses, forced to spend their money there, forced to inhale the smoke, and forced to come back.

Duh: if you don't want to be in a smoky bar, just don't go into one. Find a non-smoking establishment and patonise them instead. If allowing smoking becomes unprofitable, guess what? The landlord will either ban smoking or go out of business, so the "problem" is peacefully solved!

It is not the Govt's job to protect people from their own stupidity, and knowingly going into an area you believe to be dangerous can be pretty damned stupid. I'm reminded of a person who knows Tigers to be enormous man-killing superpredators, yet sneaks into the zoo after-hours, climbs into the Tiger enclosure, and gets eaten. In sane countries and societies, that person would be grieved for, their family would be pitied...but duh! They climbed into a Tiger enclosure! To bad, so sad, sorry dude life's a bitch and so is a pissed-off 600lb stripey killing machine who's territory you've just invaded. Only in the 21st-Century West are we idiotic enough to entertain the notion that such a person's death is anyone's fault but their own.

How is it anybody's fault but -mine- if I choose to go into smoky bars and get lung cancer as a result? Hello people, we've had warnings on the damned cigarette packs for close to 50 years now. EVERYBODY knows that smoke is bad for you. It's one of those inescapable facts of modern life. If a person, fully cognizant of these facts, makes the informed decision to expose themself to what they have every reason to believe could be a toxic substance...they have no more right to bitch than does the moron who breaks into the Tiger pit, or the idiot who breaks into the home of a known drug-dealer, or the putz who decides to try robbing a pit-bull breeder.

There's a reason we all love the Darwin Awards, people, and it's because we all love watching evolution catch up to somebody who really and truly had it coming.

If only abortion were even remotely that simple, you might have a point. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 07:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------

It's pretty interesting how no one has bothered to explain how this is any different than other public health regulations. The general argument seems to be, "you know the risks, and it's on private property, so whatever happens is your own damn fault." We have yet to see anyone explain why this is different from, say, a bar that charges a finger for all you can drink. It's a private business, they're only taking one finger, and you have the choice to patronize the establishment... why should it be illegal? Yes, Dunedan, someone who goes to such an establishment if it were legal is deserving of ridicule, but that doesn't mean it should be legal.

An excellent question. Since there is no Victim (cannot be a Victim when a person gives informed consent), how can there be a Crime? If a person thinks a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster is worth that finger, it's nobody's business but theirs and the barkeep's. Now, if the barkeep was chopping fingers off of people who had not been informed and had not given their consent, even if he -did- give them the very finest Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster in existence in return, then yes there has been a crime and the barkeep should be punished.

This kind of "logic" would mean that a piercing or tattoo parlour could be (should be, actually) prosecuted for several of the nastier flavours of Assault: after all, someone had a needle jabbed through their nose! Nevermind the fact that they paid the piercer to do it, they had a needle jabbed through their nose! It's illegal to poke people with needles, therefore the piercing was a crime! Please.

It's all about consent, people. If informed consent is freely given, there is no crime because there is no victim.

The point, Dunedan, is that most of us recognize that life is not so plainly black and white. We, as a society, recognize that it's one thing to stretch a hole in a consenting client's ear, and it's another to run a business establishment that charges fingers for its goods. The concept of regulations for public health is nothing new, and smoking bans are no different.

Smoking bans are not all about the patrons either. They are also about workplace safety.

What's this "we" shit? I didn't agree to recognise any such thing. Besides which, groups (like "society") cannot recognise things any more than they can give birth. Individuals recognise things and act accordingly, individuals have rights and the obligation to safeguard them. The notion that a group has rights exists only so that those who are members of the majority may impose their will by force upon those who are in the minority: back in the day, people were honest about this and just made like Mongols. Nowadays people want to feel like they're being -nice- to the people they're oppressing and ordering around and killing if they rebel, so it's "for your own good." Meanwhile, the people being oppressed and ordered around resent the fact that they're being treated like oversized children or inmates at a Bureau Of Indian Affairs school.

How? In both cases, the body of a consenting party is traumatised with that person's consent.

Neither is the concept of executing homosexuals. Simply because something is old does not mean that it is correct.

Duh: if you don't want to work in a smoky bar, don't. Make like an adult and work someplace else, instead of crying for Mommy to -make- Timmy play the way you want.

Suffice it to say, I will just have to agree to disagree with you, D.

I believe we as a collective, do have the right to limit the actions of individuals within our communities. I find the US penchant for individualism quite contrary to my world view. Kind of makes me glad I am not an American.

Agreed.

Since I do not believe in the moral or practical authority of collectives, I suppose we can file this in "agree to disagree."

A question: what is it about individualism which disturbs you? Nobody ever said that individualists don't believe in charity, or helping others, or any of those other community-strengthening values: I simply don't believe in being -forced- to partake, or in being -forced- to live according to what is popular among my neighbors. What about this do you find disturbing?

How far should those individual rights extend?

Should you have a right to operate an eating establishment w/o meeting food service health and safety standards?

Should you have a right to determine who can and cannot eat in your establishment?

The point is that easily preventable exposure to harmful chemicals should not be a condition of employment. It's not a matter of being a baby (not sure why people who are concerned about workplace toxic chemical exposures are babies). This assumes that it is easy to just go get another job, which isn't true at all.

It also ignores the fact (or it's maybe just unsympathetic) that if this "if you don't like it, go work somewhere else, baby" attitude were general policy, occupational injuries and deaths would likely shoot towards industrial revolution levels (but hey, at least business people wouldn't be unduly burdened by their employees' selfish, and apparently childish, desire to live long healthy lives).

If I have posted "PRIVATE PROPERTY/NO TRESPASSING, TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT" signs on my property and it is fenced. Then you chose to ignore those and came on anyway. Then I could legally shoot you (depending on state and jurisdiction). I have the signs warning you and the right to protect my property. You violated the signs, knowing the possible consequences for such action. Now, if I chase you off my property and shoot you AFTER you have left then I can be arrested.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1057.pdf



If I informed you that you will be working around asbestos and provided you with ample protection and you continued to work there, it would be your fault.

The simple solution is to put smoking workers in the smoking sections, non smokers in the non smoking sections.

Also, if you know the risks and continue to work there, then it would be on you.

I would like to see 1 case where they proved a non smoker died from lung cancer due to working in a bar that allowed smoking. Or where a non smoker suffered serious health issues from working in a bar.

Now if we share an office and you sit there and chain smoke for 20 years and the ventilation is bad, then I can see the argument.

Somewhere, PERSONAL responsibility has to be considered. I am tired of people expecting government to protect them for LEGAL activities.

If non smoking laws ends up closing a lot of bars and bowling alleys (which it has done), then in reality people have lost jobs. I'm sorry, I would rather have a job around smokers than no job at all. I can eventually find a job in a non smoking establishment, if I so desire.

My feeling to handle this "worker safety" issue is to have the smoking section either staffed solely with smokers or people who have signed waivers, or nor have service in that area. A room designated for smoking. Thus, the owner still has a right to decide if he wants smoking and the patrons and workers have the right to be around it or not.

Second hand smoke is a health risk. period.

You might find these studies interesting:
IMO, the "payoff" is good public policy...and in the long term, the cost issue you cited initially becomes far less relevant.

From the point where your property begins to the point it ends.

This is proven over and over to be a myth. Places fail their inspections all the time and stay open. It is the consumer that decides.

If I know a place has several health code violations, I won't eat there. I can go elsewhere. No one forces me to eat there.

If I get sick and can prove that it was negligence, then I can take the case to a CIVIL lawyer and sue.

Other than fining and making public records that restaurant "A" does not meet codes, it is not government's responsibility.

I am all for protecting the consumer, but we have taken it too far. There comes a point where people need to think for themselves and investigate/educate themselves on their choices. We cannot keep expecting government to do it for us. That just leads to rights being called "privileges" and being taken away. When this happens we are no longer a free society with personal consequences for our choices, we become a society with no choices thus no consequences to learn and grow from.

We become reliant solely on what government dictates to us as being right and wrong and we have no freewill.

Sorry. I'll accept personal consequences for my actions, rather than have government dictate to me my actions.

Yes, it is called a sign that says "management reserves the right to service".

It is not a criminal case but a civil law point.

If I own a restaurant and decide not to serve people who like Country music, having a sign posted and you come in wearing a Tim McGraw t-shirt. I can refuse you service. I don't have to have a reason to refuse you service.

It then becomes a public issue. If the public says, "Pan, you are an idiot and we are not going to give you business because you discriminate." Then, my wallet is affected and I go out of business for MY PERSONAL CHOICE. Consequence to my actions.

Now should government have the right to come in and dictate to me that I must serve people who like country music? NO. IT IS NOT THEIR BUSINESS TO TELL ME WHO TO SERVE.

If you want to use this and coma at me with "civil rights" go ahead. But again, I believe a "PRIVATELY OWNED" business has the right to serve whoever they wish and to not serve whoever they wish and the public can decide whether that place should stay open or not.

Do you have data that would suggest that inspections laws dont work. Anecdotal examples are the myth.

And you may support discrimination, but I dont. There are limits to individual rights.....and always have been.

There is a reason why you wont find a democratic country anywhere in the world with such unlimited individual rights.

See, the thing is, you already are. Restaurants already have other regulations that "force" them to run their business a certain way. There are regulations on food handling, serving alcohol, and how the establishment itself is setup and run. To a restaurant, a smoking bylaw is something added, not something out of the blue tacked onto their free-for-all way of doing business.

Other business types have regulations too. The fact that one isn't allowed to smoke in hospitals isn't so far fetched, is it? Well, bans on places like restaurants are based on the same principles.

That there are people who wish they can have a meal without worrying about the party of six next to them all sparking up just as they're getting started on their entrees is merely one aspect of the issue.

Of course. And other people should be aware enough of the conditions in your establishment to know not to go there, or (having traveled outside the US, Canada, or Western Europe and come out just fine) see for themselves and perhaps not mind. If the cleanliness of your facilities acquires a suitably bad reputation, people will stop going. It's just that simple; I watched it happen to a restaurant in my old university town. Only dedicated vegetarian joint in a town full of hippies and fad-conscious sorority girls, and it got such a grody reputation that they simply went under. I understand they've reopened after considerable renovation and cleanup, but under new management.

Likewise, a barkeep or restaurateur, at least at the ownership level, should be able to decide who eats and drinks there. Some pubs in Prague had perfectly blunt, entirely reasonable rules against British "stag" parties, and would often simply refuse service to Englishmen, or people wearing football jerseys, or people wearing English football jerseys, because they simply didn't want the trouble. If the owner of such a place makes a rule about whom he wants to let in his/her front door, that's his/her business only.

Contrariwise, if the owner is known to be, for instance, a racist asshole, nobody is forcing anyone to give him/her their business. Boycotts over racism are still capable of being quite powerful; ask Fujifilm. If somebody tried that in virtually any town or city containing a State university and most private institutions, their establishment would be the subject of so much public antipathy that it would quickly shut them down. Small towns may be different, but given that much of the public rejects this sort of blatant discrimination I can't see such a place doing well. However, a heavy-metal bar and a hip-hop joint are going to attract two different crowds, which shouldn't be mistaken for racism or discrimination, and metalheads who head into hip-hop bars or vice-versa can expect at best a surprised reception.

Freedom of association and of dis-association are two sides of the same coin, just as are the equal rights to arm and disarm onesself, to speak in your own defense or to be silent in same, to enter into contracts and sue when you are defrauded, to have a lawyer or to represent yourself, etc etc.

As for not working in hazardous conditions; what the blue hell do you think a strike is? How long could a place of employment stay open in today's information-driven age if it was unreasonably unsafe and people exercised their right not to work there, and put the word out the way they did about -good- jobs?* It's not infantile to go work someplace else, it's -power-. It's use of individual power, sometimes by large groups of individuals all of whom have made the same informed decision, to create change. If a place is unsafe or unclean, people's use of their right to disassociate can result in that business failing. In today's developed world, people really do demand certain levels of service and safety and cleanliness, and market conditions simply won't support (in an un-distorted economy) a business that doesn't meet those standards. Bringing in an outside force to -make- someone do things your way in their own place of business, on the other hand, -is- infantile. It is equally infantile whether it is practiced by moralists, redistributionists, corporations, unions, or whiny busybodies.



*A notable exception to this is the illegal agricultural slavery of illegal immigrants which still takes place in parts of the US and Mexico. Prevented from exercising their right of dis-association, these people and their conditions are a notable exception to this rule. It would be fully within these people's rights to revolt by violence if prevented from leaving their place of employment to search for something better.

Pan, I disagree with several of your points. I'm pretty sure you CAN'T open a restaurant and post a sign saying "no blacks allowed".

Also, your idea of "personal responsibility" in studying businesses is rather naive. The current regulations are in place so that a customer can enter a restaurant or business with the reasonable belief that the products sold and the shopping environment are safe and legal. I'm not sure why you push so hard to absolve the business owners of their illegal activities while blaming the customers for not doing some sort of due diligence in their patronage of the stores.

While it may be true in some places, it is not generally true that you can kill someone for coming onto your property even if you told them that you would before hand. Also, are there any places where you can torture someone for coming onto your property if you told them you would beforehand? Are there any places where you can steal someone's wallet for coming onto your property if you told them you would beforehand? Informed consent doesn't absolve someone of the obligation to recognize the rights of others. Otherwise I could buy a 100 square foot plot of land, post signs that I reserve the right to do whatever I want on my property and I would be able to completely strip the rights of everyone who came near me.

Workers in smoking allowed establishments aren't provided with any protection at all. While some employers would no doubt voluntarily provide personal protection equipment to abestos-exposed workers, for many of them, the only reason that personal protection equipment is used in conjunction with asbestos is that the state coerces them.

Right, but then you'd have to hire people based on whether they smoke or not to ensure you had enough workers for each section. And then a person's employment might end up being contingent on them not quitting smoking. It seems like the solution is worse than the problem.

Ultimately, it would, but that wouldn't make it just. Coal miners pretty well know the risk of black lung and collapses, but that doesn't mean that the coal mine owners should have zero obligation with respect to safety equipment.

These statements are inconsistent. You'd need to see proof in the first instance but not the second? Did you know that hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction frequently drop following the implementation of a smoking ban?

Why don't these people just get new jobs? It's so easy for employees who don't want to get exposed to secondhand smoke to do, why can't the people displaced by the bans do it too? ;)

I don't think this makes sense. You don't think government should step in, but clearly your solution would require the coercive force of government to be enforced.

Furthermore, people should expect the government to protect them from legal and illegal activities- that's ostensibly what the government exists to do. Driving is legal, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't regulate who gets to do it. Disposing of toxic waste is legal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate how it's done.

If the law prohibited smoking is applied to ALL such establishments, why is the closing of one (or some) due to the law and not other factors that make those particular establishments less competitive?

to get back to the original topic, I feel like the "will" of an often ignorant majority should not trump reason or common sense in the application of said majority's "will"

so you are basically saying that sometimes the majority of people are just shit stupid and that's why they need elected representatives to just do what you feel is right.

did you vote for pelosi? she basically said the same thing yesterday.

Funny that you of all people would say this. So you think any simple majority should be able to vote rights away?

Wonder if pan's ever heard of Heather Crowe, perhaps he should look her up for this proof he seeks, she worked 40 years in a bar, never smoked in her life, and guess what she died of?
Heather Crowe - Google Search
or here:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/heathercrowe/FAQ.htm

I don't live in San Francisco or California, so no, I didn't vote for Pelosi

I'm wondering where you got this perception. there is probably one other person on here that cares as little about majority rule as I do.

Maybe it was your reaction to Derwood's post on how the will of the majority should not trump reason or common sense...

I think smoking bans in public places are great. I remember the way it was here before the smoking ban. The fact is that prior to the ban non-smoking bars did not exist. There was no such thing as a non-smoking bar and thus if we ever wanted to go out we had to go into bars that had a ton of smoke. To make matters worse all of these bars had poor ventilation (unlike big casinos in Vegas) and thus the smoke would build up and become intolerable. I am very sensitive to smoke, just being around someone smoking for a few minutes will give me a cough for the day, going to a bar where there is smoking would make me sick for a week. Now that there is a smoking ban bars are very pleasant.

If you want to smoke go ahead just don't do it around me.

So you're perfectly fine with the threat of violence being deployed against an owner of private property (the owned of the bars) to force them and their customers to bend to your preferences?

Interesting. I'd love to see what your reaction would be if a random guest to a party at your house shoved a pistol in your mouth in order to make you play their preferred music, or stop serving food who's smell they disliked.

What are you going to suggest next, Dunedan? That we allow minors to buy cigarettes and alcohol?

What threat of violence are you talking about?

Since when are fines and court dates seen as violence?

The very existence of laws against such is ridiculous. Prevention of such is a matter for the minor in question and their parents, not for an entity (the State) which has proven itself competent in regards to children only insofar as it is unusually adept at killing them.

The part where if you don't do what the State says, they can use violence against you. Or did you think all those guns were just for looking cool?

Since they are enforced by the threat of violence; ie "do as you're told or you'll be imprisoned or shot." This despite the fact that earning a fine and a date in court requires only that you be doing someone which some agent of the State finds personally distasteful (driving too fast, smoking the wrong herbs, or painting your house the wrong colour), an act in which nobody was harmed or defrauded.

Again, did you think all those guns were just for looks?

Dunedan, you live in a scary world. I'm glad it's not the world the rest of us live in.

Me? Scary? What's scary to -me- is collectivists who are willing to accept violence against their neighbors, so long as that violence is popular enough. I suppose one can rationalise anything if one can convince enough racists, reactionaries, bigots, or simple everyday morons to agree.

I am perfectly willing to leave any and all of my neighbors alone and in peace, to live their lives and conduct their business as they wilt. So long as they do no harm to me or mine, I see no reason to interfere with their lives or livelihoods by so much as an inch. What scares -me- are the people out there who are -not- willing to "live and let live," who regard deploying unprovoked violence against people who have done them no harm as a legitimate and moral means by which to affect change. What scares -me- are the people who are perfectly willing to jam a gun in their neighbor's mouth in order to force them into compliance with whatever their own preferences or prejudices might be, despite the fact that said neighbor has done them neither physical nor financial harm.

Tell me, which is scarier: a dude like me who wants to leave everyone in peace, or a dude who wants the "right" to -make- everyone live his way by force of arms?

No, I said your world is scary, not you. The one where bar owners who allow smoking when it is banned are shot. Or, the world where every single person is only out for themselves and has no regard - or social obligation to have any regard - for their fellow countrymen. Thankfully, that world is only in your head.

And can we stop talking about "rights" this and "rights" that... none of these things are rights. In these kinds of discussions, rights are very specific things, and you do not have a right to smoke tobacco. If you want one, seek a constitutional amendment.

Forget it, smeth, (or change your tactics) we are arguing against anarchy here, not simply the rejection of anti-smoking bylaws.

Saying that violence is being used against those who break smoking violations is a huge jump in logic and reality. Sure, if someone breaks the smoking law AND continuously doesn't pay the fines or show up in court AND then fail to respond to additional pressure from lawyers AND then fail to comply with a personal visit from the authorities AND then resist arrest and/or decide to fight the police rather than pay your fined, THEN and ONLY THEN, might violence occur (and even then, you probably won't be shot)

I Think you can but that then becomes a "CIVIL" lawsuit not a "CRIMINAL". One can sue the owner if they feel unjustly discriminated against and it is up to that person to prove it, not the owner. But it is NOT nor should it be "ILLEGAL". The same applies for signs that say "No Whites Served". A business has that right, legally. Ethically and morally I may detest it and not frequent such a place BUT, they have that right, legally.

And I believe I stated government's purpose is to protect consumers in the aspect that what they buy is safe.

If you are going to pick and choose what you want to argue about with me.... make sure you read ALL of what I write.

Post #45

I thought they overturned the Jim Crow laws.

Oh bloody hell, I'm talking root issues here. The issue is not that uncompliant bar-owners get shot, it is that, on a fundamental level, every action of the State is backed up by the express threat of lethal violence. Whatever it is, however it occurs, it is reinforced by the simple fact that the State can summon every variety of destruction from 9mm sidearms on up the scale to, on a State-to-State level, the potential sterilisation of the surface area of the planet Earth. [Edited to add; this is why I personally believe that the State should only be involved in those activities which justly and precisely demand this type of capability: warfighting, if needed the defensive sealing of borders, and the pursuit of those who aggress against the persons, posessions, or rights of others.] Individuals, on the other hand, have a -very- difficult time summoning either enough voluntary followers or conscripts to even approach the destructive power of the State. Even the Aum Shinrikyo, the only terrorist organisation known to have deployed a Weapon of Mass Destruction, only managed to kill fewer than twenty people. Five thousand more were sickened, but such would have been considered a relatively light gas-attack casualty figure among green troops in WWI. Bar owners almost never get shot by the cops, but the simple fact is that in every interaction with the State one is coming face-to-face with naked lethal force backing up any number of invasive, intrusive, non-sensical and frequently contradictory demands. Individual assholes can act this way too, but random individuals don't have the luxury of being investigated by their friends* for acts which nobody involved believes were crimes against people who, let's face it, nobody likes anyway. "24" was popular for a reason, and if made during the Clinton (or maybe yet Obama) years, Jack Bauer would have been torturing mid-western militiamen instead of al-Qaida sleeper agents. The mere existence of such is equally frightening in any case.

On the contrary, IMO you have it backwards. In our system, it is the Federal Gov't which is the subject of carefully enumerated and constrained rights, not the people. IMO the 9th and 10th Amendment both establish the existence of Rights to be recognised in the future, and put those Rights correctly in the hands of the States (the least level of remove I consider tolerable for the development of free people) or the People. Specifically speaking, the BoR is a list of ways in which individuals are to be left alone. Their religion, speech, associations, lawful commerce, homes, privacy, persons, papers, posessions, means of discrete self-defense and rights of acting in their own interest at trial: these things were meant IMO to be sacrosanct and immovable except by significant majorities. As you said and as I have always said, amend the Constitution of you want to try these kinds of bans; that's what it took to take a crack at alcohol, and look what a mess that was. Lotsa dead bodies, lotsa rich crooks, and loads of people who had never previously been drinkers suddenly turning up blind/crippled/crazy from every variety of bad booze imaginable. Skirting this in the War On Some Drugs has been an even bigger disaster. What's your new plan, skirt the Constitution again and use all manner of further intrusion to drive the use of tobacco, a chemical more addictive that Heroin, underground? After -everything- Prohibition and the WOSD showed us?

If the definition of insanity truly -is- doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results, this sort of socio-chemical engineering has got to be the looniest idea since Lysenko was popular.

But as you say, is it not violence which one finds at the bottom of that long, deep, dark, ridiculously bumpy well? And the above has yet to establish that the above intrusion of the State into the personal conduct of consenting parties has any rational justification beyond "do what we say or we will destroy you."

If you don't mind, imagine an inverse of some of the things which have been suggested. Suppose a pub or sports-bar or pizza-joint or steakhouse opened up which featured a prominent sign on the door, and a reminder in the menu, that smoking, the open carry of sidearms, openly affectionate gay couples, and dogs were allowed. Suppose further that, before signing on, prospective employees read and signed a contract stating that they understood they would be working around such and expected to conduct themselves as professionals in all such regards. How would such a place sit with you? I and (I think) many of my friends and family would dearly love to patronise such an establishment; would you care to join us?

Great, we agree. Banning smoking in restaurants and bars falls firmly under protecting the rights of workers.

Sorry I do HAVE the right to smoke tobacco. It is LEGAL and I am of age. I have that right. I do not have the right to smoke it in public buildings inside the state of Ohio. But it is a "RIGHT".

If we go by the definitions of only rights expressed in the Constitution... as it seems you want to, then we have no "right" to own land, businesses, cars, privacy, etc.

This is when I get fanatical. This is where the far left has gone to fucking far. Smoking, driving, being on the internet and so on are "RIGHTS" not privileges given to us by the state. It is bullshit to argue they are not "RIGHTS", to argue they aren't is to give government far, far too much power.

If I am of legal age and I passed my drivers test and I have my license, I have a RIGHT to drive, not a privilege. Can I lose my RIGHT? Yes, if I do not obey laws, I lose that RIGHT. Same as if I commit a crime, I lose my RIGHT to freedom outside prison walls.

The Constitution states in Amendment 9

John Addams stated:

Here is a link to the Libertarian Advocacy Groups argument on the 9th amendment.

The Bill of Rights: Unenumerated Rights

It contains this being one of the best written and IMHO best views of what the founders meant in writing the Constitution:



---------- Post added at 10:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------

I disagree. The workers can be protected as can be the rights but compromise is needed. I stated 1 possible compromise above.... that again, people pick and choose what they want of mine but refuse to address all of what I say.

Last paragraph post #61.

The problem is that certain elements that seek power on both the right and left do not seek compromise and a protection of ALL RIGHTS, but what they deem as acceptable for their power hungry agendas.

If an owner of a private business has the funds and is wanting to build a room as I stated above, he should have that RIGHT. That choice, that RIGHT should NEVER be taken away from that owner, by legislature... by the public vote... I have issues and I would argue the Constitutionality and propose the above compromise to be put up on ballot, but as I have stated, I will abide by what the PEOPLE decide in their votes.

Actually driving is a privilege, watch any episode of Canada's Worst Driver, the experts on the show say so all the time, no one has the right to drive, you seem to be confusing the two.

i see we've digressed into pedantry, which means this thread is more or less done

And these "experts" are governmental officials?

Again I stated:

If you quote me, quote all of the paragraph and address the WHOLE of it not just what suits you.

One is/was an OPP Officer during the show, he was retired at the start of the latest season, the other is the head of drivers education for Young Drivers of Canada
Pardon? This became a rule when? I believe I can quote and address whatever part of your post that I see fit to quote and address, you have no power over that pan, it is my as you would say RIGHT.

Oh yeah, look up Heather Crowe, it will answer something you asked last page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heather_Crowe
or
http://www.smoke-free.ca/heathercrowe/
this is what you asked last page.

What the fuck does the "far left" have to do with the internet, smoking, or driving? Other than being the boogieman of choice of everything you disagree with?

So where exactly is the pedantry?

My pointing out the 9th Amendment or the argument for compromise to protect ALL RIGHTS?

parsing the "right" to drive vs. the "privilege" is pedantry

You're right, that should read "far right" also.

Dunedan, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not the owner of a gunshop? If I am correct that you are, are you up in arms over the govn't requiring you to have a FFL in order to do business? Based on your posts so far in this thread, the govn't shouldn't be able to impose it's will on you or your store. Yet you clearly( I assume) have obtained said license in order to do business legally. How is this different than Bar owners having to follow the laws set forth by the state?