Smoking Bans

[Xavier]

Bottom line is that the buck stops at the government.

The bottom line is that without the consent of a majority of the people the government wouldn't actually enforce it.

Obviously if the bill had failed, the goverment wouldn't have started enforcing the law regardless. Thats just how democracy works.

If you're trying to say that the government should never put any issues on the ballot, and that normal people have no right to collectively put an issue on the ballot, how exactly does any progress ever get made?

[Gregorio]

Bottom line is that the buck stops at the government.

The bottom line is that without the consent of a majority of the people the government wouldn't actually enforce it.

Obviously if the bill had failed, the goverment wouldn't have started enforcing the law regardless. Thats just how democracy works.

If you're trying to say that the government should never put any issues on the ballot, and that normal people have no right to collectively put an issue on the ballot, how exactly does any progress ever get made?

The reason this was even on the ballot was so that the party in power of the current government can lay off the blame on the people instead of taking it themselves. They knew it would pass simply because smokers are a minority and most people don't want to deal with smoke reguardless of the issue that they should have no say in it at all. The government didn't want to lose the smokers and smoker-supporters vote.

I can't think of any significant change or progress that has come from a ballot issue. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. All significant changes in civil rights, freedoms, and laws have come from congress or more often the judiciary. Ballot issues are more often on the grounds of "should we build an arena near the city" or some junk like that.

I'm not saying the government shouldn't put issues to ballot ever. Just that they shouldn't put issues on the ballot that would significantly reduce my rights as a business owner. Don't forget the whole slippery slope or pandoras box argument. If they can stop you from smoking on private property then what's next?

[Janice]

If we listened to the slippery slope argument, we would still be in the stone age. I don't want a government to do nothing cause it might lead to something else.

Don't forget the whole slippery slope or pandoras box argument. If they can stop you from smoking on private property then what's next?

And they haven't prevented anyone from smoking on private property. You can still smoke on your property, its just that you can't be a business anymore. Didn't take away any rights for you to smoke.

There are so many rules about how you are allowed to run a business. Isn't there one in NYC about how you can't run a porn shop within a certain radius of a school? Or was it you couldn't be 'just' a porn shop but had to be something else too.

In the beginning, there were little or no governments regulations on how to run a business. Over time, they add more or change others. Well here is another regulation and it won't be the last. The government has the right to set rules and regulations. These can take away rights and freedoms of businesses, but doesn't take away anyone's personal rights because you don't have to be in that business.

[ozz]

You can still smoke on your property, its just that you can't be a business anymore.

http://health.netscape.com/story/2006/1 ... oking-ban/
no smoking in any residence other than single-dwelling homes

[Trinsie]

This is long but I just want to say my opinion is idc if you can smoke in a food joint or not I dont smoke while eatting but saying you can't smoke in bars is dumb people are getting wasted there anyway.

Also for those that say ban smoking completely should ban drinking completely then also cause fact: more people are killed every year from drunk drivers than lung cancer.

[Gregorio]

If we listened to the slippery slope argument, we would still be in the stone age. I don't want a government to do nothing cause it might lead to something else.

I agree that the slippery slope argument isn't applicable in many situations, but it is when you are letting the government chip away at rights. This sets a prescendence in which the government can say "we took it away here...now why not here?".

And actually your thinking is kinda backwards with the government doing nothing idea. Less government control = bigger and faster advances in business, economy, everything. More government control = restricted and slower advances. Look at stem cell research. More government control and now it's moving slowly. This is also why capitalist countries have much stronger economys than communist. Far less government control.

Don't forget the whole slippery slope or pandoras box argument. If they can stop you from smoking on private property then what's next?

And they haven't prevented anyone from smoking on private property. You can still smoke on your property, its just that you can't be a business anymore. Didn't take away any rights for you to smoke.

There are so many rules about how you are allowed to run a business. Isn't there one in NYC about how you can't run a porn shop within a certain radius of a school? Or was it you couldn't be 'just' a porn shop but had to be something else too.

In the beginning, there were little or no governments regulations on how to run a business. Over time, they add more or change others. Well here is another regulation and it won't be the last. The government has the right to set rules and regulations. These can take away rights and freedoms of businesses, but doesn't take away anyone's personal rights because you don't have to be in that business.

What is it about owning a business that makes it okay for people to have fewer rights in your mind? Is there ever an end to the government having "the right" to take away freedoms of business owners? How about no freedom of speech inside places of business, because others can be offended by what they hear in there. If the Black Panthers own a bar and I go in there, they better not call me a cracka or honkey because I don't want to be offended. Nevermind that I know exactly what I'd be getting myself into when I go in there...I have the right to get a beer anywhere I want and not have to deal with unsavory behavior.

And your last sentence is what I just don't understand about your argument. You say yourself that "you don't have to be in that business", so why restrict what the business owners can allow in there? It's not as if people are forced to go and inhale smoke. Just go somewhere else!

EDIT: Lastly, even though you don't want to recognize it, a business IS private property. The government HAS stopped you from smoking on private property.

[Xavier]

Less government control = bigger and faster advances in business, economy, everything. More government control = restricted and slower advances. Look at stem cell research. More government control and now it's moving slowly. This is also why capitalist countries have much stronger economys than communist. Far less government control.

Even though I agree with what you are saying, I think it works both ways.

No governmental control means no real safeguards against individual liberties. Money cannot be the only force by which we are governed.

Although I stand behind "the government that governs least, governs best" policy.

[Minions]

You can still smoke on your property, its just that you can't be a business anymore.

http://health.netscape.com/story/2006/1 ... oking-ban/
no smoking in any residence other than single-dwelling homes

And i'm sure a cops gonna spend his time comming to a home that two familys live in because they are smokeing a cig.... not that anyone could even tell.

[ozz]

You can still smoke on your property, its just that you can't be a business anymore.

http://health.netscape.com/story/2006/1 ... oking-ban/
no smoking in any residence other than single-dwelling homes

And i'm sure a cops gonna spend his time comming to a home that two familys live in because they are smokeing a cig.... not that anyone could even tell.

actually it's more directed at condos and apartments,where theres someone to call the cops on you ;x
oh and i thought this was about the laws being in place, not about enforcement

[Enkidu]

If I really have to tell you the difference between smoking and giving children drugs then you need to have your head examined.

lol Xavier didn't I mention earlier that if I didn't include "perfectly legal" someone would try and make it seem like I think people can do whatever they want on private property? XD

This whole debate isn't really about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. I hate smoke, it gives me a headache and makes me sick. I can, however, respect the right of people to run their private property however they wish. Serving the public or not, it's still private property. If I don't feel like going somewhere where I know there's going to be smoke, I don't go there.

I saw your post about how someone would bring it up, but so what? Do you think that was the "get out of a failed argument free card"?

You just missed the most important part of my argument, that at one time all of the scenerios I listed were thought to be okay by the public. Back in the day people didn't give two shits where sewage was dumped, until we found out how it affects our bodies, then we came down hard on industry and stopped all that. Way way back in the day whether or not meat was sanitary was never the concern, it was having meat... Hell my grandma tells me stories about how when she was little if there was mold on some meat they'd just cut that shit off and cook it up - I wouldn't eat that today!

So if it was ok then, why isn't it ok now? That's the question you have to answer. People against smoking have an easy argument - it's bad for you and everyone around you. Smokers have the same old argument - it's our choice and freedom to smoke. Fact is that it's your priviledge to smoke, not your choice or freedom. If the majority votes on a bill that restricts smoking, it's not longer your priviledge to smoke where they say you cannot smoke, do you not understand this? In actuality, cocaine and other hard drugs have a better case then smoking as to why they should be legal. None of those drugs physically harm others around them, smoking does. In fact I'd go so far as to say anyone who is against a non-smoking ban should be for the legalization of every hard drug on the streets today. And not just making it legal, but allowing it to be produced and taxed by the government. Why not?

Answer these questions before you go on a "the government wants to hold me down" tirade.

[Gregorio]

I saw your post about how someone would bring it up, but so what? Do you think that was the "get out of a failed argument free card"?

No, but the second time around when I left out the word "legal" I had assumed that people would not jump on the idea that if I support smoking in private business places then I clearly support children doing drugs. That's called a "strawman" argument. You put words into my mouth that I did not say or even suggest.

And it seems pretty clear that you just "saw" the post about how someone would bring it up...but you failed to actually read it. If you had, you would have noticed that I explained WHY I put it in there. It wasn't a "get out a a failed argument free card", it was a "avoid jackass conclusions that people really grasping for straws would pull card".

Here's my original quote, by the way:

The only reason I even mentioned "perfectly legal" in my earlier post was because if I had excluded that and said "However, the government should not be able to jump in and tell business owners what [[here's where "perfectly legal" used to be]] activities they can and can't do on their own property.", I know someone woulda jumped in and brought up that I think it's okay to murder people on private property or something.

What a surprise...you did pretty much just that.

You just missed the most important part of my argument, that at one time all of the scenerios I listed were thought to be okay by the public. Back in the day people didn't give two shits where sewage was dumped, until we found out how it affects our bodies, then we came down hard on industry and stopped all that. Way way back in the day whether or not meat was sanitary was never the concern, it was having meat... Hell my grandma tells me stories about how when she was little if there was mold on some meat they'd just cut that shit off and cook it up - I wouldn't eat that today!

Actually I didn't miss the rest of your points, I had already addressed them earlier and didn't feel it necessary to rehash the same stuff. But just for arguments sake...as for sewage dumping, it's a different situation. People were being harmed by sewage by no fault of their own whatsoever. Not so with smoking, people decide to be around smoke when they enter a smoking establishment.

Bad meat and sanitary concerns are also different, because a part of the contract that comes with buying food is that it will not harm you in ways that it shouldn't (as in, certain food will make you fat or hurt your health, but that's to be expected. Getting ecoli is not to be expected).

So if it was ok then, why isn't it ok now? That's the question you have to answer. People against smoking have an easy argument - it's bad for you and everyone around you. Smokers have the same old argument - it's our choice and freedom to smoke. Fact is that it's your priviledge to smoke, not your choice or freedom.

Had to stop here. So it's not my right to smoke why? Because the government doesn't explicitly say "You have the right to smoke?". Bull. You need to familiarize yourself with the 9th ammendment.

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

I'm going to go into the history of this particular ammendment, skim it at least. I'll try to stick to the cliff notes. During the drafting of the Constitution there were the Federalists who were mainly for the Constitution, and the Anti-Federalists who were against it. The Anti-Federalists were against the Constitution for a variety of reasons, but especially because of the Bill of Rights.

This is because the entire Constitution lays out exactly what the government can do. The Bill of Rights lays out what the government cannot do. The Federalists feared, and rightly so, that if the Bill of Rights was to be included in the Constitution that the government would assume powers that were not explicitly granted to them in the rest of the Constitution, and thus become overpowered. Look where we are today. If it can't be traced back somehow to one of the ammendmends in the Bill of Rights (excluding the 9th), then it's illegal.

Hell, even the "right to privacy" that we so feverishly cherish wasn't actually a "right" until the 60s when it was decided that it should be included in the "glow" of other ammendments. Look it up. The word "privacy" isn't even in the Constitution.

If the majority votes on a bill that restricts smoking, it's not longer your priviledge to smoke where they say you cannot smoke, do you not understand this? In actuality, cocaine and other hard drugs have a better case then smoking as to why they should be legal. None of those drugs physically harm others around them, smoking does. In fact I'd go so far as to say anyone who is against a non-smoking ban should be for the legalization of every hard drug on the streets today. And not just making it legal, but allowing it to be produced and taxed by the government. Why not?

Answer these questions before you go on a "the government wants to hold me down" tirade.

Actually, I am for the legalization of every drug on the streets. Non-violent drug offenders make up more than 80% of the arrests in the country. If drugs were legal they could be cleaned up, regulated, and hell even taxed. We would instantly rid ourselves of tons of prison space and wasted money on our failing War on Drugs.

And about the majority voting...I already addressed this earlier, but I'll do it again by quoting exactly what I said earlier. It actually follows up nicely with your point that so much crap was legal back in the day that isn't now. But these are actually examples of stuff that were legal BECAUSE the majority decided they were.

Is "majority rules" REALLY the best way to decide laws?? Less than 200 years ago the majority of the country thought slavery was fine and dandy. That must mean it was justified, I mean hey, the majority ruled! Not so long ago the majority said that interracial marriages were illegal. Majority rules, it's fine! Gay marriage is unconstitutional and now illegal, so is sodomy (still illegal in certain states until very recently) while I'm at it. Majority rules sorry. Do I really need to go on?

[Xavier]

I agree that the reason we fashion our governments more as Republics than Democracies is because you really just can't trust the uninformed public to know whats best for themselves.

But, it seems like you think the government, who, by all means, would not represent the majority of the country, ie, educated and informed people, doesn't have a right to put forth new laws either.

I dunno, it seems like you argued both that majority rules is flawed, and that the government has no right to actively establish new laws. I'm just curious how we progress if nobody is qualified to make decisions.

[Gregorio]

My political "school of thought" if you will is mostly libertarian. A TRUE and hardcore Libertarian is all but an anarchist, but I can deal with compromise.

In 95% of the situations I can think of (at least in my opinion), there is absolutely no need for government control. It really is a free market rules all policy. The only purpose government should serve is to provide for the common defense, protect individuals rights from being violated by other individuals (police) and to enforce contracts. The only real crimes are ones that hurt another persons liberty.

Progress could be made just fine as long as these guidelines are followed, but that really depends on what your definition of "progress" is. Do you define progress as more individual freedoms as well as economic/industrial/technilogical/etc. advances, or do you define it as group safety and economic/industrial/etc advances while pursuing your own ideals? Some religious groups would define "progress" as no gays at all, everyone goes to church, whatever.

In fact, some advances in government and economy came about in Europe because of early thinkers who suggested the same type of thing. (Herbert Spencer and William Grahm Spencer mainly). They believed that government should only exist as an overseer who guards the safety of private property and sees to it that the peace is not breached (basically what I said earlier).

[Xavier]

Isn't anarchy the truest sense of "majority rules" possible?

[Gregorio]

Well...kind of more a "unruly mob rules" type. When I said anarchy I meant more in the sense of no real government presence. Free market rules and all.

[Xavier]

The free markets great as long as you're the head of the company and not the foreign labor.

Although I agree that the free market can essientially govern the world, as economics is what its all about.

Taking a look at someone like Bill Gates, who has made billions and turned around to create his own foundation for medical research shows that people can probably look out for the greater good without a government telling them what the greater good is.

[Gregorio]

Yup...and think of where we would be at if not for the "monopoly" by Microsoft. It's because of Windows that it's so easy for programmers of all sorts to develop programs that everyone could use and understand instead of having to design it 45 different ways to deal with all the different types of OSs.

Also, I think 3 or 4 of the worlds richest men (Gates, Buffet, Branson, someone else too maybe) have all pledged to donate a total of around 110 BILLION to different charities over the next 20 years or so.

[Enkidu]

Actually I didn't miss the rest of your points, I had already addressed them earlier and didn't feel it necessary to rehash the same stuff. But just for arguments sake...as for sewage dumping, it's a different situation. People were being harmed by sewage by no fault of their own whatsoever. Not so with smoking, people decide to be around smoke when they enter a smoking establishment.

People choose where they live. If they live by a polluted river, they have the choice to move to an unpolluted river... What's the difference?

As for the whole "right" thing.. http://www.phi.org/pdf-library/talc-memo-0051.pdf I could post a dozen more of the same, but that one includes documented court cases. But hey you probably know more then them.

[Gregorio]

Actually I didn't miss the rest of your points, I had already addressed them earlier and didn't feel it necessary to rehash the same stuff. But just for arguments sake...as for sewage dumping, it's a different situation. People were being harmed by sewage by no fault of their own whatsoever. Not so with smoking, people decide to be around smoke when they enter a smoking establishment.

People choose where they live. If they live by a polluted river, they have the choice to move to an unpolluted river... What's the difference?

The difference is that you can't own a river. Everyone has access to this river and because of that you can't pollute it. It's not a personal property issue, it's a public health issue.

For arguments sake, lets say you're polluting the groundwater that someone uses as a well on someone elses property by pouring chemicals onto your own land. Then you're hurting their personal property and lose that right, much in the same sense that you don't have the right to blast music as loud as you want to. You never have a right to violate anyone elses private property.

As for the whole "right" thing.. http://www.phi.org/pdf-library/talc-memo-0051.pdf I could post a dozen more of the same, but that one includes documented court cases. But hey you probably know more then them.

Okay first of all, the "Public Health Institute" is this is not a government lawmaking body. This is a research paper type document and opinion, not fact. Second, the whole document is based on the word fundamental. If you are actually familiar with case law (especially landmark type cases) you would know that the word fundamental sends SCotUS justices crazy.

In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), a man was arrested for having sodomy with his male partner. He appealed and it went all the way to the Supreme Court on the grounds that he had the FUNDAMENTAL right to have gay sex. The lower courts decision was upheld because of the word fundamental. Basically, because the Bill of Rights or natural law does not specifically say "You have the right to gay sex", it isn't considered a fundamental right.

Fast forward a couple years...Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Again, a man is arrested for having sodomy with another man. Appealed to the Supreme Court...this time, the complainent does NOT argue that he has the FUNDAMENTAL right to gay sex, but because it violates the due process clause. It violates due process because heterosexual couples are never arrested for having sodomy, while gay couples were. This violates due process laws and thus the anti-sodomy laws were overturned.

Bowers was not overturned, but the law was.

So since Bowers was never overturned...people do not have the fundamental right to have gay sex. But do people have the right to? Would you say no since it isn't considered a "fundamental" right? Bottom line is that you're not going to get arrested if you have the urge to go out and put it to another guy (unless it's rape or in public or something), so would you consider your personal sexual choice a right or not? Now think again if we have the right to smoke.

Read up on the 9th Ammendment and the history of it. Just because the government hasn't "granted" us that right doesn't mean we shouldn't legally have it. They have assumed so many powers on the grounds of interstate commerce that it's ridiculous how much we allow them to get away with.

[Enkidu]

The difference is that you can't own a river. Everyone has access to this river and because of that you can't pollute it. It's not a personal property issue, it's a public health issue.

For arguments sake, lets say you're polluting the groundwater that someone uses as a well on someone elses property by pouring chemicals onto your own land. Then you're hurting their personal property and lose that right, much in the same sense that you don't have the right to blast music as loud as you want to. You never have a right to violate anyone elses private property.

Smokers can't own the air we breathe, they are polluting the air. It's not a personal property issue, it's a public health issue. etc... You also never have the right to endanger someones health, right? So why is smoking in public or in privately owned facilities that are used by the public (and thus regulated by the government) allowed?

I think that's the question that's sparking the debate. People simply shouldn't be allowed to do that, hence why a public vote is a good idea. Hell the government banning smoking without a vote is a good idea too, yet I'd rather have a public vote just because it makes things prettier.

Read up on the 9th Ammendment and the history of it. Just because the government hasn't "granted" us that right doesn't mean we shouldn't legally have it. They have assumed so many powers on the grounds of interstate commerce that it's ridiculous how much we allow them to get away with.

I'm not saying you "can't have the right" to smoke, I'm saying you don't necessarily have it. That's why I said priviledge, to get away from the whole semantic issue you're talking about right now.

You can take the constitution and interpret it anyway you like, that doesn't really mean squat in the long run. Is your argument simply that "we shouldn't have a public vote because there is a slim possibility that the supreme court would not uphold the law"? If so, I find that argument utterly unconvincing and detrimental to society.