Skip to main content

Are you kidding me? The "right" to smoke trumps the right to breathe unpolluted air? It is overblown grandiose rhetoric to make this a "constitutional crisis" issue. Give me a break. It common sense that smoke is bad for health and nobody has a "right" to blow it on someone who does not want it,anytime or anywhere.
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Midknight, among other things, you are wrong about not coming into a bar and arresting a drunk. When drunks get loud, aggressive and disorderly, the bar calls the cops and the subject is arrested for public drunkness and disorderly conduct.
A place that serves the public is a public place unless it is operating as a private club where paying membership is required.
One other thing, smokers are in a clear minority. Major companies are forbidding smoking on the job, some will not hire you if you are a smoker and some will fire you if you are smoking at home. The health considerations of smoking are impacting insurance costs. If you want to smoke, use a pistol instead, it is quicker and more painless...cheaper in the long run also..



I never said anything about someone being loud, aggressive, or disorderly, or anybody calling the cops. Maybe some of the LEO's that frequent this forum can chime in. Maybe I'll learn something. Can a policeman walk into a bar, unsolicited by anyone and arrest the first person they see for public intoxication ? If they could , I would think all the jails would be full.

A business that serves the public is not a public place. It is a private enterprise that buys a license from the local government to serve the public. They receive no assistance from the taxpayers and therefore it is not a public place. If the local government wants to control smoking, they could do it through the licensing process, not by passing laws and giving LEO's unlimited authority to enforce them, making their jobs that much harder than it already is. Or you could just let the marketplace sort things out.

Once again this debate degrades into smoker vs. non-smoker. I don't smoke, never have. Just because I'm against a smoking ban does not mean I think everybody should smoke like a freight train, get cancer, and die. Most sane people will agree, being smoke free is better health wise. I just think there are better ways to accomplish that than making this a police state.
quote:
Originally posted by FDR:
Are you kidding me? The "right" to smoke trumps the right to breathe unpolluted air? It is overblown grandiose rhetoric to make this a "constitutional crisis" issue. Give me a break. It common sense that smoke is bad for health and nobody has a "right" to blow it on someone who does not want it,anytime or anywhere.


As I said in my previous post, this is not about whether your right to breathe unpolluted air "trumps" someone's right to smoke, it's about whether your right to breathe unpolluted air "trumps" a business owners right to decide what to do in his business and to what lengths your willing to allow your government to go to enforce your right to breathe unpolluted air.

Personally, if I go to a restaurant that's too smoky, I don't go back. The same way that if I go to a restaurant and don't like their food I don't go back. I think I have enough common sense to make those decisions for myself. I don't need the local government to pass a law so I won't have to.
quote:
Originally posted by FDR:
Are you kidding me? The "right" to smoke trumps the right to breathe unpolluted air? It is overblown grandiose rhetoric to make this a "constitutional crisis" issue. Give me a break. It common sense that smoke is bad for health and nobody has a "right" to blow it on someone who does not want it,anytime or anywhere.



FDR, are you an 11 year old????

NOTHING TRUMPS ANYTHING EXCEPT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Go read it then you will have a clue as to what we are talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by FDR:
Are you kidding me? The "right" to smoke trumps the right to breathe unpolluted air? It is overblown grandiose rhetoric to make this a "constitutional crisis" issue. Give me a break. It common sense that smoke is bad for health and nobody has a "right" to blow it on someone who does not want it,anytime or anywhere.


Besides, there is NO WAY the Government, no matter HOW HARD they try can give you clean air to breath.

How many CARS and TRUCKS are driving on the road daily... OOOOPS DIRTY AIR.

How many Factories and Plants are in operation today in every city and state??? OOOOPS DIRTY AIR.

Tobacco is the LEAST of your worries.
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Midknight, among other things, you are wrong about not coming into a bar and arresting a drunk. When drunks get loud, aggressive and disorderly, the bar calls the cops and the subject is arrested for public drunkness and disorderly conduct.
A place that serves the public is a public place unless it is operating as a private club where paying membership is required.
One other thing, smokers are in a clear minority. Major companies are forbidding smoking on the job, some will not hire you if you are a smoker and some will fire you if you are smoking at home. The health considerations of smoking are impacting insurance costs. If you want to smoke, use a pistol instead, it is quicker and more painless...cheaper in the long run also..



Shel, now this is where you are wrong too. A privately owned business is just that, privately owned, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

The ONLY way a Bar can get Police help is to ASK for it, and if they don't ask for it the Police won't bother them, WHY??? Because it is a PRIVATE BUSINESS.

All Businesses that are opened by anyone's money other than the Government is PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED but OPEN to the Public.

So, the Constitution of our Country is in trouble with people NOT knowing all the facts and wanting to be control freaks with PRIVATELY OWNED ESTABLISHMENTS.

If you want a restuarant or bar to go NON SMOKING, then go buy one, otherwise leave it up to the OWNER to see which side of the coin their clientele is going to be.

If I go somewhere that I know there is smoking, it is MY FAULT, and MY FAULT ONLY because I knew when I walked in the door. If my eyes burn, MY FAULT. If my throat is scratchy, MY FAULT. If I don't want any of the above to happen, then I need to seek out a NON SMOKING establishment.

I am a non smoker, but I am NOT willing to dictate to America what the Constitution gives them the RIGHTS to do. I shall never be guilty of rough-shodding a business owner on making decisions that might close their doors, and they lose everything they have. NOPE, I am not willing to HURT AMERICA just because I DO NOT SMOKE.
I am not wrong. If you will go back and re-read the second line of my original statement that you quoted, you will see that I clearly stated that the bar calls the cop and the subject is arrested.

This is not a constitutional issue.

Wal Mart is open to the public but if you are inside doing vandalism, shop lifting, fighting with another customer,etc. .the police will come into that non-government business and arrest you.
I don't believe for one minute that I am going to change your mind or anyone else's that has taken a hard line stance on this issue, but I do believe that for the common good, common sense will prevail and non-smokers will be protected from people hell bent on offending and endangering others.
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
I am not wrong. If you will go back and re-read the second line of my original statement that you quoted, you will see that I clearly stated that the bar calls the cop and the subject is arrested.

This is not a constitutional issue.

Wal Mart is open to the public but if you are inside doing vandalism, shop lifting, fighting with another customer,etc. .the police will come into that non-government business and arrest you.
I don't believe for one minute that I am going to change your mind or anyone else's that has taken a hard line stance on this issue, but I do believe that for the common good, common sense will prevail and non-smokers will be protected from people hell bent on offending and endangering others.



You should also go back and re-read my post. I stated that the police could not enter a bar and arrest someone for "public intoxication". Why?....Because while someone may be intoxicated, they're not in public.
There's a reason to keep public and private separate.

You say it's not a Constitutional issue, but I beg to differ. It's not about smoker's "rights" vs. non-smokers "rights". The question is "who has the right to decide what goes on in my business...you or me.

I can pretty much assure you that anyone who has invested their life savings and a huge amount of time to open their own business is not hellbent on offending anyone. Going non-smoking may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, I don't know, but I don't think it's a good idea to blur the line between public and private to appease those hellbent on getting their way. In this case I don't think the ends justify the means.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×