Wow, talk about a massive leap in logic. My position is merely that people have choices. They can choose to frequent private businesses that allow smoking or choose not to go there.

 

Keep reading for the reasoning of my question in Hearsay and my discussion.

Keep reading for the reasoning of my question in Hearsay and my discussion.

 

Read it. And yes I do see the need for government regulation when the need arises. I just don't think banning smoking in privately owned businesses is one of those occasions. I have no problem with requiring adequate notification to potential customers (a sign outside perhaps) stating that the facility is a smoking facility, but I still think the choice ultimately belongs to the business owner. In other threads, the argument has been brought up about the effect on employees in businesses that allow smoking. If those employees know going in that the business allows smoking then they have the right not to work there. Free will is a wonderful thing sometimes.

I take it, then, that you were in agreement with the Supreme Court's ruling that school-sanctioned prayer at a high school graduation was illegal. Because that, of course, forced even one student who didn't like prayer to either get up and leave their graduation or sit through it uncomfortably while everyone else's head was bowed.

 

There is NO difference.

 

I would like you to express for me what LEGAL freedom of yours has been infringed. Noone is exercising freedoms here. They are simply smoking. To call it a "freedom" presumes that we are granted something by a government.

 

You and your daughter have two choices: Restaurant A, which permits smokers. Restaurant B, which does not. Which do you choose? If you want the food bad enough, you might go to A, but you are still making a conscious choice and you are valuing the food over the smoke. It is NO different than your choice whether to turn the TV off or not.

 

What you are complaining about, LBBC, is a limitation of your CHOICES based upon smoke, not a limitation of your FREEDOMS. And your choices are limited every day, in every way, in everything you do. Until you see smoking as the same as these other issues, you will not be convinced.

 

And I totally, 100%, iron-clad didsagree with you that the market is slow to react. The market, as has been proven time and time again, is about instantaneous reaction. That is why this country is still great.

 

Well, yes I do agree with the SC on that one. I don't like government sponsored prayer. My religion has spent most of its history in the United States as a derided minority. I remember a pamphlet when I was a kid titled "Why You Shouldn't Marry a Catholic". So yeah, I don't like government sponsored prayer. I just might not agree with the theology of the people making up the prayer. On the topic of smoking, I would be absolutely in favor of letting the market decide smoking issues except for one thing - people work there. If a company asked workers to breathe the toxic soup contained in cigarette smoke at a factory, OSHA would shut down that unsafe work environment. The workers at bars and restaurants deserve the same protection.

If there are enough people who don't like smoking, the fre market will create smoke-free environments for them to eat at, BUT WE DON'T NEED THE GOVERNMENT TELLING US WHEN AND WHERE WE CAN HAVE SEX, WHAT WE CAN EAT, WHEN AND WHERE WE CAN SMOKE, ETC. ETC. ETC. Trust the market, LBBC, trust the market . . .

 

Doesn't work. Can't trust elected politicians to do the right thing, either ... in Florida they kept on trying to ignore calls for anti-smoking legislation because the restaurant and tobacco lobbyists kept paying them off.

 

So Floridians gave up on "the market" and took control of the process for themselves.

 

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=332

 

The smoking ban is in our constitution. The only people who don't like it are the tobacco lobbyists --- the restaurant industry saw its revenues increase after implementation --- surprise, surprise.

 

:ylsuper:

Doesn't work. Can't trust elected politicians to do the right thing, either ... in Florida they kept on trying to ignore calls for anti-smoking legislation because the restaurant and tobacco lobbyists kept paying them off.

 

So Floridians gave up on "the market" and took control of the process for themselves.

 

http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=332

 

The smoking ban is in our constitution. The only people who don't like it are the tobacco lobbyists --- the restaurant industry saw its revenues increase after implementation --- surprise, surprise.

 

:ylsuper:

I am curious on your reasoning on the bolded.

I am curious on your reasoning on the bolded.

 

The smoking ban is in our state constitution. Look it up. Florida voters put it there five years ago.

I think we have a basic human right to enjoy a normal life.

Normal is just a setting on your dryer.

 

 

 

 

In other words, normal is very subjective.

The smoking ban is in our state constitution. Look it up. Florida voters put it there five years ago.

From the Florida State Constitution:

 

Section 20 contains a constitutional prohibition against smoking in indoor workplaces.

Section 21 contains an odd prohibition "[l]imiting cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy".

 

I don't think this is helping your case.

Unless you are a Democrat. I've been told that their farts don't stink.

 

:laugh:

From the Florida State Constitution:

 

Section 20 contains a constitutional prohibition against smoking in indoor workplaces.

 

Offices, hospitals, movie theatres, restaurants --- pretty much anyplace that can be defined as a "workplace" is covered under that amendment and the enabling legislation.

 

As for section 21 ... you obviously never spent time at a hog farm (one of the many "benefits" of FFA membership :lol: ).

Doesn't work.

 

So the market, which is the engine for our economy and that of the rest of the world, doesn’t work because Floridians passed a constitutional amendment to ban smoking?

 

In this debate I keep seeing the slippery slope argument that once smoking is banned inside restaurants, bars, etc. then everything from Bourbon distilleries to tasty food to lollipops to cars will be banned. The other side of course, is that if someone can smoke next to me at a bar, where I have to breathe smoke that is detrimental to my lungs and reek of that smell, then someone should have the infallible right to spray deer urine on everyone or stick people with needles just because they enjoy it. It’s the same logic and it’s fallacious in both cases. The truth is we should take a hard look at reasonable policies where there is benefit to be had. Smokers are very slightly inconvenienced, while the rest benefit from not having their lungs subjected to the nastiness of cigarette smoke. Like nearly every other poster in this thread, I agree the government should keep its hands off of my personal choices, but this isn’t a nanny policy of protecting “me from myself,” as I can smoke all I want to, just not in others’ faces.

So the market, which is the engine for our economy and that of the rest of the world, doesn’t work because Floridians passed a constitutional amendment to ban smoking?

 

You are backwards.

 

Floridians passed an amendment to ban smoking because the market failed them. Ironically, said passage made the market work better --- it seems that when people know they won't be forced to inhale others' smoke, they go out more often.

Gosh, maybe we could get the government to eradicate ragweed since it causes my allergies to explode.

Gosh, maybe we could get the government to eradicate ragweed since it causes my allergies to explode.

 

Ragweed is not done by the actions of another person. Major difference.

Ragweed is not done by the actions of another person. Major difference.

 

Somebody had to plant it, right? :lol: