HHH wrote:
Nah, dude. You can eat and drink whatever you want, just so long as it doesn't affect other people.
Yeah, but I force my kids to eat pizza and I allow them to drink pop filled with sugar.
HHH wrote:
Nah, dude. You can eat and drink whatever you want, just so long as it doesn't affect other people.
Yeah, but I force my kids to eat pizza and I allow them to drink pop filled with sugar.
Personal Trainer wrote:
You're way off here. You're clearly one of these people that thinks that a business owner has a "right" to do whatever he wants on his property. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are any number of things a restaurant must go through that restrict his "rights". Think about zoning laws, liquor/bar permits, just for starters. Health code inspections, health code violations, the city can shut you down for any of these. On, and on, and on. The government tells you where you can and can't build. Whether you can serve liquor. How to keep your kitchen clean. What minimums to pay your staff. Etc, etc, etc.
No one has a "right" to smoke -- it's a privilege, and one that has been continually restricted as the negative health effects have become known. Remember, you used to be able to smoke in movie theaters, airplanes, hospitals, just about anywhere. My city (Indianapolis) went smoke free today. It's about time.
To some extent, yes a person should be able to do whatever he wants with his property. The things you mention for the most part involve other people so there is a difference. I would argue the government should not be able to tell me where I can and cannot build or what to pay my staff.
If government did not instill health codes it would not be good, but you know what places that got people sick would go out of business. Look at what happens when Jack in the Box has an E.Coli outbreak--even with government oversight their business crashed for a while.
"Privilege": no, it is not something I have to ask for. As long as I am of legal age then I can smoke (for now anyway) in my own home, in my car and in most places, outside. Driving is a privilege as I need permission (in the form of a license from the state) but only to drive on public roadways.
1. I was not clear, but you are being obtuse. The comment about the tip of the nose is that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose.
2. It technically could be an assault since assault often has a "threat" or "attempt" facet.
So maybe a better way is that if I am standing in my house alone and swing my fist, I am within in my rights.
Heck I have the right to burn down my house as long as I do not file a false insurance claim and pay off the mortgage anyway.
J.B. Stoner wrote:
And if I don't want to allow the coloreds in my restaurant, then I should be able to keep them out! All power to the business owner - unless they want topless dancing or to sell sex videos and sex toys, then the government has to protect the public good!
I do think that a business owner should be able to select the clientele. Of course I also believe in picketing that place as well.
I have no problem with topless dancing or selling sex toys either.
Right to Assault? wrote:
If this is his point:
"You need to learn what a "right" is.
A right is something that I do that does not infringe upon your ability to do something. For instance, I can swing my fist as hard as I want right up to the tip of your nose."
...then it is fatally flawed. He's telling someone else to learn what a right is, by giving an example of something that isn't a right. That fails pretty much every logical thought process I can think of. Based on your responses, you don't know, either.
Why do people make up screen names just to post something. Be a man and use one screen name all the time you f***ing coward.
The example is a bit extreme and is used to illustrate a point. If I am not attempting to hit you then there is no assault.
Mtn Dew wrote:
Okay, I guess I'll give up. You are apparently autistic and can't grasp abstract ideas very well.
Autistic people can be smarter than this guy.
HHH wrote:
Smoking is a filthy and disgusting habit that can cause serious side effects in both smokers and non smokers. A government has a responsibility to it's citizens to protect them. Just like drinking and driving and is not allowed, smoking anywhere apart from outside should be banned. I shouldn't have to go to another bar or restuarant just because I am healthy and choose to take care of myself. Perhaps if smokers are inconvenienced enough than they will quit.
Okay then outlaw smoking altogether at least that would be an honest attempt.
While we are at it,
ban swimming pools---how many people drown each year in them
in fact, ban swimming entirely
lower the speed limit to 25 mph on all roads
I bet that if you look around you will find places that do not allow smoking that you could go.
What I hear you saying is that you are more important than another person and that everyone should conform to your wants.
I argue that restaurants and bars not truly public places. They are private businesses (as in not owned by the government). While they may provide certain services open to anyone who walks through the door, that is not the same thing.
You assume that all smokers are chain smokers. I know a lot of people who only smoke when they drink for instance or have an occasional cigar.
BTW, I do believe that government has the right to set the rules for the buildings it owns just as any employer should.
KnowItAll wrote:
rod man wrote:Of course it is fair. people should be free to breath air that doesn't have carcinogens.
Not in this friggin polluted world.
Idiot...the air quality in the US is better than it has been since the late 60s or early 70s.
A few things...
1) Some regulation is necessary and I am not an anarchists, just a libertarian.
2) People bring up health codes, but that is a bit of a straw man in the smoking debate. It is unreasonable to ask me to inspect the kitchen for sanitary conditions at every restaurant I go into. However, whether a place allows smoking or not is something that I can easily assess and make a decision on whether I want to patronize or not.
Also, if government did not perform these health inspections, independent groups might spring up to do the same thing much like we have in other consumer watchdog groups. A company might come up with a process for checking restaurants and giving it a seal of approval. Some organization might have higher standards than others. There would be a free market answer although I am not opposed to government involvement at this level.
The question is: what things are you going to fight for if not for personal freedoms like owning property and being able to use it as you like?
luv2run wrote:
Idiot...the air quality in the US is better than it has been since the late 60s or early 70s.
Did I say it wasn't? I just said you aren't free to breathe air that does not contain carcinogens. Are you contending there are no carcinogens anywhere in the public airspace of the US?
stoutchemist wrote:
The reason health care costs so much is because of people suing docs for millions over "pain and suffering." So all those people with no health insurance can thank those who sued the docs when it turned out the doc wasn't a miracle worker.
Uh, no. The actual reason that it costs so much is because the health insurance industry has a powerful lobby with the lawmakers of this land.
luv2run wrote:
As for smoking, I contend that restaurants are NOT public places. A restaurant can set a dress code for instance and deny people entrance for not dressing properly if it so chooses.
Then why can't they serve alcohol to whomever they want to, regardless of age or any other factor?
Mtn Dew wrote:
You are missing the point completely. He's not saying you have the right to swing your fist and hit someone in the nose, he's saying you have the right to swing your fist up UNTIL it hits someone in the nose, at which point it infringes on someone else's rights. Understand?
What about pointing a gun but not firing it? Or drawing a knife and not slashing with it?