|
|
#121
06-28-2007, 12:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws. [/ QUOTE ] A town is not an actor. A town doesn't "pass ordinances". A group of people certainly has a right to agree upon some rules for interactions. They don't have any right to impose those rules on other people who don't agree. [ QUOTE ] Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments? [/ QUOTE ] How many times does the word "right" appear in there? This is not a semantical quibble. The words were chosen *very* carefully. [/ QUOTE ] Care to elaborate? And do you disagree that the states and the people have the right to create laws through local government? EDIT: are we mixing quotes from our different posts by mistake? My saying this: "Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?" was intended only for response to your response about the Amendment X. This can become a problem when multiple responses are present in one thread, I think. I'm already getting lost in the maze. [/ QUOTE ] I have no issue over "given" or "reserved". My issue is with your characterization of governments as entities that can have rights, and specifically with your allusion to the constitution to back that up. There is NO such mention of rights as something *governments* can have in the constitution. As I said, the framers were very careful to avoid any such implication. Q: How many times does the word "right" appear in Amendment X? A: Zero. 
|
|
#122
06-28-2007, 01:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, so it's a matter of how much money one makes? If the waitress is paid enough, it would be OK to smoke in a bar? How much, then, is "enough?" And why isn't the waitress capable of determining that for herself, even though the "skilled" pai gow dealer *is* capable of determining that? [/ QUOTE ] I only brought up "high" paid, skilled, good looking people to point out that they have more choices available as to where they work. They have more freedom to leave one hostile work environment for an environment more suitable to them. My not feeling sorry for higher paid employees has nothing to do with my arguments, which I’ve stated numerously, but will state again: Allow the disgruntled employee a chance to change things herself. If you do that, then there is no problem. Give bar owners the freedom to innovate ( give all business men the freedom to innovate ). Beer and wine licenses are a dime a dozen. 20 years ago, in this area, you wouldn’t find a single beer and wine bar that was non-smoking, now, most of them are. Nobody put a gun to their heads. In this area there isn’t a single liquor bar that is non - smoking. With very expensive, limited licenses, nobody is willing to change the years old status quo, and a waitress that has a problem with smoking is not allowed to go across the street and open up her own liquor bar. A poker dealer is not allowed by law to establish her own non-smoking poker room, and the stoner employee is not allowed to grow marijuana on his property and sell it on E-bay. If opening a business were as easy here, as say, Hong Kong, then I wouldn’t have an argument.
|
|
#123
06-28-2007, 01:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is nanny state thinking at its apex. Employees are too stupid to choose where they work, a smokey bar or a smoke free environment. [/ QUOTE ] You are simply using slogans to make your point. Employees simply don't have the choice you think they have. There stupidity, as you call it, may extend to putting them at risk to support their families. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is the point several in this thread are neglecting. Employees cannot change jobs as easily as they can change what they're having for dinner tonight. Also, what people may not realize is that there used to be NO CHOICE, since before the bans came along, smoking was everywhere: inessentially every bar, restaurant, workplace, office building, etcetera. They presume that since today there exist choices, that it was always like that, or would be like that absent the bans. Having experienced an era of smoking being nearly omnipresent, I have less faith that if the bans were lifted today, that consumers and workers would have the degree of choice that they seem to suppose would exist absent the bans. My guess is that HeavilyArmed, too, is too young to have experienced or to remember what it was like in the USA before any smoking bans came into effect. Today, it might be that even absent the bans, there would be more choices due to greater public awareness and preferences. I doubt there be nearly as much choice as the advocates of non-bans would suppose, though. [/ QUOTE ] The market provides. There is no Las Vegas ordinance the proscribes smoking in poker rooms yet I can find them now and could not find one in 1980. I'm free to not work in a bar and I'll choose to respect property rights here. You can take away the rights of business owners and consumers as you see fit. I can't abide that and be consistent. Smoking bans are little more than the tyrany of the majority.
|
|
#124
06-28-2007, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This is nanny state thinking at its apex. Employees are too stupid to choose where they work, a smokey bar or a smoke free environment. [/ QUOTE ] You are simply using slogans to make your point. Employees simply don't have the choice you think they have. There stupidity, as you call it, may extend to putting them at risk to support their families. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is the point several in this thread are neglecting. Employees cannot change jobs as easily as they can change what they're having for dinner tonight. Also, what people may not realize is that there used to be NO CHOICE, since before the bans came along, smoking was everywhere: inessentially every bar, restaurant, workplace, office building, etcetera. They presume that since today there exist choices, that it was always like that, or would be like that absent the bans. Having experienced an era of smoking being nearly omnipresent, I have less faith that if the bans were lifted today, that consumers and workers would have the degree of choice that they seem to suppose would exist absent the bans. My guess is that HeavilyArmed, too, is too young to have experienced or to remember what it was like in the USA before any smoking bans came into effect. Today, it might be that even absent the bans, there would be more choices due to greater public awareness and preferences. I doubt there be nearly as much choice as the advocates of non-bans would suppose, though. [/ QUOTE ] The market provides. There is no Las Vegas ordinance the proscribes smoking in poker rooms yet I can find them now and could not find one in 1980. I'm free to not work in a bar and I'll choose to respect property rights here. You can take away the rights of business owners and consumers as you see fit. I can't abide that and be consistent. Smoking bans are little more than the tyrany of the majority. [/ QUOTE ] Whereas I believe that indoor smoking in bars, restaurants and in office workplaces, is tyranny of the minority.
|
|
#125
06-28-2007, 01:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws. [/ QUOTE ] A town is not an actor. A town doesn't "pass ordinances". A group of people certainly has a right to agree upon some rules for interactions. They don't have any right to impose those rules on other people who don't agree. [ QUOTE ] Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments? [/ QUOTE ] How many times does the word "right" appear in there? This is not a semantical quibble. The words were chosen *very* carefully. [/ QUOTE ] Care to elaborate? And do you disagree that the states and the people have the right to create laws through local government? EDIT: are we mixing quotes from our different posts by mistake? My saying this: "Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?" was intended only for response to your response about the Amendment X. This can become a problem when multiple responses are present in one thread, I think. I'm already getting lost in the maze. [/ QUOTE ] I have no issue over "given" or "reserved". My issue is with your characterization of governments as entities that can have rights, and specifically with your allusion to the constitution to back that up. There is NO such mention of rights as something *governments* can have in the constitution. As I said, the framers were very careful to avoid any such implication. Q: How many times does the word "right" appear in Amendment X? A: Zero. [/ QUOTE ] You are correct and I was mistakenly substituting "rights" for "powers". I still think that states and local governments are entitled to utilize their powers to enact some laws and ordinances, especially when it is in keeping with the will of the majority of the people. "Powers" of the people means, what, exactly? Would it not encompass the power enact certain laws and ordinances through the state or local government?
|
|
#126
06-28-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws. [/ QUOTE ] A town is not an actor. [/ QUOTE ] I am unsure about this. [ QUOTE ] A town doesn't "pass ordinances". A group of people certainly has a right to agree upon some rules for interactions. [/ QUOTE ] And if they can't agree, and their wishes conflict, somnetimes majority rule takes precedence. [ QUOTE ] They don't have any right to impose those rules on other people who don't agree. [/ QUOTE ] Werll, non-smokers can say the same thing, that smokers don't have any right to impose a smoky environment on those that don't agree. I don't fully buy the "they can just go somewhere else" rebuttal. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments? [/ QUOTE ] How many times does the word "right" appear in there? This is not a semantical quibble. The words were chosen *very* carefully. [/ QUOTE ] As noted below, you are correct and I was mistaking "powers" for "rights". Pragmatically speaking, though, when it comes to state laws and town ordinances, I'm not sure there is much difference, especially if the majority wishes are reflected.
|
|
#127
06-28-2007, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you don't wanna inhale cig smoke then don't go to a smoking restaurant. [/ QUOTE ] Or the reverse: if you want to emit foul-smelling and toxic smoke, go outside the restaurant. Why should I be forced to avoid certain restaurants because of another person's addiction? [/ QUOTE ] Because it's the choice of the owner of the restaurant. This is like saying, "why should I be 'forced' to avoid certain restaurants just because they serve food I don't like."
|
|
#128
06-28-2007, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Smoking bans are little more than the tyrany of the majority. [/ QUOTE ] Whereas I believe that indoor smoking in bars, restaurants and in office workplaces, is tyranny of the minority. [/ QUOTE ] If by "minority" you mean "property owners" and if by "tyranny" you mean "personal subjective preference" then we agree.
|
|
#129
06-28-2007, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
Of course the restaurants owners are advantaged by allowing smokers, since the have a bigger customer base that way. [/ QUOTE ] Only if the non-smokers are willing to tolerate it. When the non-smokers in this country stopped being willing to tolerate it, it became unprofitable. The restaurants don't magically know when this happens though since it was the social norm for so many decades and their customers just need to let them know. Sadly, instead of simply going to the restaurants and letting them know, they're going to the government instead and just making things worse. Start boycotting restaurants that allow smoking and it will go away. A government solution is simply completely unnecessary. [ QUOTE ] PPS It is possible to use Politics threads for an anti-ACist, read reasonable, or beneficial to more people,, stance. [/ QUOTE ] No, the ACist stance is always the most beneficial to the most people. It's also the most reasonable. (ok we'll toss in an "almost always" on that just because)
|
|
#130
06-28-2007, 02:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Am I the only non-smoker who thinks \"smoking bans\" are a bunch of
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct and I was mistakenly substituting "rights" for "powers". I still think that states and local governments are entitled to utilize their powers to enact some laws and ordinances, especially when it is in keeping with the will of the majority of the people. [/ QUOTE ] Such as, e.g., slavery. Hey, the majority approved at some point, right? [ QUOTE ] "Powers" of the people means, what, exactly? Would it not encompass the power enact certain laws and ordinances through the state or local government? [/ QUOTE ] Powers, in the sense of the Constitution (at least, at the time the bill of rights was passed), means some force that needs to be restrained. Of course, this entire discussion is a side show, since the Constitution does not create or grant any rights at all. We don't have freedom of speech only because some words written on some piece of paper say so.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
