Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JamesP81
When there is a clash of personal rights, where do you stand? Does your stand build up or tear down? Why, in your published opinion, does a smoker have more rights than a nonsmoker?
41 posted on 01/04/2008 8:31:19 PM PST by Sursum Corda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]


To: Sursum Corda
Why, in your published opinion, does a smoker have more rights than a nonsmoker?

You do not have the right to not be annoyed in public.
43 posted on 01/04/2008 8:34:49 PM PST by JamesP81 ("I am against "zero tolerance" policies. It is a crutch for idiots." --FReeper Tenacious 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Sursum Corda
Addendum to my #43:

It is obvious that in a free society, some people are going to do things that you don't like. You can either learn to live with some annoyances, or you can cease having a free society. You cannot have it both ways.
45 posted on 01/04/2008 8:36:23 PM PST by JamesP81 ("I am against "zero tolerance" policies. It is a crutch for idiots." --FReeper Tenacious 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Sursum Corda; JamesP81
When there is a clash of personal rights, where do you stand? Does your stand build up or tear down? Why, in your published opinion, does a smoker have more rights than a nonsmoker?

As a non-smoker, what gives you the right to point a gun at the non-smoking Owner of any establishment to do your bidding?

50 posted on 01/04/2008 8:48:29 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Sursum Corda
When there is a clash of personal rights, where do you stand?

There is no 'clash'. Private property owners, bar owners, restaraunt owners, store owners, etc. etc. all have the right to decide whether or not they will or will not allow smoking on their property.

Patrons of these establishments also have the right to decide which establisments will enjoy the benefit of their patronage.

The State has no business inserting itself between business owner and prospective patron in this instance. Period.

If you wish to patronize a non smoking establishment, that is your right. Find one and patronize it. If a business owner wishes to cater to smokers, that is their right.

What the anti-freedom (read anti-smokers) want to do is to rob everyone of their God given right of free association and free use of their property as they see fit.

L

68 posted on 01/04/2008 9:21:10 PM PST by Lurker (Pimping my blog: http://lurkerslair-lurker.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Sursum Corda; JamesP81
Gentlemen, I hope you don't mind if I but in and give my own opinion.

Why, in your published opinion, does a smoker have more rights than a nonsmoker?

I think you are misunderstanding the issue. This is not about a contest between smokers and non-smokers. It's about whether or not the state should be able to dictate to a private property owner his policies with respect to smoking.

Conservatives agree that private property owners should generally be allowed to use and enjoy their property as they see fit, yes? That is, the default position is to allow the private property owner to establish all policies and settle all disputes according to his will, so long as the issue is on his property.

That's why conservatives defend the right of a businessman to set his own prices, to choose the products he wishes to sell, and to set the rules customers must abide by when visiting his property. Therefore, in applying this default conservative rule, we would say that neither the smoker nor the non-smoker has a right to their preferred environment on someone else's property, any more than the customer has the right to force a property owner to sell at a price lower than he is willing to accept. It is the decision of the property owner to decide whether or not he wishes to permit smoking on his property.

It is only the property owner who has rights at stake in this issue. Those rights are denied when the state overrules the property owner's decision and forces a no-smoking policy on private property.

79 posted on 01/04/2008 9:44:39 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

To: Sursum Corda
Why, in your published opinion, does a smoker have more rights than a nonsmoker?

The smoker doesn't have more rights than the non-smoker. By the same token, the non-smoker has no more rights than the smoker. Yet the non-smoker is imposing his will upon the smoker by telling him where or when he may or may not smoke.

People forget that your personal rights end at the tip of your nose, just as mine do.

97 posted on 01/05/2008 6:26:54 AM PST by Budge (<>< Sit Nomen Domini benedictum. <><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson