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

Skip to comments.

Smoky bar triggered fatal asthma attack
Reutors ^ | updated 5:38 p.m. CT, Fri., Feb. 8, 2008

Posted on 02/10/2008 6:00:34 AM PST by justkillingtime

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-245 next last
To: Delta 21
You must be irked a LOT these days.

That I am.

151 posted on 02/11/2008 10:04:04 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime
This is sad, but I have to ask, why did she choose to work there? She KNEW she had asthma.

Of course, the point of this article is to show why it is a good thing that government regulate business even further.

152 posted on 02/11/2008 10:25:58 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime
This is sad, but I have to ask, why did she choose to work there? She KNEW she had asthma.

Of course, the point of this article is to show why it is a good thing that government regulate business even further.

153 posted on 02/11/2008 10:26:19 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime
This is sad, but I have to ask, why did she choose to work there? She KNEW she had asthma.

Of course, the point of this article is to show why it is a good thing that government regulate business even further.

154 posted on 02/11/2008 10:26:29 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Oy! Sorry for the triple post.


155 posted on 02/11/2008 10:27:18 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
You're a cop. You're in grad school. And you work in a bar.

Uh huh.

156 posted on 02/11/2008 10:30:29 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

uh huh. it’s called a scholarship and “paid educational leave”. evidently i impressed someone.


157 posted on 02/11/2008 10:34:31 AM PST by thefactor (that innocence shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
uh huh. it’s called a scholarship and “paid educational leave”. evidently i impressed someone.

Suuuurrreee.

158 posted on 02/11/2008 10:36:46 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
i'd provide all the proof you'd need, but

a) dont care enough, and

b) have class at 4 and have tons of reading.

159 posted on 02/11/2008 10:39:11 AM PST by thefactor (that innocence shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime

I remember when pro-smoking advocates tried to stop the cessation of smoking in sporting arenas and movie theaters.

I’m glad they failed. By the third period of hockey games I was sneezing like crazy and often felt ill.

When they banned cigarettes in restaurants in NY we were told by alarmists that bars and restaurants would all go out of business. Didn’t happen.

Years of smokers shoving it non-smoker’s faces are coming to an end. A lot of us non-smokers feel no sympathy for those that laughed at us when we asked them to put out their cigs because it was tough for us to breathe.

Smoke in your house, car and outside and keep it out of my face. And yes, I’m against banning cigarettes anywhere outdoors.


160 posted on 02/11/2008 10:45:44 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
i'd provide all the proof you'd need, but. .

LOL

161 posted on 02/11/2008 10:47:16 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime
A woman in her late teens...

Wouldn't that be a girl in her late teens?

...died from an acute asthma attack triggered by secondhand cigarette smoke shortly after arriving at her job as a waitress in a bar...

So you're telling me she interviewed there and couldn't smell the smoke? And if she had asthma don't you think she could have found a better suited job than a bar waitress?

162 posted on 02/11/2008 10:49:01 AM PST by McGruff (Go sell McCrazy somewhere else, we're all stocked up here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime
I know plenty of idiots that HAVE asthma that smoke. They are stupid, IMO.

For an asthmatic to work in a potentially very smoke-filled environment...is just as stupid.

We all do stupid things...some are fatal.

163 posted on 02/11/2008 10:53:02 AM PST by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime

The anti-smoking movement may have just found their Len Bias.


164 posted on 02/11/2008 10:55:34 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
what do you want? a copy of my id card and my transcript?

and why, exactly, would i now, after 7 active years on this forum begin to lie about what i do? go back and see my posts. that should be all the proof you need. no matter what i say here all you have to do is keep typing "LOL" like a monkey and try to bait me.

and why is it so hard to believe a cop could go to school and have a 2nd job? i know a lot of other guys who do it and they work full time, unlike me. my cop job doesnt pay enough to raise a family so a ton of guys have side gigs. you obviously live in mayberry or somewhere. in real life, people who work hard get what's coming to them.

165 posted on 02/11/2008 10:56:52 AM PST by thefactor (that innocence shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

I have chronic asthma.. and the fire works have sent me to the ER.. but alas, I just dont go out doors any more on the 4th of july evening....you would think this young lady had to know that smoke bothered her asthma..


166 posted on 02/11/2008 11:00:22 AM PST by JoanneSD (illegals represented without taxation.. Americans taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
You're the one who said you could prove it, but. . .

LOL

go back and see my posts. that should be all the proof you need. no matter what i say here all you have to do is keep typing "LOL" like a monkey and try to bait me.

You seem to be taking the bait. After all, you CLAIMED you had reading to do for class, and yet here you are, still posting.

167 posted on 02/11/2008 11:39:35 AM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: sakic
Years of smokers shoving it non-smoker’s faces are coming to an end. A lot of us non-smokers feel no sympathy for those that laughed at us when we asked them to put out their cigs because it was tough for us to breathe.

Do you think revenge for uncivil behavior is a valid reason to restrict property rights?

168 posted on 02/11/2008 1:56:16 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Darnright; All
This is a tragic situation where a kid took a risk, and lost.

I agree. But I do not believe that it should be the platform for banning smoking. This does not appear to be a recent death. A study, I might add, by a researcher who, based on easily gained information on the internet, seems to apply for quite a few grants annually. If you read the article carefully, including the subtitle, you will notice that it is not an article about her passing, but is based on information presented in a "study". The researcher has an agenda and, sadly, he is using this case to define his platform. He will not release the identity of the girl, which leaves one to ask, "Why?" Stating that she died from "asthma" without providing more background information on the girl, some indication of external factors pertinent to events or conditions she encountered prior to her arrival at the bar, any indication of additional contributing factors to her asthmatic attack, or autopsy results is poor research and poor journalism, IMO.
169 posted on 02/11/2008 3:42:50 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: thefactor; CSM; All

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


170 posted on 02/11/2008 3:44:36 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
This forum is being taken over by the heartless.

How can you make this statement having been less than two months?

I have been here a little longer and this place is no worse than it ever was.

171 posted on 02/11/2008 4:09:22 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: timm22

tell me how this restricts property rights. i’m just asking.


172 posted on 02/11/2008 4:31:13 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

I have been lurking here for some years now. But maybe you’re right; maybe people on this forum have always been unsympathetic. It’s easier to be critical when we are anonymous and are writing about people we don’t know personally. I don’t ordinarily have tons of sympathy to expend on Darwin candidates myself, but for a young girl who died, I wish folks could be more understanding.


173 posted on 02/11/2008 4:59:21 PM PST by ottbmare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
I have been lurking here for some years now.

Sorry, but every one who is new says that. Nobody believes it.

But maybe you’re right; maybe people on this forum have always been unsympathetic.

She should have found other employment. As someone pointed out above this is just like someone allergic to peanuts working in Mr. Peanuts factory. If anything this is closer to suicide than anything else, if it is real at all.

It’s easier to be critical when we are anonymous and are writing about people we don’t know personally.

Eaker is my name. Not too hard to look up. There would be no FR if people could only post about people they know. This is just plain silly.

I don’t ordinarily have tons of sympathy to expend on Darwin candidates myself, but for a young girl who died, I wish folks could be more understanding.

Would you let your asthmatic child work in a smoky environment? It is not like she was making a ton of money so she simply should have worked somewhere else.

I am especially angry if her stupidity helps the smoke nazi cause.

How is that for compassion?

174 posted on 02/11/2008 5:29:01 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
tell me how this restricts property rights

Bar owners and many other businesses are losing customers like me. I used to love to go shoot pool and have a few beers with friends. I solved this by buying a pool table and staying home. We also don't have drinks after dinner. We eat and get the hell out. Restaurants make a lot of money of drinks. They have lost this too.

175 posted on 02/11/2008 5:32:57 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
well, i see the point as it has been delineated to me on many occasions. but i don't see it really in terms of property rights, per se.

the person still owns the bar/restaurant. perhaps their business is being negatively impacted, but it is YOU who is negatively impacting it by not staying. if you truly cared about the bar owners well-being, you'd stay and wait a few minutes for your next smoke or simply go outside and return in a couple of minutes.

and bar owners are able to build enclosed smoking areas if they wish. but they are subject to laws as they are operating under state liquor licenses, cabaret licenses, etc... and are granted the ability to sell alcohol by the state. they know the deal when they open their place.

restaurants do make an obscene amount of money on booze. i do not feel any hurt for the bars in which i work. they make their money back after about 4 shots from a bottle.

if they are selling less, then they can reduce overhead in terms of staff and inventory perhaps.

as i said, i am not for or against a smoking ban. i went to bars when there were no bans and i go to bars now. i just come home smelling better now. but if they took away the ban tomorrow, i wouldn't cry about it. i'd just adjust my habits to accommodate.

176 posted on 02/11/2008 5:51:58 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime

Shouldn’t they at least have posted a picture of her with the article? The article does state “There’s are alot of blah blah blah about second hand smoke...here is a human face...” Where’s the human face MSNBC?


177 posted on 02/11/2008 5:51:59 PM PST by Pagey (Horrible Hillary Clinton is Bad For America, Bad For Business and Bad For MY Stomach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; thefactor; Freedom Dignity n Honor; justkillingtime; Tax-chick; mewzilla; Mr Ramsbotham; ...
Thre is ALWAYS more to the story than

I did a little research of my own. Guess what? It seems Kenneth Rosenman chooses which information fits his research instead of publishing ALL the facts.

Here's the link to a .pdf file containing the investigation/summary report.
http://www.oem.msu.edu/MiFace/04MI223%20Investigation%20Reportrev8_1_07.pdf

First, let me state that the study was submitted for publication in September 2007 and that the "incident" in question occurred May 1, 2004. Not exactly recent news, but here are few highlights from the incident report:
On May 1, 2004,... The bar was divided into two separate areas, the bar area with limited seating and a room with a disc jockey (DJ) booth. When the victim arrived at work at 9:45 p.m., she talked with the DJ who was setting up in the adjacent room, then walked about 25 feet to an open section of the bar.

No individuals were in the room with the DJ. According to the owner, the bar was not “overly smoky”. Shortly after the victim went behind the bar, she grabbed the bar manager, saying she needed to get to the hospital and that she needed fresh air. The victim said she wished she had her inhaler with her. As the two walked out from behind the bar and toward the back door, the victim collapsed onto the dance floor. The bar patrons were asked if anyone had an inhaler. Someone did, and the victim attempted to use the inhaler, but was unable to do so.

According to the medical examiner’s report, the victim’s father had seen her at 9:30 p.m. and stated she was having breathing problems at that time.

According to the owner, she had not previously had an asthma attack at work.

The cause of death as stated on the death certificate was status asthmaticus.
A medical examiner report and toxicology results were not obtained.


178 posted on 02/11/2008 5:59:35 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
tell me how this restricts property rights. i’m just asking.

Sure.

Generally speaking, a property owner has the right to possess, use, and control his own property as he sees fit. This includes deciding who he wishes to allow on his property, what activities he does on his property, and the kind of environment he maintains on his property. Any law that restricts the range of choices of the property owner in how he uses his property would be a restriction of his property rights.

Obviously, property rights can not be unlimited. There are certain instances where a restriction in property rights may be called for. However, any restrictions should have significant justification and should extend only as far as is necessary to achieve the legitimate end. Well, at least that's how conservatives think.

So prohibiting a business owner from allowing smoking on his property would be a restriction of his property rights. So far I've never heard anyone give an adequate justification for the kind of broad smoking bans that have been popping up across the nation.

Now that I have answered your question, would you mind sharing your own position concerning smoking bans on private property? (IOW, would you vote for or against a ban in your community?)

179 posted on 02/11/2008 6:01:26 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: callisto

I’m SO not surprised. I’m still, of course, very sorry about the young woman’s death.


180 posted on 02/11/2008 6:02:12 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Good guy wins, bad guy gets dead. Nothing to cry over here." ~ trimom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
but it is YOU who is negatively impacting it by not staying. if you truly cared about the bar owners well-being, you'd stay and wait a few minutes for your next smoke or simply go outside and return in a couple of minutes.

I have to do that at work so by quitting time I am fed up with it. Also it gets too damn hot here to be smoking outside. If a bar quit selling booze would you still go there? No. Neither will I when it comes to smoking.

Chuckie Cheese Pizza caters to children. I don't like children so I eat somewhere else. Simple. I cannot understand why smoke nazies (not you) cannot do the same.

The business owner should decide not the government.

181 posted on 02/11/2008 6:05:24 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: callisto

Very good work and thanks!


182 posted on 02/11/2008 6:10:53 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: All
Also, here is a summary provided of the actual article. Link to abstract enclosed: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/117859611/ABSTRACT
Quick summary - the three public health surveillance systems that were used were 1) Occupational disease reports based on Michigan health codes that mandate employers report work-related illnesses, 2) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)'s Fatal Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE)- this is a national program that evaluates work-related deaths, and 3) Michigan Asthma Mortality Review (MAMR), a rapid asthma death notification and investigation system.

Cause of death on the death certificate was status asthmaticus. Autopsy COD was asphyxia secondary to acute asthma attack. No evidence of cardiac or neurological problems at autopsy.

...911 was called, and arrived in five minutes, making the time from her entering the bar to the time medical personnel arrived ~11 minutes. Unresponsive, no pulse, difficulty opening her lungs with an ambu-bag.~600cc fluid came from her mouth following intubation. Another half-liter was suctioned from her airway. ACLS was attemped but was unsuccessful. She was transported to the ED, but pronounced dead 25 minutes following arrival of medical personnel at the bar.

Asthmatic since age 2, treated at the ER for acute asthma flare-ups 2-3 times in the current year. Had four different asthma prescriptions, but only used them when she had trouble breathing. Medical records were consistent with moderate persistent asthma. Averaged 3 trips per year to the ED since age 5, and had been admitted to ICU twice, with one intubation. Allergies to dust mites, house mites, ragweed, nuts, trees and mold. Considered obese according to BMI.

MIFACE investigator noticed a smoke odor, and referred to it as a "typical smoky bar". Recommendations in the MIFACE report: 1) ventilation systems cannot guard against ETS - consider prohibiting smoking. 2) Manager called the bar owner first rather than 911 - consider developing a business emergency response plan.

Discussion: discusses the "suggestive but not sufficient" qualifier that the SG's report concluded re: asthma control and ETS. Ireland, Scotland, Norway, and Kentucky studies re: asthma and ETS were mentioned, talking about physiological lung tests vs ETS exposure.

Paper claims that MI is the only state with three surveillence programs with "overlapping mandates and responsibilities" for public health response to work-related illness/injury - supposedly this is why there have been no similar reports in the past.

Big finish - "Several limitations should be noted related to this case report. First, the deceased’s asthma was not under optimum control; this would increase the likelihood of an adverse reaction with exposure to an asthma trigger. Second, there are no measurements of particulate matter in the bar where she died; thus the association with secondhand smoke is based on the temporal relationship of exposure to her acute respiratory symptoms and her subsequent collapse in the absence of any other know trigger for this acute effect. However, the epidemiologic and experimental data linking ETS to acute, non-malignant respiratory conditions including exacerbation of asthma, supports the clinical impression of an association."

They finish with a couple of paragraphs calling for expansion of smoke-free laws.

183 posted on 02/11/2008 6:13:12 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

There’s more...see post 183!


184 posted on 02/11/2008 6:13:53 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
I cannot understand why smoke nazies (not you) cannot do the same.

I don't understand, either. Niche marketing is an obvious concept, and there's money to be made by catering to any group that likes, or doesn't like, a particular business model.

185 posted on 02/11/2008 6:13:57 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Good guy wins, bad guy gets dead. Nothing to cry over here." ~ trimom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: timm22
see post #176.

i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. it's a business. and an extremely regulated business at that.

bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve.

do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? or not being able to serve after 2am or 4am depending on the state? how about bars being unable to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated? all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.

smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.

i would abstain from a vote on a ban personally. i have smoked in my life. in bars and outside of bars. i have seen how miserable smokers are because of it and i have seen how happy non-smokers are because of it.

i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.

186 posted on 02/11/2008 6:14:11 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ottbmare
A tragedy, and I feel sorry for her family at this loss. Breathing difficulties are no fun, and we should all show understanding to people who are dealing with asthma, COPD, etc.
187 posted on 02/11/2008 6:15:14 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
see post #186 for a little more coherent statement.

would you rather be hot or cold? here in upstate NY, smokers have to go outside and they freeze their butts off at 2am for a smoke!

it's the girl's who wear next to nothing i feel the worst for. most of them only make it half way down the cigarette. they'd love to be in your shoes!

188 posted on 02/11/2008 6:17:28 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
very sorry about the young woman’s death

I am too. Especially when you see the researcher's published description of her medical history. This girl had no business with her history (4 different asthma medications, multiple ER visits per year, etc.) of putting heself in any environment that may cause her harm, but according to her own father she was experiencing breathing difficulty prior to going to work.
189 posted on 02/11/2008 6:18:15 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

I so agree.

There is a huge mall here with lots of shops. Part of its niche is potpourri. Because of this I cannot shop there. I tried once and within a few minutes I couldn’t breath so I shop somewhere else.

I sure don’t want them to ban something for me that others enjoy.


190 posted on 02/11/2008 6:19:50 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

Well it gets cold, wet and miserable here in the winter too.

It stays nice and warm or cool in my home. My friends I used to go out with often come here. I am a better cook than any restaurant and it is cheaper.

Plus we don’t need a bouncer as we are all conservatives!


191 posted on 02/11/2008 6:22:53 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: callisto

It seems she just decided to act as if she didn’t have dangerous asthma. I’m sorry about that. I had a friend in high school who died from asthma complications, and it was really sad, but it could have been prevented.


192 posted on 02/11/2008 6:23:18 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Good guy wins, bad guy gets dead. Nothing to cry over here." ~ trimom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
I sure don’t want them to ban something for me that others enjoy.

I don't, either. I have plenty of choices for eating out or entertainment where I don't have to be around smoking. We especially enjoy outdoor musical events, and then people can smoke without our all being too close!

Come to dinner, if you're ever in these parts, and you can smoke in the pergola, surrounded by roses!

193 posted on 02/11/2008 6:25:34 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Good guy wins, bad guy gets dead. Nothing to cry over here." ~ trimom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: callisto

Wow!


194 posted on 02/11/2008 6:28:11 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Come to dinner, if you're ever in these parts, and you can smoke in the pergola, surrounded by roses!

Deal!

195 posted on 02/11/2008 6:32:31 PM PST by Eaker (If illegal immigrants were so great for an economy; Mexico would be building a wall to keep them in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

It’s amazing what you can find on the internet when you really take a look! IMHO, Mr. Rosenman writes his research to further fund his career. Lots of leaps and bounds taken in this case, but I bet he gets additional CDC funding.


196 posted on 02/11/2008 6:32:45 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

The catz will mob you, but I’ll shoo the kidz to the playground :-).


197 posted on 02/11/2008 6:40:16 PM PST by Tax-chick ("Good guy wins, bad guy gets dead. Nothing to cry over here." ~ trimom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
i fail to see this as a much larger issue.

See post 170 for the bigger picture.
198 posted on 02/11/2008 6:58:07 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
see post #176.

Sorry, I was didn't see that post before I submitted my own.

i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. ...

I've never understood this argument. Essentially, it holds that the imposition of one set of restrictions justifies another, unrelated set of restrictions. It implies that if the state sticks its nose into one aspect of an industry, it gives the state a blank check to regulate all aspects of that industry.

I don't see how that idea can be compatible with a belief in limited government. If the existence of state liquor authorities has any legitimacy (I'm agnostic on that question for now), then its power should only extend to matters that relate to alcohol regulation and only so far as is needed to achieve legitimate ends.

Think of it this way; if the state requires a restaurant license to run a deli, should that give the state the authority to choose the condiment selection at the deli?

bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve...

They do. But in my opinion, each of those rules should have an independent justification. Most of them do.

do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? ...all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.

As I have said previously on this thread, some restrictions of property rights are acceptable. I don't have a problem with the age restrictions or restrictions on serving the intoxicated. In my opinion, those restrictions are justified because they protect people unable to competently assume the risks of drinking. I would also be okay with the time restrictions, as they are designed to protect the rights of others outside of the property.

Since the smoking bans lack any similar justification, I remain opposed to them. Even though bars and restaurants are already subject to a number of restrictions, I still believe each new restriction must have a sufficient, independent justification.

smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.

Actually, it includes even more than that. It also includes the right to control, use, and enjoythe premises as the owner pleases. So even if smoking is still allowed outside, by restricting smoking INSIDE you are still restricting the owner's right to control the inside of his property as he would like.

Property includes more than just the stuff inside the boundaries of your land. That's why conservatives view environmental and endangered species laws as property rights issues. Even though most of those regulations do not take land away from the owners like in eminent domain cases, they restrict the owner's use, enjoyment, and control of his land.

...i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.

By itself, I agree that this issue isn't going to have huge consequences. Local economies won't collapse because of smoking bans (though many good people could lose jobs), and nobody is going to be faced with years in jail because of violations.

But as a matter of principle, the smoking ban issue should offend anyone who believes in the importance of property rights and limited government. Smoking bans represent the sacrifice of property rights and market solutions in exchange for the personal convenience of politically powerful groups....with no valid justification.

That idea, left unchecked, can have pretty dire consequences.

199 posted on 02/11/2008 7:23:03 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

I posted this thread..and after reading your posts..if ,whenever I see your name posting comments...I will upon seeing it...reject it as bullshit. You are the epitome of an asshole cop(ooops..wanna-be cop) who thinks he knows all. Please do not respond as I have no desire to hear from people as yourself.


200 posted on 02/11/2008 8:24:33 PM PST by justkillingtime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-245 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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