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 last
To: callisto

>But I do not believe that it should be the platform for banning smoking.<

Nor do I. That said, I do believe we need laws that set aside a certain portion of restaurants for non-smokers.

There is a non-smoking bar in our area. I love going there. It smells so clean, and the people are really friendly. That business owner has made a sound decision. Smokers have lots of choices in our vicinity.


201 posted on 02/11/2008 8:24:44 PM PST by Darnright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime
hahaha!

oh, the tolerant conservative you are! so respectful of other's opinions who have engaged in semi-intelligent dialogue for the most part.

so you're a smoking nazi. got it. nobody cares. lemme guess, you got a speeding ticket and it just wasn't your fault! i bet nothing ever is.

202 posted on 02/11/2008 8:33:09 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: justkillingtime

Thanks for posting the thread, jkt. It prompted some interesting research and results. I’ve enjoyed it!! Some people will always choose to ignore the facts. Interesting that the most closed-minded poster on the thread claims to be both a cop and a grad student.


203 posted on 02/11/2008 8:40:11 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

Can you capitalize? I hope you don’t turn in your homework with the same unintelligable text you post.


204 posted on 02/11/2008 8:42:06 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: thefactor; justkillingtime
LOL !!! Are you even aware of the content you post on your own profile page? Why do you cite this quote on your profile page since your personal philosophy is it's antithesis?

"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog. - G.K. Chesterton
205 posted on 02/11/2008 8:48:44 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: callisto
so repeating that i have no real opinion either way means i am close minded? i'm sorry that your arguments were less than stellar and did not sway my original point that i smell better after leaving a smokeless bar.

think about it! that's all i said! i don't smell like smoke when i leave a bar nowadays.

if you can prove to me that that is a false statement, i'll concede all your points.

but your BS about "oh, who will speak for me when the jack-booted thugs come for the smokers?!" doesn't really hold water. last i checked, people are still pretty free around here.

look, i capitalized a couple of letters! you happy now?

and stop with the whole "you're not a cop/student crap." that's just childish. i guarantee i can outshoot/outwrite you any day. there, wasn't that a childish statement? i thought we were having personable discourse. i was asking questions and getting answers. this issue just isn't all that important to me. i just don't like smelling like smoke. sorry.

206 posted on 02/11/2008 8:54:02 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: callisto

because, friend, while we are free to punish ourselves in any way we see fit, we are not free to injure others through our actions.


207 posted on 02/11/2008 8:58:07 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
Have you even LOOKED at the origin of the research this article is based upon? Doubtful. You seem to feel empowered since YOU are the poster on the thread calling others names. Do you need a reminder?

good one, scumbag. turns out i’m a cop in grad school making some extra coin on the side. go back to licking your cheetos-stained fingers, tubs. (2nd post to the thread)

you are exactly what is wrong with FR. besides blatant stupidity, you have perverted your most salient issue into a crusade who's mission has been lost due to your misguided fervor against ANY seemingly opposed viewpoint....
and i'd love to know what you do for a living. probably involves long periods of sitting.
(3rd post to the thread)

if this eric guy is in your circle,
a) he's nuts, and
b) i should not have wasted my time.
you people are so twisted...
(4th post to the thread)

But you didn't go away, did you? Instead you kept on...

if people around here want to give me the old, "this is the first step to gov't control, blah blah, you're all just sheep, blah..." then fine. go ahead. (6th post to the thread)

Not exactly a Conservative attitude. Have you read the Constitution? Most of us on the forum VALUE it's words and freedoms delegated to Americans through those words.

no matter what i say here all you have to do is keep typing "LOL" like a monkey and try to bait me. (9th post to the thread)

oh, the tolerant conservative you are! so you're a smoking nazi. got it. (12th post to the thread)

And now that you are verbally berating me, how many is it on this thread you have called names?

but your BS about "oh, who will speak for me when the jack-booted thugs come for the smokers?!" doesn't really hold water. (13th post to the thread)

You appear to be a nasty little soul, there, thefactor.

i guarantee i can outshoot/outwrite you any day.

Doubtful. You've disproven that claim throughout this thread. ROFLMAO!

while we are free to punish ourselves in any way we see fit, we are not free to injure others through our actions.

Verbal attacks ARE actions also! And, please, don't call me friend as we share nothing in common and would never be friends if we met in daily life. You plaster your profile page with quotes that defy the comments you post. I'm beginning to think that you aren't old enough to be up this late?
208 posted on 02/11/2008 9:23:19 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

You totally missed the meaning of that quote. You may wish to go to your profile page and re-read it slowly.

“The free man owns himself.” No one else or the government owns a free man. He is free to damage himself, if he so chooses. If he chooses to damage himself, he is a fool and possibly a damns his soul. But if a man does not have the freedom to damage himself, if so wills, then he is not a free man at all.


209 posted on 02/11/2008 9:34:38 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: callisto
jeez, what research. maybe YOU should be the one getting a master's degree.

i don't think CNN could have selected quotes proving only their point any better than you have.

if you look, i was the one initially insulted. for no other reason than saying that if smoking were allowed in bars, i would probably choose to not work there any longer. that's it! no condemnation of smokers in any way. do me a favor and confirm that point for me. then perhaps we can move on.

actually, i think you have already conceded that point to me in an earlier post. then you said that some people might read into it and take offense. and i proceeded to ask questions and you proceeded to answer them.

now all of a sudden you're attacking me since the original poster doesn't like what i have to say.

i guess i offended the "don't follow the rules, smokin' in the boys room, mullet wearing, trans-am driving" crowd and they are ganging up on me.

210 posted on 02/11/2008 9:36:19 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: callisto
so government should have zero control over what a "free man" can do?

there is no social contract? come on.

211 posted on 02/11/2008 9:37:53 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
i guess i offended the "don't follow the rules, smokin' in the boys room, mullet wearing, trans-am driving" crowd and they are ganging up on me.

Hey now!

I'll have you know that I am firmly aligned with the

meek,
non-smoking,
clean cut,
jalopy-driving,
liberty-loving crowd.

:)

212 posted on 02/11/2008 9:47:23 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
because, friend, while we are free to punish ourselves in any way we see fit, we are not free to injure others through our actions.

True. But at the same time, we shouldn't be responsible for someone else's harm when they knowingly and voluntarily subject themselves to a particular danger.

213 posted on 02/11/2008 9:51:35 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
jeez, what research. maybe YOU should be the one getting a master's degree.

You needn't worry about MY education. You couldn't keep up in my profession, and my degrees surpass yours. How many degrees did you say you have?

i don't think CNN could have selected quotes proving only their point any better than you have.

Unlike you, I researched the origins of the article AND provided direct links to their source for all to read and confirm for themselves what I summarized. Have you even read the content linked?

if you look, i was the one initially insulted.

And like a child you have flamed most every other poster who disagreed with you!

actually, i think you have already conceded that point to me in an earlier post. then you said that some people might read into it and take offense.

NOT sure what you are talking about, here. You must have me confused with another poster whose factually-based opinion you have maligned on this thread.

guess i offended the "don't follow the rules, smokin' in the boys room, mullet wearing, trans-am driving" crowd and they are ganging up on me.

Mym you can't stop with the name-calling. For your information, you are so off-base it's hilarious. I'm certainm based on your self-described personal historym that you couldn't begin to understand the levels of ethics compliance I maintain on a daily basis. "Smokin' in the boys room"? Hah. You happen to be communicating with a female, or are you one of those who only believe a man can be logical? And, sorry, the mullet doesn't go well with a business suit I wear daily at a Fortune 500 company. "Trans am driving", no dear, I prefer a Lexus. Some people will always choose to ignore the facts." You appear to continue to ignore the FACTS in this case, constantly whining about how bad cigarette smoke smells.
214 posted on 02/11/2008 10:03:42 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: callisto

The extra m = ,

Typing in the dark on a laptop does not always work well late at night


215 posted on 02/11/2008 10:06:36 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
so government should have zero control over what a "free man" can do?
there is no social contract? come on.


I think you need this link: DU
216 posted on 02/11/2008 10:09:46 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: timm22
so why not compromise? everyone can go to the bar. YEAH!

but in order for smokers not to harm anyone else, why cant they extend the courtesy of stepping outside for a smoke?

but no, some of the people around here want to enjoy their vice only on their terms and screw anyone else who might have a problem with that.

i wonder what would happen if someone with asthma approached these posters and quietly asked, "would you mind putting that out or going outside? i have asthma."

i can see it now: "you shouldn't be in here! this is a bar. i am free to smoke! stop trying to take away my freedom!" sheesh.

217 posted on 02/11/2008 10:14:40 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: callisto
way to answer the question...

i'll type slower this time:

is there a social contract?

218 posted on 02/11/2008 10:15:54 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
Let me answer with the quotes on your profile page. Those which you cannot comprehend their meaning. Actions speak louder than words and your actions on this thread are antithetical to the quotes you portray on your profile page. I suspect you are a shill. The link to DU remains an accurate assessment IMO.
But all you Kings of Earth -- still fear! for many a Concord could happen here when sleeping rebels rise aroused and courage displayed awakens dreams... And people armed with Freedom's writ and loaded guns will DARE to say: Don't You Tread On Me.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. - Abraham Lincoln

They neither forget that man does owe a duty to his fellows, and should strive to do what he can to increase the well-being of the community; nor yet do they forget that in the long run the only way to help people is to make them help themselves. They are prepared to try any properly guarded legislative remedy for ills which they believe can be remedied; but they perceive clearly that it is both foolish and wicked to teach the average man who is not well off that some wrong or injustice has been done him, and that he should hope for redress elsewhere than in his own industry honest and intelligence. - Th. Roosevelt

Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it. - John Adams
I have no use in wasting my time with you any longer. When called on your behavior on this thread you have avoided responding, because there is no excuse for it.
219 posted on 02/11/2008 10:26:47 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: callisto
ah yes because you smokers are such bastions of tolerance. i name-called in response to name calling and insults.

and yes, you are correct. i'm a shill who belongs on DU. i have been hiding out biding my time for 7 years in anticipation of POUNCING on a pro-smoking thread to spread my vitriol and convert all of you to my own little brand of socialism.

your resume is very impressive. thanks for giving it to me. but rest assured, you do not have to prove anything to me. i, unlike many around here, will not stoop to the old trick of saying you are not what you claim to be. i have learned to take freepers word for it. especially ones with tenure such as yourself.

thank you for proving to me how awful of a person i am. when will you go back and call-out the posters who initially insulted me after my first innocuous post? i'll hold my breath.

220 posted on 02/11/2008 10:37:22 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
so why not compromise? everyone can go to the bar. YEAH!

I think the best form of compromise would be to just let the market resolve this issue. Let some businesses be "smoker friendly", where smokers don't have to worry about going outside. Let other businesses be "nonsmoker friendly", where there's no smoking at all and no one has to be exposed to the slightest amount of tobacco. And let some businesses be "group friendly", where smokers are allowed in but have to go to designated areas when they light up. It would be up to each business owner to choose what kind of place he would like to run, or to choose some new setup that I can't imagine.

That seems like a fair compromise to me. And since we don't have to empower the government or restrict any rights, it will satisfy cranky ideologues like myself, too.

but in order for smokers not to harm anyone else, why cant they extend the courtesy of stepping outside for a smoke?

I tend to focus on the political side of the debate, so I'm usually not concerned about who should yield in the interests of politeness. I don't smoke, but then again smoke usually doesn't bother me, so I've never really had to deal with this problem.

I will say that regardless of how rude some smokers may be, that doesn't justify placing unneeded restrictions on property owners. It may explain it- after all, it's easier to drum up support when you can target an unpopular group- but it doesn't justify it.

I will also say that I can understand the smokers' desire to have a few places of their own. As far as I know, no Freeper expects every venue to allow them to light up. All they are asking for is to let the business owner decide, so there might be a few places where they can smoke in peace.

I would liken it to the "Crybaby Matinee" sponsored by some of the movie theaters in my area. The idea is to set aside one weekday afternoon where moms can come to see a movie with their young children and not have to worry about trying to keep the kids quiet. It's a nice way to get moms out of the house without making them stress out over Junior's antics.

I could complain to my city council that having loud children in a movie theater is a distraction and should never be allowed, but I think it's better to let the theaters choose their own policy. After all, I can always go to another theater, so why would I want to butt in and inject the government between the theater owners and the grateful moms?

221 posted on 02/11/2008 10:57:53 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: timm22
very sensible. the laws do allow for bar owners to construct self-contained smoking areas within the bar as long as they have their own ventilation systems. i dont know the exact wording of the law.

in places like NYC where i am, it's tough because, as you can imagine, space is at a premium.

i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?

222 posted on 02/12/2008 5:33:13 AM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Freedom Dignity n Honor

I agree. My sixteen-year old son has asthma and he would never work in a place where he would be exposed to cigarette smoke. It sounds like this young woman made a foolish choice.


223 posted on 02/12/2008 5:35:25 AM PST by steadfastconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

You are completely missing the point. The issue is not one of my right to smoke, or your right to not be around smokers. It is a right of the property owner to cater to the segment of the population that they desire to have as customers. The fact that you miss this important point is what makes you more dangerous than the looney leftist property grabbers.

At least they are honest in their private property destruction. I suppose you are as ambivilent about the Kelo decision too.


224 posted on 02/12/2008 6:49:55 AM PST by CSM ("Dogs and beer. Proof that God loves us.- Al Gator (8/24/2007))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“in real life, people who work hard get what’s coming to them.”

Unless of course those people are the folks that invest their time and their own capital to open a restaurant. In that case you find it acceptable to dictate their customer base at the point of government guns.


225 posted on 02/12/2008 6:54:19 AM PST by CSM ("Dogs and beer. Proof that God loves us.- Al Gator (8/24/2007))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: thefactor; timm22

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

It is truly frightening that someone so obtuse carries the government’s guns!


226 posted on 02/12/2008 6:56:58 AM PST by CSM ("Dogs and beer. Proof that God loves us.- Al Gator (8/24/2007))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: thefactor; Eaker

“...but it is YOU who is negatively impacting it by not staying. if you truly cared about the bar owners well-being,...”

Ahh, collectivism at its finest. I see that the public schools have achieved success. No wonder McLame is going to be the GOP nominee.


227 posted on 02/12/2008 7:01:36 AM PST by CSM ("Dogs and beer. Proof that God loves us.- Al Gator (8/24/2007))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: thefactor; timm22

Since you are now defending the bans, would you also defend a ban of shellfish? Many people have deathly reactions when exposed to shellfish and yet they may want to go to seafood restaurants. We should use the force of government to eliminate this potential threat to their lives!


228 posted on 02/12/2008 7:26:15 AM PST by CSM ("Dogs and beer. Proof that God loves us.- Al Gator (8/24/2007))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: thefactor
very sensible. the laws do allow for bar owners to construct self-contained smoking areas within the bar as long as they have their own ventilation systems. i dont know the exact wording of the law.

New York may make allowances like that, but many other jurisdictions do not. While NY's ban may be better than the draconian ones in places like Ohio or Michigan, I still think it's unnecessary. In the absence of the law, bars and restaurants could still construct self-contained smoking areas. I imagine that many would, simply because it would allow them to cater to both smokers and nonsmokers who go to bars in mixed groups. But why force a bar owner to adopt that arrangement if he doesn't want to?

...i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?

I disagree that there is a health issue involved. At least not a PUBLIC health issue, as that concept is properly understood.

That's not to say second-hand smoke does not pose health risks. It might or it might not...I still don't believe the evidence is conclusive in either direction. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that second-hand smoke does pose some health risk.

That's not the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Just because something is unhealthy doesn't automatically justify government intervention. Obviously there are a number of things in life that are unhealthy but that do not call for government regulation. Take fatty foods for instance. We all know that a cheeseburger a day is bad for the arteries. But no one would suggest that the government should institute restrictions on the consumption or sale of cheeseburgers (unless they are a nanny-state liberal). We recognize that people are responsible enough to handle that risk on their own.

So what about second hand smoke? What it is that makes it so uniquely dangerous that the government has to step in and protect us, even on private property? It's not contagious like E. Coli. It's not undetectable like asbestos in the walls. And it's not instantly fatal like cyanide.

In short, why is it that people can't avoid the danger of second-hand smoke by simply going to smoke-free bars and restaurants? Are they incapable of doing so? Should they have the right not only to visit any bar or restaurant they want, but also to demand that the owner comply with their every wish?

Given that government bans are not needed to protect people from second hand smoke, what other conservative justification is there? I don't know of any. And if there isn't a justification for restricting rights and empowering the government, as conservatives we should stand against it.

229 posted on 02/12/2008 8:52:28 AM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Many people have deathly reactions when exposed to shellfish and yet they may want to go to seafood restaurants. We should use the force of government to eliminate this potential threat to their lives!

Don't forget loud music. That can cause damage to a person's hearing. Or country music, which can lead to depression. Or rock music, which can lead to violent outbursts or sexual promiscuity. To keep things simple, let's just prohibit everything but muzak played at a conversational volume.

And while we're at it, let's go ahead and get rid of low lighting in bars and restaurants. Anyone trying to read a menu could get eye strain, and the staff working there could suffer long-term vision damage. And any flashing lights, since that could cause seizures. Only bright, even fluorescent lighting allowed.

As for food...my God, where to begin. Let's just restrict restaurants to serving to cold tomato soup with a glass of water. But in small glasses...we don't want anyone drowning.

So, anybody up for a night of dining and drinking?

230 posted on 02/12/2008 9:10:30 AM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: timm22

“what other conservative justification is there?”

That my clothes don’t stink, silly!

Seriesly, thanks for your reasoned responses.


231 posted on 02/12/2008 9:12:41 AM PST by CSM (Kakistocracy: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: timm22

That truly is how things progress. The sad thing is that the folks that don’t see the progression are the same folks that are being hammerred with their own tools to get their agendas overridden. That is why I say they are more dangerous than the socialists, at least the socialists are honest about their intentions.


232 posted on 02/12/2008 9:15:54 AM PST by CSM (Kakistocracy: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: CSM
That is why I say they are more dangerous than the socialists, at least the socialists are honest about their intentions.

They also outnumber the socialists.

Very few people would consciously choose to chip away at property rights or the market system. Most don't even realize they are doing so when they sign on to appealing, pleasant-sounding policies that are actually rooted in socialism. And advancing socialism is what they usually end up doing.

It's happened in other areas before. What many people don't realize is that the Kelo decision didn't just pop out of the ether. It followed from a series of earlier decisions that had been gradually chipping away at property rights and expanding the government's eminent domain powers. Some of those earlier cases didn't seem all that offensive at the time and didn't get nearly as much attention. But the end result was the monstrosity known as Kelo.

People might scoff at the idea of the hyper-regulated restaurant you and I joke about. And who knows, maybe it will never come to pass. But the principles behind it are already being accepted by the public.

And you know, if you went back 50 or 100 years ago, I bet most people would scoff at the idea of the government seizing property from a citizen and giving it to a private business. But we know better.

233 posted on 02/12/2008 10:09:54 AM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: timm22

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?”———————————————————————

It’s not a case of revenge. It’s a case of the majority finally getting what they want instead of having smoke jammed down their throats by the minority.

Property rights is always an interesting discussion when it comes down to specifics.

Should the owner of a restaurant have the right to bar entrance to blacks or Jews?


234 posted on 02/12/2008 10:20:49 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: sakic
It’s not a case of revenge. It’s a case of the majority finally getting what they want instead of having smoke jammed down their throats by the minority.

I don't see how how nonsmokers could have smoke "jammed down their throats" if they are voluntarily entering places that allow smoking. No one is forcing them to spend time in smoky bars and restaurants.

In any case, why can't the majority pursue their interests through the market? Why do they need to get the government involved? Smokers may have been rude in the past, but it's not as if they were passing laws FORCING businesses to cater to their preferences. So why should you pass laws that force businesses to cater to your preferences?

Property rights is always an interesting discussion when it comes down to specifics. Should the owner of a restaurant have the right to bar entrance to blacks or Jews?

I'd rather stick to the issue, which is smoking bans. But since you attempted to answer my question I will try to return the favor.

Personally, I think a restaurant owner should have the right to bar any customer for any reason. I believe racial discrimination is immoral. I also think it's a really stupid thing for a business owner to do. But I also don't believe we should use government force to make people be nice or to force businessmen to make smart decisions. Even though the intentions are noble, I don't believe in restricting the freedom of association in this way. No one should be forced to do business against their will.

It's the same reason I support the right of landlords not to rent to unmarried couples, the right of pharmacists not to sell contraceptives, and the right of Christian photographers to refuse to work at a homosexual wedding. Even if I disagree with their ideals, I believe they have the right to live by them so long as they do not violate anyone's rights.

235 posted on 02/12/2008 1:42:06 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: CSM
for the umpteenth time!

i am not in favor of the ban. i am not against the ban. oh, what s the use? you evidently need to post 6 times in a row to get your point across.

236 posted on 02/12/2008 2:13:55 PM PST by thefactor (the innocent shall not suffer nor the guilty go free...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

We understand, the smell of smoke is icky and yucky to you. I understand why you would be glad they banned it.

Just as long as you understand that they didn’t do it because you or anyone else was annoyed. There’s a lot more to it than that.


237 posted on 02/12/2008 4:57:52 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084 (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms shouldn't be a federal agency...it should be a convenience store.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: callisto

ahhh...good work!

So...she had trouble breathing before work, but still didn’t track down her inhaler.

This is tragic - but hardly the result of secondhand smoke.

Biased reporting.


238 posted on 02/13/2008 5:32:48 AM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Scotswife

With her medical history and the stated facts in the incident report, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Rosenman arrived at his stated “theory” unless he was only pushing a personal agenda and/or utilizing this “study” to justify and support his CDC grant, and to further future grant applications. How he can be called a scientist is beyond me.

To be honest I wonder if they still teach the difference between fact and theory in school. So many theories are published in peer review journals, then picked up by journalists and legislators with political agendas and reported as factual to the public.

The average reader who does not reasearch articles such as this one would never have known that this was not a recent incident. Could you tell by reading the article?


239 posted on 02/13/2008 3:52:25 PM PST by callisto (CONGRESS.SYS corrupted...Re-boot Washington DC (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: callisto

“The average reader who does not reasearch articles such as this one would never have known that this was not a recent incident. Could you tell by reading the article?”

No, I couldn’t.
And the average reader isn’t going to take the time to look into the matter and dig up more info.

We are a society of sound bites, and those with an agenda know it.


240 posted on 02/13/2008 3:55:48 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: callisto

“The average reader who does not reasearch articles such as this one would never have known that this was not a recent incident. Could you tell by reading the article?”

No, I couldn’t.
And the average reader isn’t going to take the time to look into the matter and dig up more info.

We are a society of sound bites, and those with an agenda know it.


241 posted on 02/13/2008 3:56:47 PM PST by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: thefactor

“i am not in favor of the ban. i am not against the ban. oh, what s the use? you evidently need to post 6 times in a row to get your point across.”

I find it funny that you celebrate the ban and defend the ban, then state that you have no opinion. How is it possible to be so obtuse and hypocritical? My guess would be that you lack a thought out principle with regards to property rights, therefore it is easier to waffle in these discussions.

Keep in mind that the tools are being used here, will continue to be used against the righteous. Don’t think that it is to much of a stretch to consider the Bible to be hate speech. It offends some members of society, therefore their freedom to not be offended, a tool created in the smoking on private property issue, will be used to prosecute individuals preaching that hate speech.


242 posted on 02/14/2008 5:39:04 AM PST by CSM (Kakistocracy: Government by the least qualified or most unprincipled citizens.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: timm22
Personally, I think a restaurant owner should have the right to bar any customer for any reason.

I understand your argument in theoretical terms but if we were to allow this behavior, do you think society would be in better or worse shape?

Should a restaurant owner have the right to bar people in wheelchairs? Women? Men? People with moustaches? Foreigners? Democrats? Republicans?

Before desegrgation was made mandatory people treated blacks at a few levels below their pets. I think that was bad for America and think we are far better off with this government intrusion. History teaches us that if a group of people can treat another part of society poorly, it will.

This notion that the government is intruding where it doesn't belong is also good in theory but sometimes it is necessary for the good of society.

I know that some people believe that the mandatory use of seat belts is uncalled for. But if a parent doesn't buckle their kid in and the kid flies through the windshield it ain't a good thing. The kid has no choice in the decision. Is it government intrusion? Yes. Is it a good idea anyway? I would argue yes.

I believe racial discrimination is immoral. I also think it's a really stupid thing for a business owner to do. But I also don't believe we should use government force to make people be nice or to force businessmen to make smart decisions. Even though the intentions are noble, I don't believe in restricting the freedom of association in this way. No one should be forced to do business against their will.

Again, in theory we are in agreement but as much as I treasure the rights of individuals to do what they want with their own lives, I know that, without some intrusion, as much as I dislike it, we would be on a far worse course than we are on.

It's the same reason I support the right of landlords not to rent to unmarried couples, the right of pharmacists not to sell contraceptives, and the right of Christian photographers to refuse to work at a homosexual wedding. Even if I disagree with their ideals, I believe they have the right to live by them so long as they do not violate anyone's rights.

These are tougher examples but no photographer should have to work a homosexual wedding and I'm not sure how this is related to the rest of the discussion.

The landlord example fits better into the main point and I understand your position but I would also disagree with it.

The pharmacist example is way off in my opinion. It is his job to sell whatever his store buys, otherwise he should be fired for refusal to do so, especially if we are talking about a chain. Contraceptives are not people. They are an item so I don't think this is a fair comparison to the rest of the discussion.

If however, you mean the owner of a pharmacy, then he indeed should have the right to sell or not sell whatever he wants. The market will determine his success or failure with this policy.

243 posted on 02/14/2008 9:14:59 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: sakic
I understand your argument in theoretical terms but if we were to allow this behavior, do you think society would be in better or worse shape?...This notion that the government is intruding where it doesn't belong is also good in theory but sometimes it is necessary for the good of society.

Would society be better or worse? Personally, I suspect things would be about the same. Irrational discrimination is costly and confers no benefits. It's something the market is likely to phase out. (It may be of interest to you that previous discrimination in public accommodations was, in fact, the result of government meddling in the first place. It was opposed by many private business owners.)

As to the view that government intrusion is sometimes necessary for the good of society...I agree to an extent. I am not an anarchist, and I recognize a role for government in protecting individual rights. However, I disagree with the idea of empowering government to make society "a better place" in a broad, abstract way. That power is inevitably going to involve curtailing people's rights, which is bad by itself. But in addition, governments have a tendency to solve problems poorly and to expand their powers well beyond what was originally intended. So even if we think a measured restriction of individual rights is worth the kinder, gentler society we want, chances are the government will screw things up and we'll actually have to face a whole new set of problems. That's why I think we should limit the government to a few specific, well-defined roles, and not let them curtail rights unless absolutely necessary.

In any case, I don't think the smoking issue is an example where government intrusion is needed for the good of society. Nonsmokers are in the majority now, they have the advantage as far as public opinion goes, and the trend in society is going in their favor. The market, left to its own devices, is going to leave them plenty of options when it comes to bars, restaurants, and hotels. So why get the government involved? Is it really that bad for society if a few businesses choose to cater to an increasingly smaller population of smokers?

These are tougher examples but no photographer should have to work a homosexual wedding and I'm not sure how this is related to the rest of the discussion.

My point was to illustrate that individual rights should trump well-intentioned government compulsion. In each example, we had a contest between an individual's property rights or right of association and the community's sense of fairness and well-being. For most of the examples, we were in agreement that individual rights should prevail.

[As far as the pharmacy example, you are very right that it should be the owner, not the employee, that decides what to sell. I should have been more precise]

244 posted on 02/14/2008 9:48:29 PM PST by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: timm22

Thank you for the well thought out response.


245 posted on 02/15/2008 3:45:37 AM PST by sakic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]


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