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

Skip to comments.

Cell Phones more deadly than Cigarettes? Will higher taxes, insurance premiums and ban be in order?
Associated Content ^ | March 31st, 2008 | Bobby Tall Horse

Posted on 03/31/2008 9:06:53 AM PDT by stillafreemind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 last
To: norraad
Maybe if the greedy bastiges allowed for a bit more bandwidth we could reduce our time on the phone because we could actually understand what was said instead of say “what”, “say that again”, etc.

OMG - I thought I kept picking the wrong phones...

101 posted on 04/01/2008 1:36:04 PM PDT by GOPJ ( Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright 's a racist - the black version of KKK David Duke.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
I think agreeing with the concept that anyone can vote away another's property rights is dirty and disgusting, regardless of the conditions under which it's done.

I voted against the smoking bans here in Ohio, because I didn't think that it was a reasonable restriction on people's property rights.

However, any time you open your property up to others you are creating a situation where their rights might conflict with yours.

If you lease your property to others, they have rights on that property, and you can no longer do with that property as you please.

If you open a store on your property, you have to respect the rights of the customers you invite into your store, though in most cases you can resolve the conflict by simply asking them to leave, but not in all situations.

Employing other people puts you in a position where you have to respect the rights of your employees.

I think we have in general let labor friendly liberals shift things too far in favor of the employee over the rights of the employer, and that's why I voted against the smoking ban. However, it's not just the property owner's rights that are involved when that property owner employs others on that property and opens up their doors to customers.

102 posted on 04/02/2008 7:14:36 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
A customer is free to offer his patronage or not to a business owner. If smoking is allowed by a proprietor, there is no circumstance in which the customer is forced to enter, nor is there any circumstance in which a person is forced to work anywhere.

If you don't like sushi, chances are pretty good you won't patronize sushi restaurants - simple enough and this how life works in a free society. You have no right to force the owner of the property to alter his menu to accommodate your particular preferences.

103 posted on 04/02/2008 8:16:38 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
A customer is free to offer his patronage or not to a business owner. If smoking is allowed by a proprietor, there is no circumstance in which the customer is forced to enter, nor is there any circumstance in which a person is forced to work anywhere.

I agree in general, which is why I voted against the ban.

The flip side of that argument is that now one is forced to open up a store on their property, hire employees, or invite in customers.

Let me bring up some similar, yet different issues.

The civil rights era brought up the issue of should employers be allowed to refuse service to people based on race.

You could argue that no one should be able to force a proprietor to offer service to someone, and that those people could simply go elsewhere. However, in reality they often didn't have a choice of just going somewhere else.

Do you have a right to shop, work, and eat in a smoke free environment?

Non-smokers aren't a small minority, they are a majority. The stories about second hand smoke being harmful are mostly if not completely garbage, so it really isn't a health issue.

Therefore I don't see why the government should have any authority to raise convenience and comfort for non-smokers over the rights of property owners.

But let me bring up the issue of employers banning guns locked in employees cars at work.

People have a right to keep and bear arms. However, property owners such as the employers have rights to determine who is allowed on their property and what they bring with them on that property.

How to balance between those two conflicting rights is a proper role of the legislature.

I think that allowing employees to keep their weapons locked in their cars is a reasonable balance of those rights. It allows employees to be armed on the way to and from work. It doesn't create a dangerous situation for employers, since it is ridicules to think that a ban by an employer prevents an employee from bringing a gun to work. Such a ban does not prevent those who with to do harm from doing it.

It is a restriction of the property rights of the employer, but it is done to preserve the rights of the employees, and is a reasonable balance of those rights.

104 posted on 04/02/2008 12:46:29 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Before the smoking ban hysteria, many businesses spent thousands of dollars on ventilation and separate smoking areas, a market-based solution that was working just fine.

This wasn't enough for the parasites making a living off Big Smoking Ban. New frontiers had to be found and goal posts had to be constantly moved to guarantee their sinecures.

Each of these demands was a further encroachment of property rights, but since smokers had been so thoroughly demonized by Big Smoking Ban, this tyranny of the majority was allowed to infect the body politic like a fungus.

Attempts to rationalize these bans encourage the growth and hasten the rot.

105 posted on 04/03/2008 4:22:30 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Before the smoking ban hysteria, many businesses spent thousands of dollars on ventilation and separate smoking areas, a market-based solution that was working just fine.

It was working somewhat, but such ventilation systems rarely did a good job of keeping the smell of smoke out of the non-smoking areas that border the smoking areas.

People who smoke or are around the smell a lot get used to the smell and don't even notice it. However, something that a smoker can't even smell can still ruin the taste of someone else's meal.

Since you may not get sat near the smoking section most of the time, or the smoke from the smoking section might not be bad a lot of the time, the smoke wasn't enough to drive a lot of customers away. However, it was enough to get a lot of people very irritated with smokers. Those instances where some idiot lights up a cigar or pipe and stinks up the entire restaurant with a cloud of smoke before the management comes over and asks them to put it out also leave a lot of people with bitter feelings even though they are a small percentage of smokers.

I voted against the smoking ban, but I'm not sad that I can now eat in a nice restaurant and enjoy my meal without having so smell someone else's smoke.

This wasn't enough for the parasites making a living off Big Smoking Ban. New frontiers had to be found and goal posts had to be constantly moved to guarantee their sinecures.

That's the nature of the progressive movement. They aren't happy unless they are making more and more progress in gaining control over people's lives, and they are quite happy to advance their goals through lies and deceit.

However, on this particular topic, they got a lot of support from non-progressives that were simply sick of other people's dirty habits effecting them.

Attempts to rationalize these bans encourage the growth and hasten the rot.

You know, let me just make something clear. Opposed the smoking ban because I respect the property owner's right to determine if smoking is allowed on their property or not. I support the right to do a lot of things that I don't approve of. I support them because I support people having the right to do such things, not because I support those people and what the are doing.

Smoking is a dirty and disgusting habit and those who inconsiderately smoke in public places despite how it effects others are inconsiderate at best.

Most smoking bands weren't just voted in by legislators pandering to special interest groups. Sure the special interest groups made the most noise, but smoking bans are getting put in place by a real grassroots majority that are simply sick of other people's dirty habit effecting them.

I hate to see the government gain more power over people, but as more people live closer together and are more effected by what their neighbor does, we're going to see more and more such things unless people start learning to be more considerate of how their actions effect others.

106 posted on 04/03/2008 10:00:32 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
It was working somewhat, but such ventilation systems rarely did a good job of keeping the smell of smoke out of the non-smoking areas that border the smoking areas.

Though I completely disagree with your premise, those "victims" who didn't like the smell were as free to avoid those businesses as they were to avoid businesses whose menus (or atmosphere, etc. - pick a complaint) weren't to their liking.

However, it was enough to get a lot of people very irritated with smokers.

They were free to not patronize the establishment, they were not entitled to lobby the government to encroach upon the owner's property rights.

Those instances where some idiot lights up a cigar or pipe and stinks up the entire restaurant with a cloud of smoke before the management comes over and asks them to put it out...

Though I smoke neither cigars nor pipes, I've always liked their scent.

also leave a lot of people with bitter feelings even though they are a small percentage of smokers.

So "bitter feelings" are a justification for an appeal for government control. I hate the color scheme in my neighbor's garden, I awake every morning consumed by bitterness. The government should fix it for me.

they got a lot of support from non-progressives that were simply sick of other people's dirty habits effecting them.

Actually, any support they got was from government lovers, no matter how they described themselves.

And anyone who supports the smoking bans and simultaneously describes themselves as a non-progressive is engaging in deceit.

Smoking is a dirty and disgusting habit

Get out of here - why haven't you brought up this point before?

Feelings of victimhood run deep, but they're self-inflicted.

A free society is messy; thumb-sucking appeals to government to engineer a personal utopia are the hallmark of "progressives."

I hate to see the government gain more power over people, but as more people live closer together and are more effected by what their neighbor does, we're going to see more and more such things unless people start learning to be more considerate of how their actions effect others.

There's not a single word here that would prompt me to say, "There goes a freedom lover, someone who understands!"

107 posted on 04/03/2008 12:53:46 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Though I completely disagree with your premise, those "victims" who didn't like the smell were as free to avoid those businesses as they were to avoid businesses whose menus (or atmosphere, etc. - pick a complaint) weren't to their liking.

I agree, at least to the extent that I feel it should be up to the property owner to decide not the government.

They were free to not patronize the establishment, they were not entitled to lobby the government to encroach upon the owner's property rights.

Well they are entitled to lobby the government to ban smoking in public areas, just not private ones.

Though in this case it really didn't seem like much of the public was lobbying the government. It was more like the government and some small groups lobbied the public, and the public voted for it.

Usually, our rights get restricted because a small group lobbies the government, and the government seeks to extend it's authority, and it passes because far too much of the public is apathetic.

In this case, at least here in Ohio, the groups lobbied the public, and the ban was enacted by popular vote through a ballot issue.

The people literally forced the government to enact the ban that they have been unable to get through the legislature.

I think it was a foolish thing to do. I think we will regret allowing our property rights to be restricted in this way. I however doubt it was unconstitutional. The states have the authority to do a lot of stupid things, and in this case the people of the state voted for it.

Though I smoke neither cigars nor pipes, I've always liked their scent.

I used to kind of like the smell of pipe smoke, until I worked with someone who smoked a pipe at work, and the smell was so strong it made me nauseous. That was back when it was still considered acceptable to smoke in offices at some businesses.

I solved the problem by asking to work with someone else. After a number of people did the same he was asked to smoke outside on breaks.

So "bitter feelings" are a justification for an appeal for government control. I hate the color scheme in my neighbor's garden, I awake every morning consumed by bitterness. The government should fix it for me.

Well, when you have problems that are creating bitterness between people, and those people can't work it out among themselves, they usually do take it to the government.

How much the people are willing to accept the intrusion of the government in their lives, is directly related to how much other peoples actions are bothering them.

Actually, any support they got was from government lovers, no matter how they described themselves.

Everyone but complete anarchists wants the government to regulate something. In this case they wanted the government to regulate something, and in fact pretty much forced the government to regulate something, you didn't want regulated.

Get out of here - why haven't you brought up this point before?

I didn't bring it up before because I generally agree that having the government regulate smoking on private property is a bad idea, but I didn't really think that my personal dislike for smoking was a all that relevant of a point.

I support the rights of a lot of people to do things I disagree with. I'd give an example, but I don't want to equate smoking with something more heinous like true hate speech. The point is that I can support the right of employers to decide something even if I disagree with what the decide.

I ended up mentioning it because I got a bit tired you acting like you have the unalienable right to smoke regardless of how it effects others.

I opposed the smoking ban, because the government's solutions to problems is usually worse than the problem.

However, the government does, at least at the state and local levels, have the authority to make some regulations on work environments. Smoking I don't see how the smoking ban here in Ohio is unconstitutional. It was put in place by popular vote, and while many people feel it is overly restrictive, most people seem pretty happy with the results.

Feelings of victimhood run deep, but they're self-inflicted.

That could be said about smokers as well.

A free society is messy; thumb-sucking appeals to government to engineer a personal utopia are the hallmark of "progressives."

True, but most people think there is something in between complete anarchy and progressive utopia.

I'd like the line drawn much closer to the anarchy side of things, but not too close.

I suspect there are a number of things you want the government to regulate as well. Maybe immigration for example. Are you content to let the government regulate if someone from a foreign country can be employed in a store on private property?

There's not a single word here that would prompt me to say, "There goes a freedom lover, someone who understands!"

Well, I'm not an anarchist. So I suspect that we are going to have some differences of opinion on what the role of government is even if we do both generally believe in small government.

And like I have said consistently throughout this, I did vote against the smoking ban, because I felt it was an unreasonable restriction on the rights of property owners.

108 posted on 04/03/2008 2:03:31 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

What about annoying fat women on cell phones wearing bikinis at the beach?

Noise pollution, second hand radio waves and an eyesore. Where’s my Congressman?


109 posted on 04/03/2008 5:34:50 PM PDT 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 108 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
I agree, at least to the extent that I feel it should be up to the property owner to decide not the government.

What would be the limit to your "extent?"

Though in this case it really didn't seem like much of the public was lobbying the government. It was more like the government and some small groups lobbied the public, and the public voted for it.

Actually, as I believe you've acknowledged, smokers are in a minority.

So, the "small groups" who rely on the government for their sinecure gang up on the demonized minority to ensure that their sinecure endures yea unto etermity.

Usually, our rights get restricted because...

Rights can't be resticted. Simple enough.

In this case, at least here in Ohio, the groups lobbied the public, and the ban was enacted by popular vote through a ballot issue.

"Popular vote = mob rule.

I agree with your take on this, that it was wrong. I disagree that it was not unconsitutional.

Years of case law versus constitutional law arguments in the courts have eroded original intent.

For crying out loud, how difficult is it to trace the erosion?

How much the people are willing to accept the intrusion of the government in their lives, is directly related to how much other peoples actions are bothering them.

Good Lord, this is truly a measure of how weak some of us have beome.

I'd give an example, but I don't want to equate smoking with something more heinous like true hate speech.

You actually think there's something called "hate speech?" So you're in favor of the concept of "thought crimes" then I assume.

Smoking I don't see how the smoking ban here in Ohio is unconstitutional. It was put in place by popular vote,

Tyranny of the majority.

and while many people feel it is overly restrictive, most people seem pretty happy with the results.

Yes, as long as "most people" are pretty happy with results, we've got the validation of mob rule.

110 posted on 04/03/2008 6:44:24 PM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
Somewhere along the way in this I became argumentative, mostly for the sake of just being argumentative, to the point of just being rude. I apologize for that.

I agree with your take on this, that it was wrong. I disagree that it was not unconsitutional.

Years of case law versus constitutional law arguments in the courts have eroded original intent.

Our rights have definitely been watered down by activist judges, and different "rights" created that had not existed.

So feel free to go back to the original documents.

How are the bands unconstitutional? What portion of the constitution do they violate? Remember that these are bans at the state level, so it's not a matter of the federal government not having the authority to regulate smoking.

111 posted on 04/04/2008 10:31:51 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Somewhere along the way in this I became argumentative, mostly for the sake of just being argumentative, to the point of just being rude. I apologize for that.

Your gracious apology isn't necessary, I don't think you were being rude at all.

What portion of the constitution do they violate?

In my opinion, these bans are "takings" under eminent domain.

Many businesses have suffered great economic harm and many have been forced to close due to these bans. The bans were forced on the owners, yet none were compensated for the economic losses caused solely by government force.

112 posted on 04/04/2008 11:35:42 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Madame Dufarge
In my opinion, these bans are "takings" under eminent domain.

The government can levy high taxes without on items without it being considered "taking" under eminent domain.

The government does have the power to make things illegal, and often doing so has financial consequences, and I've never heard of a court upholding it as taking and demand compensation.

By that argument the government couldn't outlaw abortion without compensating abortionists for lost revenue.

You could even argue that assassins should be compensated for not being permitted to murder people.

If regulating becomes taking that must be compensated for, the government couldn't regulate much of anything. You'd basically have anarchy.

113 posted on 04/04/2008 12:48:50 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
The government can levy high taxes without on items without it being considered "taking" under eminent domain.

The subject at hand isn't taxes, it's smoking bans on private property.

The government does have the power to make things illegal

The government hasn't made smoking illegal, just smoking in certain places among which are privately owned establishments. The owners of these establishments have had onerous financial burdens placed on them, have lost revenue and therefore have had the value of their businesses (property) devalued. All this has been done in deference to junk science and in the service of Big Anti-Tobacco.

You could even argue that assassins should be compensated for not being permitted to murder people.

Reductio ad absurdum navel-gazing doesn't interest me. Big Anti-Tobacco has been trying to equate second-hand smoke with murder for some time now. All this does is point out its shrieking intellectual dishonesty.

If regulating becomes taking that must be compensated for, the government couldn't regulate much of anything. You'd basically have anarchy.

Oh please. So resistance to government encroachments on property rights is now the equivalent of anarchy? You may have learned to love the rope, but I haven't.

The only thing missing here is the late-night pizza delivery and Che posters on the wall.

Parting is such sweet sorrow.....

114 posted on 04/05/2008 4:44:55 AM PDT by Madame Dufarge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-114 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