Posted on 03/04/2005 9:46:33 AM PST by SheLion
Please note that several cities and towns in Ohio are about to make a mistake and put smoking bans on their books.
Could you please put together a State law now that smoking bans are not allowed?
This would save a lot of wasted court money in the future.
You see, smoking bans are not legal. NY and FL judges have already agreed that bans are not enforceable. (Links at http://www.smokersclubinc.com ) This makes all smoking bans illegal unless your State or town wants to train you, supply liability insurance, sign you on as police AND make it a law that anyone they want must be forced into police duty. Your 16-year-old son washing dishes in a restaurant would have to go to the police academy because he may have to uphold the smoking ban law. Remove these un-enforceable laws from your books NOW to avoid lawsuits. Every worker has the right to sue you when hurt; your ban opens you up for liability. There are already lawsuits started, check the newsletter and the Ban Damage and Ban Loss pages.
Granville, Newark, and Heath have adopted the Columbus regulations, which as written, if passed, illegally enslave every business owner as police for them. You can stop them all now before they become law, and then you would have to go back and deal with them later. Forces in Columbus, Cincinnati and other places are already preparing to fight in court. Why go through all of this for nothing? Why allow your State to be ripped apart at the seams over something that is not enforceable, and goes against the grain of private business ownership?
When people in a town are descended upon by the Anti-smokers whose only paid job is to spread their lies… most people don't take the time to research the situation, and tend to believe what they hear from people who appear smarter then them. It's only natural and I don't blame them. But by pointing out that you are not allowed to enslave citizens as your army, this situation can and will be rectified.
Thank you for helping to keep America free and uphold the memory of those wonderful brave Americans who fought and died to keep our freedom and way of life in tact for future generations. Any business owner who wants to make their own rules on their own property will. There will be enough; smoking, non-smoking, and accommodation of both in businesses, for the intelligent public to decide where they want to spend their money. Let freedom of choice dictate private business and private property. It is the American way.
Yours,
Samantha Phillipe
President
The Smoker's Club, Inc.
info@smokersclub.com
(This letter is going online at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1167 just in case your spam protector does not allow mail from dotcom email addresses. I will ask if readers could also send you a copy of this from their computers to be sure that you see it. I'll remove this post note when a response from you, or your legal representatives is posted. Thanks.)
Governor Bob Taft
http://governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp
Attorney General Jim Petro
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/contact/inquiry.asp
Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell
guide@sos.state.oh.us
Senator Mike DeWine
http://dewine.senate.gov/request_form.htm
Senator George Voinovich
http://voinovich.senate.gov/contact/index.htm
Ohio Judicial Conference. Kenneth A. Rohrs, Executive Director
rohrsk@sconet.state.oh.us
(Contact your Senator)
Email Senator Zurz
Call Senator Dann at 614-466-7182
Contact your Ohio town or city.
State and Local Government on the Net:
http://www.statelocalgov.net/state-oh.cfm
Phone numbers for Ohio Department of Development:
http://www.odod.ohio.gov/PhoneNumbers.htm
How to write a snail mail letter to a politician:
http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/Resc/Educ/vote2.html
Well, at least it's another tactic to try.
How are these legal challenges organized?
I continue to be of the opinion that real progress against the anti-smoking lying nutjobs will only happen when an organized and focused national legal challenge is organized.
This would require a nationally present legal team and continued financial support from a large base of smokers and other supporters who view arbitrary discriminatory tax laws as an ultimate danger to everyone.
Getting favorable rulings in Ohio is nice, but it's like spitting in the ocean.
Take California, for instance. Cities and towns here continue to pass laws prohibiting smoking outdoors, even at beaches! And their "tool" is anti-littering, although needles, beer cans and bottles, condoms, fast food wrappers, etc. are more numerous and hazardous.
I live in Columbus, and any time we eat out, I've gotta put up with the other half moaning around to all the servers about how wrong the smoking ban is, ect, ect. Where we eat even revolves around it. Meanwhile, it's 1 1/2 to 2 packs a day for her at $3.55 + per/pack.
Think of the money you people can save! You have nothing to lose by just plain QUITTING!
If I can do it, ANYONE can - so there!
I live in Columbus, and any time we eat out, I've gotta put up with the other half moaning around to all the servers about how wrong the smoking ban is, ect, ect. Where we eat even revolves around it. Meanwhile, it's 1 1/2 to 2 packs a day for her at $3.55 + per/pack.
Think of the money you people can save! You have nothing to lose by just plain QUITTING!
If I can do it, ANYONE can - so there!
We don't WANT to quit, your Farking Troll! There's plenty of room in America for all of us. LET THE BUSINESS OWNER DECIDE!
The Toque ^ | Feb.23,2005
Posted on 02/24/2005 2:44:06 AM EST by kingattax
IN THE FORUMS-- He lingers in the shadows like a Quake-playing camper, a witless coward waiting to shoot someone in the back with a half-conceived verbal sniper-shot. He hides behind ill-conceived pseudo-names, like W1NGNUT or LAM3R or PAUL, disguising his true identity in order to protect himself from the scorn of his Real Life peers. He roams from forum to forum looking for someone or something to denounce, because he's a bitter, frightened, nerd-of-the-ages. This creature is the farking troll.
Welcome to our continuing series on Internet Inhabitants. This week we look at the farking troll, a dimwitted loser that thrives on discord and discontent in online forums. fark troll flamer flamewar forum The farking troll tries to use his verbal diarrhea to impress other forum readers.
The farking troll is a less-than-fascinating creature, having nothing of value to contribute to society. Yet everywhere we surf, this vomit-writing forum-leecher is rampant, puking up words that add to the verbal sewage that purveys many online communities.
How does this bottom-dwelling scab-sucker thrive? His vocabulary and spelling are as weak as his under-developed muscles, and he thinks that "grammar" is the woman married to "grampar." It's surprising that this organic virus has enough brain power to maintain his own breathing.
Yet somehow, this bed-wetting boor consistently finds fodder upon which to feed on, and is able to spew out his dribble like a crack-induced soothsayer.
His critical attacks are simple but venomous, and his words are like a poisonous, hate-inducing propaganda, intended to disturb the shit upon which stands the frail structure of the online community. Too many times does the farking troll succeed in this, for his power grows from the ignorant, pre-teen community members who treat his ass-wiped, shit-smear postings like verses of gospel.
Never mind that the farking troll has absolutely nothing intelligent to say, and rarely knows anything about any of the subjects being discussed--those things matter not to the uneducated. His only goal is to insult, and then enjoy the attention he receives from his fatuous feedback, like the spoiled child who constantly yells "look at me!" to his tired mother.
Comment like "worst...link...ever" or "this sucks" or "where is the funny?" are the most common telling indicators of a farking troll. To him, these simple words are the throwing stones of a puerile youth who grew up in the school yards yelling out replies such as "oh yah?" and "I know you are, but what am I?"
But fear not, for these terse statements are about as inflammatory as the farking troll can get. Anything more spirited or preconceived would be beyond his comprehension. An when there is the rare example of a clever retort, it is usually found when the farking troll copies and pastes it from another forum member's valid critique.
These simplistic characteristics of the undersized brain of the farking troll are just its natural method of establishing a place within the forum hierarchy. This agonistic pattern of behavior is consistent with the farking troll's unsatisfactory sex-life (a direct result of his undersized genitalia), and mostly likely from childhood confusion arising from a long period of sexually satisfying his own step-father.
A problem with this sticks-and-stones behavior is that once the hierarchy is established, and an alpha farking troll is pronounced, immature challengers will learn to act imitate the leader using observational learning. They will copy and mimic the alpha farking troll by repeating his catch-phrases and posting their own foul fecal feedback. When the alpha puts down a particular comment, link, or story, the submissive forum posters will always follow, like ass-licking sycophants looking to impress their master.
We loathe the existence of the farking troll, but somehow we find a reason to pity this brain-damaged malcontent. Is it because this fat-fuck is only lashing out because his mother breast-fed him until he was nine, and now his misdirected anger is focused on the nameless, faceless individuals of the Internet who can't possibly fight back? Is he jealous of all others who can form complete sentences? Does he regret spending his teenage years playing Minesweeper and Tetris while his friends sought an education and pursued careers? Or is it because the farking troll cannot afford a decent computer, and is pounding away with his sweaty sausage-like fingers on the sticky keyboard of his pathetic Pentium-90 machine?
You can just imagine the farking troll in his own dirty environment, wallowing in his own sweat in a torn "Linux Sucks" t-shirt and soiled sweat pants, subsisting on a diet of Ding Dongs, Cheezies, and Red Bull. He probably hasn't seen an exercise bike in his life. It wouldn't be hard to conclude that he has never known the company of a woman, and the outside world frightens him like a child trying to cross the street for the first time. Of course he's unemployed, living off his parents' allowance or mooching off of his roommate. This unambitious financial freedom allows the farking troll those hours of extra time to post his empty opinions.
Should we condemn or pity the farking troll? Do we blame the mosquito for slowly sucking the life out of us, or do we just slap at it without giving it a second thought? Do we The farking troll deserves no more attention than the bubble gum that sticks to the bottom of your running shoe. But occasionally, that gum will get stuck in your hair and needs to be removed like a bad thread from a comfortable sweater.
(I have no fear of reprisal from this article, as it is unlikely the farking troll would have understood its retaliatory nature, and is probably still trying to figure what the word "fatuous" means--Ed)
Never try to appeal to an addict's better nature. He has demonstrated that he doesn't have one.
Why is it that you think that New York or Florida legal decisions somehow have bearing on the powers of municipalities under the Ohio Constitution?
Read the Farking Troll. It's intended for you, too. And you my friend, are on the wrong forum. Get back over to DU where they want no rights for everyone. That's where you belong!
Why don't you go to the author of this piece and ask THEM?
There is nothing worse than a reformed smoker!
Are you a member of the liberal elite? You sound like it. Very condescending in tone.
I am a causual smoker... if there is such a thing. I smoke 3 to 4 cigars a week. It's a choice, I try to be considerate, don't smoke indoors, but that's not the point. The point is... it's a choice. You think it's filthy and disgusting, but it's not for you to make the choice for someone else.
If you do, then where does it stop? Motorcycle riding is dangerous, and noisy and disgusting, why not outlaw that?! Oh, and did I mention how dangerous firearms are?!
Go have a drink and a smoke and leave people alone. :)
Thank you brownsfan. It's easy to pick on a woman, doncha know!
Thanks again!
How is this different from enforcement of drinking age/ selling tobacco to minors? I think restaurants should decide, but I don't think this is the right tack.
My Hubby quit over 20 years ago but I still smoke. He'd like me to quit too. That said, he is against smoking bans as it's a slippery slope to legislating behaviours that aren't illegal. The ploy is to demonize smokers then tax them to death for revenue. What's next? Alcohol? Snack foods? If you think it won't happen, look at the lawsuits now against fast food restaurants.
Tell me where do they go,
These smoke rings I blow each night?
What do they do these circles of blue and white?
And why do they seem to picture a dream of love?
Why do they fade my phantom parade of love?
Where do they end, the smoke rings I send on high?
Where are they hurled when they've kissed the world goodbye?
Oh, I'd give my life to laugh at this stife below;
I'd be a king, I'd follow each ring I blow.
Puff, puff, puff, puff your cares away;
Puff, puff, puff night and day.
Blow, blow them through the air, silky little rings,
Blow, blow them ev'rywhere, give your troubles wings.
What do they tell and what is the spell they cast?
Some of them fall and seem to recall the past.
But most of them rise away to the skies of blue.
Oh, little smoke rings I love,
Please take me above, take me with you.
-Sam Cooke
“Quitting smoking is easy. I’ve done it a thousand times.” - Mark Twain.
Everytime I see your "PUFF" I think of the Sam Cooke song. And the chourus...you would like it if you don't know it.
http://www.o-dub.com/sounds/soulsides/smokerings.mp3
They'll just see dollar $ign$ and tell him "Wow Bob, let's just raise the tax another dollar, we're talking some REAL money here!"
It won't cost the folks who don't smoke a dime, and they won't give a hoot.
I didn't say anything about it being right, I think the ban is 100% BS, but it's not gonna get changed.
Well, I went and read the piece, and realized that the authors were idiots. So I decided to ask you, because you decided to bring it to our attention.
Why is it that you think that New York or Florida legal decisions somehow have bearing on the powers of municipalities under the Ohio Constitution?
What makes you think it doesn't? One judge in another state says something and it can't go any further? If a town can't force it's citizens to be police in one place, I bet they can't in another part of America either.
Let's take it by the numbers:
NUMBER ONE: It's a choice!
Got that one? Okay, now we can proceed.
NUMBER TWO: NO governmental agency has the right to tell ANY business owner how to run his business!
I think that's about enough for today. I can tell your brain is on overload.
A National challenge on a Federal level would cost a lot of money, more then we could ever raise. If a lawyer wants to take this on for the publicity we would be thrilled to give him or her all the information we have and stand with them.
Maine now has a proposed bill in the house to tax GUNS even more. They will get everyone sooner or later.
Okay. A state judge derives his power from the constitution of the state he's in, and a city similarly derives its powers from the constitution of the state it's in. A state judge in New York is interpreting New York law and the New York Constitution. This decision is not legally controlling on anyone or anything in Ohio.
The New York Constitution grants certain powers to cities. The Ohio Constitution grants certain powers to cities. These are not necessarily the same powers. Again, the decision of a New York judge about what a city in New York has the power to do doesn't tell us anything about what a city in Ohio has the power to do.
That is why petitioning members of the Ohio General Assembly and saying "look at how this foreign judge has interpreted foreign law" isn't going to accomplish anything. A city in Ohio may or may not have the power to enact a smoking ban. But New York and Florida law give us *no* information about whether or not an Ohio city has such a power. It is *entirely* up to Ohio law.
I'm sure you're well aware that that particular slogan is employed for all kinds of purposes. It doesn't mean anything.
NUMBER TWO: NO governmental agency has the right to tell ANY business owner how to run his business!
This is more than a little exaggerated. Government agencies have the power to tell you that you can't sell spoiled meat or cocaine.
That's pretty good. I don't think I have heard that one before.
IN THE FORUMS-- He lingers in the shadows like a Quake-playing camper, a witless coward waiting to shoot someone in the back with a half-conceived verbal sniper-shot. He hides behind ill-conceived pseudo-names, like W1NGNUT or LAM3R or PAUL, disguising his true identity in order to protect himself from the scorn of his Real Life peers. He roams from forum to forum looking for someone or something to denounce, because he's a bitter, frightened, nerd-of-the-ages. This creature is the farking troll.
Welcome to our continuing series on Internet Inhabitants. This week we look at the farking troll, a dimwitted loser that thrives on discord and discontent in online forums. fark troll flamer flamewar forum The farking troll tries to use his verbal diarrhea to impress other forum readers.
The farking troll is a less-than-fascinating creature, having nothing of value to contribute to society. Yet everywhere we surf, this vomit-writing forum-leecher is rampant, puking up words that add to the verbal sewage that purveys many online communities.
How does this bottom-dwelling scab-sucker thrive? His vocabulary and spelling are as weak as his under-developed muscles, and he thinks that "grammar" is the woman married to "grampar." It's surprising that this organic virus has enough brain power to maintain his own breathing.
Yet somehow, this bed-wetting boor consistently finds fodder upon which to feed on, and is able to spew out his dribble like a crack-induced soothsayer.
His critical attacks are simple but venomous, and his words are like a poisonous, hate-inducing propaganda, intended to disturb the shit upon which stands the frail structure of the online community. Too many times does the farking troll succeed in this, for his power grows from the ignorant, pre-teen community members who treat his ass-wiped, shit-smear postings like verses of gospel.
Never mind that the farking troll has absolutely nothing intelligent to say, and rarely knows anything about any of the subjects being discussed--those things matter not to the uneducated. His only goal is to insult, and then enjoy the attention he receives from his fatuous feedback, like the spoiled child who constantly yells "look at me!" to his tired mother.
Comment like "worst...link...ever" or "this sucks" or "where is the funny?" are the most common telling indicators of a farking troll. To him, these simple words are the throwing stones of a puerile youth who grew up in the school yards yelling out replies such as "oh yah?" and "I know you are, but what am I?"
But fear not, for these terse statements are about as inflammatory as the farking troll can get. Anything more spirited or preconceived would be beyond his comprehension. An when there is the rare example of a clever retort, it is usually found when the farking troll copies and pastes it from another forum member's valid critique.
These simplistic characteristics of the undersized brain of the farking troll are just its natural method of establishing a place within the forum hierarchy. This agonistic pattern of behavior is consistent with the farking troll's unsatisfactory sex-life (a direct result of his undersized genitalia), and mostly likely from childhood confusion arising from a long period of sexually satisfying his own step-father.
A problem with this sticks-and-stones behavior is that once the hierarchy is established, and an alpha farking troll is pronounced, immature challengers will learn to act imitate the leader using observational learning. They will copy and mimic the alpha farking troll by repeating his catch-phrases and posting their own foul fecal feedback. When the alpha puts down a particular comment, link, or story, the submissive forum posters will always follow, like ass-licking sycophants looking to impress their master.
We loathe the existence of the farking troll, but somehow we find a reason to pity this brain-damaged malcontent. Is it because this fat-fuck is only lashing out because his mother breast-fed him until he was nine, and now his misdirected anger is focused on the nameless, faceless individuals of the Internet who can't possibly fight back? Is he jealous of all others who can form complete sentences? Does he regret spending his teenage years playing Minesweeper and Tetris while his friends sought an education and pursued careers? Or is it because the farking troll cannot afford a decent computer, and is pounding away with his sweaty sausage-like fingers on the sticky keyboard of his pathetic Pentium-90 machine?
You can just imagine the farking troll in his own dirty environment, wallowing in his own sweat in a torn "Linux Sucks" t-shirt and soiled sweat pants, subsisting on a diet of Ding Dongs, Cheezies, and Red Bull. He probably hasn't seen an exercise bike in his life. It wouldn't be hard to conclude that he has never known the company of a woman, and the outside world frightens him like a child trying to cross the street for the first time. Of course he's unemployed, living off his parents' allowance or mooching off of his roommate. This unambitious financial freedom allows the farking troll those hours of extra time to post his empty opinions.
Should we condemn or pity the farking troll? Do we blame the mosquito for slowly sucking the life out of us, or do we just slap at it without giving it a second thought? Do we The farking troll deserves no more attention than the bubble gum that sticks to the bottom of your running shoe. But occasionally, that gum will get stuck in your hair and needs to be removed like a bad thread from a comfortable sweater.
(I have no fear of reprisal from this article, as it is unlikely the farking troll would have understood its retaliatory nature, and is probably still trying to figure what the word "fatuous" means--Ed)
LOVE IT :)
It doesn't mean anything because people like you have forgotten that this country was founded on freedom of choice.
Just because our freedoms are being stripped from us everyday doesn't make it right.
There is a VAST difference between the "right" to do something and the laws which prohibit you from doing it.
This acceptance of creeping socialism is what got us into the mess we're presently faced with.
Oh! Thank you!!!!
I LOVE it!
"You see, smoking bans are not legal. NY and FL judges have already agreed that bans are not enforceable. (Links at http://www.smokersclubinc.com ) This makes all smoking bans illegal unless your State or town wants to train you, supply liability insurance, sign you on as police AND make it a law that anyone they want must be forced into police duty. Your 16-year-old son washing dishes in a restaurant would have to go to the police academy because he may have to uphold the smoking ban law. Remove these un-enforceable laws from your books NOW to avoid lawsuits. Every worker has the right to sue you when hurt; your ban opens you up for liability. There are already lawsuits started, check the newsletter and the Ban Damage and Ban Loss pages."
Huh? So they can't force you to enforce the law. That means they have to rely on people who enter the establishment and don't want people smoking to call the police, who will then enforce the law.
Whorkers have a right to sue when hurt. How is a smoking ban hurting workers? I don't get it.
I'm against public smoking bans, but the reasoning of this post baffles me.
I'm against public smoking bans, but the reasoning of this post baffles me.
I am thinking about this. Give me a few minutes. :)
While I'm against smoking bans, and I feel it should be up to the property owner, I do have a question for you.
Do you accept the responsibility for the results of your habbit?
Smoking does damage your health? Are you working hard and putting away money so that you'll be able to pay the medical costs your habbit will eventually result in, or are you planning on leaving those problems for our state taxes to cover?
I don't much care what you do as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.
I don't think there's a single real, scientific study that has shown a real danger from second hand smoke. It appears the biggest danger of me going to a bar where people smoke is that my clothes will smell horrible.
Lying anti-smoking organizations like Stand disgust me.
However, health care costs are expensive, and I don't like having my hard earned money being taken in taxes to pay the costs to treat people for self inflicted harm.
If you're willing to cover the costs and accept the responsibility for your actions, then I'll agree that the choice is up to you.
God gave us freedom of choice, even the choice to make really bad decisions, who am I to try and take it away.
Logic + Smoker addicts = oil + water.
JUDGE CONCURS
Administrative Judge Michael Parrish agreed. His Sept. 24 opinion notes that there is no legal requirement for a bar owner to take ''specific action'' when someone is smoking in the bar. The judge also ruled that the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation is authorized to fine a ''person'' under the law, but not a business.
''The way it's written right now, there is no direction as to what a proprietor is specifically supposed to do,'' said Gregg Ormand, Pace's lawyer.
The legal opinion will not become final until the director of Business and Professional Regulation signs off on it. Lawyers for both sides have filed documents arguing their side, anticipating a ruling this month.
UNUSUAL CASE
Department lawyer Mike Martinez acknowledges that Pace's is the only case he knows of to win a positive recommendation from an administrative judge.
Martinez said the department feels it can still enforce the law because at least one other judge has upheld its right to fine restaurant owners who allow smoking.
''At the end of the day, we feel that there are other avenues that we can [use to] enforce it,'' Martinez said.
Still, he and others are watching the Raw Bar case closely. Sen. Alex Diaz de la Portilla, R-Miami, who sponsored the smoking bill in the Florida Senate, said he and his staff plan to read Parrish's ruling this week. He says he'll move to amend the law if there are loopholes because Florida voters expect enforcement.
Andrew Cuddihy, South Florida program director for the American Lung Association, said the law is working well. But it has to hold restaurant owners responsible if it's going to be effective, he said.
Since the law went into effect, the department has opened 56 cases, assessing fines 29 times, either through orders or agreements. Two cases have been dismissed outright. Most of the other cases have yet to be resolved.
Statewide, the division of Alcohol, Beverage and Tobacco has 135 agents. But none is devoted solely to enforcing the tobacco ban, said Meg Shannon, spokeswoman for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Agents depend on customer complaints to find violators. Most restaurateurs are complying with the law, she believes.
Back at the Raw Bar, Julie Beltz is playing a video game at the bar and reminiscing. She calls the place the Cheers of Cutler Ridge. She was an employee for four years and a customer for the other 14 years she's been coming.
How conservative of you.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031119.shtml
Harm's a two way street
Walter E. Williams (archive)
November 19, 2003 | Print | Send
The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers, it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two way street.
If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.
There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.
Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.
The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.
The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.
Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.
In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty, and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.
Why doesn't Ohio just make posession and ingestion of tobacco illegal? Where would they make up for the tax revenue shortfalls?
"I'm sure you're well aware that that particular slogan is employed for all kinds of purposes. It doesn't mean anything."
Personal Liberty doesn't mean anything? Would you become an advocate for Soylent Green?
I have been a responsible smoker since I started over 30 years ago. And even back then, we knew that smoking was 'bad for us.'
Smoking does damage your health? Are you working hard and putting away money so that you'll be able to pay the medical costs your habbit will eventually result in, or are you planning on leaving those problems for our state taxes to cover?
How about Tricare Prime Insurance. Is that good enough for you? If I ever get sick from smoking or anything else, I will pay for myself thank you. The state nor you won't have to pay for MY health care, thank you.
I don't much care what you do as long as it doesn't effect anyone else.
Oh don't worry. I don't "hang" out with anyone that my smoking would effect! And even my non-smokers could care less.
I don't think there's a single real, scientific study that has shown a real danger from second hand smoke. It appears the biggest danger of me going to a bar where people smoke is that my clothes will smell horrible.
Oh really? I can show you so many studies about second hand smoke NOT being the big bugaboo that the anti's want you to believe. Looks like you fell for all of them. Pity.
Well, honey, don't HANG out where business's are still providing smoking areas and then you won't stink. Personally, I believe in good personal hygiene myself.
However, health care costs are expensive, and I don't like having my hard earned money being taken in taxes to pay the costs to treat people for self inflicted harm.
Here's a link you might want to read:
The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society
If you're willing to cover the costs and accept the responsibility for your actions, then I'll agree that the choice is up to you.
(Actually, it's none of your business since cigarettes are still a legal commodity).
It's always been my choice, thank you. I am an adult woman who can think for herself. Thanks for your concern.
Where I spend my money is my business and what I save is my business.
God help your "other half".
If you're willing to cover the costs and accept the responsibility for your actions, then I'll agree that the choice is up to you.
How about the other folks wko use Tricare that don't smoke? You make make their rates higher.
Cancer - it's not cheap. I'm damn sick of paying for other folk's stupidity.
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.