Posted on 06/23/2002 9:26:10 PM PDT by chance33_98
Private property is not public property, no matter how much you and statist activist courts f'ing want it to be. One day, you guys are going to learn the hard way.
Sorry again but, you are wrong. Governments were NOT instituted among men to legislate "courtesy". I say (yet again), what would be wrong with having smoking AND non-smoking establishments with the sole decisions being left with the property OWNERS? In a capitalistic society, the owners will, of course, make the decision that will either insure or increase their profit margin without any government interference being necessary. It is the foundation of a free land and to do otherwise (ie - mandating/outlawing by government) is the hallmark of Communism. What will you say when they come after something that you may hold dear if you say nothing now?
And people with an attitude like yours is why we no longer have a polite society. God, you are such a jerk.
You ignored everything I said in my post, even though I was addressing specific things you brought up. As I will do with this one.
Are you aware of the fact that what you are posting is only a regurgitated press release. The study has not been released to the public yet, and will not be for several months. Not even an abstract of it has been released, and that is not going to be released for at least another month.
All this so-called study is only a meta-analysis of other so-called studies on this issue. Until such time as the entire study is released no one can draw any conclusions regarding the conslusions of the study.
It will be very interesting to see just what studies and what criteria were used in doing this meta-analysis. I am most particularly interested in seeing if they used their own comprehensive study. The IARC conducted the longest lasting, most comprehensive study ever done on ETS at the behest of WHO. The study was not released immediately because it did not show the expected (read desired) results. It wasn't until a member of the team leaked it to a British newpaper that the results came out. IARC and WHO immediately went on defensive and denied what the press report said about the study.
You see there was only one statistically significant fact that came out of that study and they didn't like it. The IARC study showed that children exposed to tobacco smoke of others had a 22% LESS chance of getting lung cancer later in life. None of the other findings of the study came into the realm of statistical significance.
The highly touted EPA study was no different than this latest purported study by WHO & IARC. Just a meta-analysis of other studies. The EPA findings, however, were invalidated in Federal Court for numerous reasons. Not only did the EPA "cherry-pick" (judge's words, not mine) which studies they used, they then proceeded to change the criterion for confidence levels in the studies from 95% to 90%, automatically doubling any perceived increase in risk. As bad as all that was, the most grievous (IMHO) violation of the EPA is they violated their own Radon Act rules and regs. The EPA declared ETS a class A carcinogen using their powers under the federal Radon Act. However, they violated all the tenets of that act.
I hope you have an understanding now of why I believe awaiting the release of this latest "study" from the IARC is neccessary before drawing any conclusions about their press release and the rantings of highly paid anti-smoker lobbyists from ASH.
I have addressed your comments to me - I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. But I will iterate: What gives you the right to walk into my friend's bar and demand she cannot smoke on her own property???
The problem is that people like you will never agree to peaceful coexistance, where we can have non-smoking restaurants and bars where delicate flowers like yourself can congregate to congratulate yourselves on being morally superior and we can have smoking bars and restaurants where all the real people can go.
Why does almost every government issued bar and tavern license state that the establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone?
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves."
-Betrand de Jouvenel
Okay, let's ASSUME for just a moment that this statement is true (we won't even get into all the studies that show otherwise). How can you classify a brief visit to a privately-owned restaurant as "a long period of exposure"? I eat MANY more meals at home than I do in restaurants and would imagine that most folks are the same. Your DESIRE for a smoke-free world, mandated by government, might fly in a Fascist society, where all businesses are completely controlled by the state, but simply will not pass muster in a FREE society where the rights of the individual are (supposedly) prized and protected from government (read: society's) interference.
Only in your eyes and those others who refuse to exercise that courtesy in public.
" Governments were NOT instituted among men to legislate "courtesy"."
Really. And, could you provide a valid reference as to why governments were instituted?
" I say (yet again), what would be wrong with having smoking AND non-smoking establishments with the sole decisions being left with the property OWNERS?"
It comes under the heading of discrimination. Ask the blacks about this one. They shot down this idea long ago.
In a capitalistic society, the owners will, of course, make the decision that will either insure or increase their profit margin without any government interference being necessary. It is the foundation of a free land and to do otherwise (ie - mandating/outlawing by government) is the hallmark of Communism. What will you say when they come after something that you may hold dear if you say nothing now?"
Once again, I will mention OSHA, a federal agency with the oversight of private establishments to ensure health and safety requirements are met. Cigarette smoking is a health hazard. OSHA does not mention cigarette smoking, but the precedence has been set. You mean, what will I do when they come for my guns? That is a different subject. Guns are protected under the Constitution.
What anyone who thinks about it knows is that private property has a different meaning when a public establishment is opened on that property.
We were talking about the MARKET driving smoking bans, weren't we? If the MARKET were driving smoking bans then why aren't businesses going non-smoking by themselves?
Could it be that there is a MARKET for smokers that the government is closing down?
I don't say that smokers DON'T have a right to a smoke free environment IF they can convince a business owner that it is in their best interest to make their business non-smoking.
The general public is INVITED into a PRIVATE business.
And it's NOT ALL other citizens who are driving the political leaders, it's anti-smoker scare tactics.
What is amazing to me is that smokers consistently refuse to recognize "rights" of non-smokers while adamently and vehemently voicing their support of their own "rights." We seem to think only of ourselves in this country. We are really in trouble here.
Yeh, it means if you do not like the rules and policies of the property owner, then stay off the proeperty.
Private property is either privately owned, or its not. Property is open to the public WHO WILL ABIDE BY THE RULES SET FORTH BY THE OWNER.
This is a silly argument. Try refusing service to a minority member in one of your private businesses.
Are your REALLY this obtuse or are you just arguing for the sake of aruging? The US Constitution is NOT a list of "rights" of the individual (or of the states, for that matter). It is a SET limit on the powers of the GOVERNMENT! Try the 10th Amendment or, better yet, try reading Bastiat's The Law. It might help you to better understand why we have any "laws" to begin with (here's a hint: laws are NOT to protect the DESIRES/WISHES of the masses).
Sure, put up a sign saying, No N......" on the window and see what happens to you.
Answer the question, statist: Why must you and your ilk be welcome everywhere and smokers welcome nowhere?
Not one person here has denied that smoking hurts some smokers. Not one. Yet you continue to dodge and weave iin order to maintain your position.
OSHA has set safety standards for everything in the workplace, from number of bathrooms, height of the toilets, grease removal, etc. Where are the safety standards for SHS?
I'm a jerk because I do not want you and the government controlling the rules of my property. You are not the jerk for voluntarily walking into my restaurant, and screaming like a little baby, "WAH, Momy, make them put those things out! WAH! WAH! Mommy, make them stop!" Ok, if you say so, Don.
I find it sad that you don't think smokers should have the same reaction when seeing such signs.
Sorry, no cigar. Amendments to the constitution have been made proving that the Constitution by itself is subject to review and change by the means provided in the document itself. Smokers say that smoking is a constitutional right, therefore, it is not out-of-line to ask just where the constitution lists smoking as a right. A method of creating laws is legal by constitutional means. At the moment, even court decisions are used to create a body of laws. Like it or not, that is the situation.
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.