I can Breathe

[Hawk]

I went to a big club in Maryland last night. NO SMOKING ! I loved it ! So did the big crowd.

Thank you big government !

[BDR]

Boooooo ..... hisssssss .....

r:>)

[Gallowglass]

I went to a big club in Maryland last night. NO SMOKING ! I loved it ! So did the big crowd.

Thank you big government !

Hawk, I like you and think you are a cool guy, but this post (which was obviously intended to push some buttons) only serves to illustrate the moral and intellectual failure of collectivist thinking. Namely, that the trampling of individual liberties (a property owners right to choose whether he wants smoking, etc...) can somehow serve the common good just because a majority's will has been served. I find it funny how collectivists will often echo the "I may not agree with what you say, but I will support your right to say it (unless it might offend somebody, OH NO!)" line; but they never seem to extend that ideology to property. This kind of collectivist sheep mentality is the same shit that was eventually used to justify throwing people into ovens during the Third Reich and millions purged in the U.S.S.R. and Maoist China. I personally find it offensive. Congratulations, button pushed.

[Hawk]

I went to a big club in Maryland last night. NO SMOKING ! I loved it ! So did the big crowd.

Thank you big government !

Hawk, I like you and think you are a cool guy, but this post (which was obviously intended to push some buttons) only serves to illustrate the moral and intellectual failure of collectivist thinking. Namely, that the trampling of individual liberties (a property owners right to choose whether he wants smoking, etc...) can somehow serve the common good just because a majority's will has been served. I find it funny how collectivists will often echo the "I may not agree with what you say, but I will support your right to say it (unless it might offend somebody, OH NO!)" line; but they never seem to extend that ideology to property. This kind of collectivist sheep mentality is the same shit that was eventually used to justify throwing people into ovens during the Third Reich and millions purged in the U.S.S.R. and Maoist China. I personally find it offensive. Congratulations, button pushed.

It was a tongue in cheek comment. Therefore the .

To relate it to the Holocaust is quite a stretch. I find that offensive.

People's rights ? If the place is a "public" place. The public has a right to clean air. Not poisoned air by the right of the poisoners.

BTW, I'm for private clubs setting their own rules on smoking. If you are a dues paying member of a private club, by all means, make your own rules concerning smoke.

I know, "if you don't like the smoke, don't go there". But as a member of the public I have the right to go there, and a right to not be poisoned while I'm there.

The government is only doing it's job. Protecting us.

Also, it is not really big government. By the constitution, it is the individual states that can make this decision.

BTW........NO SMOKE HANGOVER TODAY !

[Gallowglass]

It was a tongue in cheek comment. Therefore the .

Cool, whatever.

To relate it to the Holocaust is quite a stretch. I find that offensive.

From a practical POV, but not from an ideological one. Collectivist authoritarianism is collectivist authoritarianism. It's offensive.

People's rights ? If the place is a "public" place. The public has a right to clean air. Not poisoned air by the right of the poisoners.

"Public" as in it is owned by the People (funded by public funds), or "public" as in privately owned and the public has access to it?

BTW, I'm for private clubs setting their own rules on smoking. If you are a dues paying member of a private club, by all means, make your own rules concerning smoke.

What about non-dues paying clubs that are open to the public but are still privately owned (like a local bar)? Why does the government get to violate the property owner for the interest of the "public good"? I have no problem with a club owner saying no smoking in his/her establishment, but that should be their choice. I'm not even a smoker, btw.

I know, "if you don't like the smoke, don't go there". But as a member of the public I have the right to go there, and a right to not be poisoned while I'm there.

No, you don't. Your right not to be poisoned is negated by your right to not go there in the first place and the private property owner's right to do what they want within the confines of their property.

The government is only doing it's job. Protecting us.

Yeah, that was much of the mentality behind the Holocaust too.

Also, it is not really big government. By the constitution, it is the individual states that can make this decision.

Then why did you thank them?

BTW........NO SMOKE HANGOVER TODAY !

I'm glad. That's a great justification for supporting oppression. Like most collectivists, the real measure of the effectiveness of policy is if it benefits themselves. How hypocritical.

[I have a question]

Hawk you are losing bad. Gallowglass' points are excellent.

[Banned]

Just because government does something, does that make it automatically right? This country had legalized slavery. Was slavery alright because government was protecting cotton growers?

This government once outlawed the sale of alcohol. Was it right because it was protecting the morals of non-alcoholics?

Comrade Hawk how would you feel if the government outlawed drumming, after all they would just be protecting the hearing of citizens. Us sheep citizens need protection, don't we?

[PanzerFaust]

Sorry gotta add 2 cents.....

Call it self centered (cause it is) hehe..... But I used to hate spending weeks getting the smell outta shirts after playing bars not to mention the brown film still on most of my gear... Can only imagine what my lungs look like ....... I don't think I would have been for it 20 years ago but now as an old fart I love going into bars in other states where there's no smoke..... Do I feel bad for the smokers? hell yea!! especially when I see them out in the snow smoking.... But for example if the Govt tells me I gotta drive the speed limit and wear a seat belt, yada yada.... for other drivers protection...... I can put it into better perspective...

Sorry that's as creative an argument as I can give on a Sunday morning.. hehe...

Peace, Tood

[I have a question]

panzer, im surprised you didnt address the nazi thing...you seem like youre all about that

[Hawk]

If say a restaurant is privately owned. Do they have the right to allow poison in their food ? After it is privately owned and you have the right to not go there.

Why should there be any laws/rules what so ever to protect what you eat. That's oppression of the privately owned business ?

Well what right does the owner have to allow the air in his establishment to be poison ?

Collective authoritarian ? I thought we are a democracy where majority rules ? Am I wrong ?

The HOLOCAUST was allowed to happen by a man who was not elected to office by the people, but was placed in office as ruler. Then he convinced the stupid people that another country had weapons of mass destruction. And country #1 should invade country #2 who had WMD first !

The very stupid people were whipped into a frenzy to go to war to take down this country. It turned out that country #2 had no WMD .

That my friend, is an example of an authoritarian government out of control.

BTW Country #1 is Germany and Country#2 was Poland.

Any parallel you see........well........are they coincidental or not ?

A bar is not a club. There are no members.
A place privately owned but open to the public, they must live by the rules set forth by the democracy. Or are you Ok if the cook spits in your food without repercussions ?

"why did you thank them" as I already said was tongue in cheek.

[Hawk]

Hawk you are losing bad. Gallowglass' points are excellent.

Hell, I already won...."No smoke hangover".

[Hawk]

Just because government does something, does that make it automatically right? This country had legalized slavery. Was slavery alright because government was protecting cotton growers?

This government once outlawed the sale of alcohol. Was it right because it was protecting the morals of non-alcoholics?

Comrade Hawk how would you feel if the government outlawed drumming, after all they would just be protecting the hearing of citizens. Us sheep citizens need protection, don't we?

Joe, we all know not all laws are good ones. And only losers feel a need to deliver personal attacks. I've been self employed for 32 years and own a few patents which I'm trying to market. It doesn't get any more capitalistic than that.

By the way Joe, the Federal Government just passed a law that NO LEAD can be put into children's toys.

I'm sure you would rather children would be allowed to eat all the lead they want right ? In order to keep government out of private business ? Please let me know what your opinion on this law is.

[Hawk]

As for your comment that I'm a hypocrite. If you have read any of my political posts, you will note that I'm for many, many others. I'm just excited that this time I benefited from the law !

I can breathe ! YES !

[Hawk]

Are you for allowing privately owned companies to pollute water? After all, your right to swimming, fishing and drinking the water is negated by your ability to swim or fish somewhere else. And you can go buy drinking water if you want.

Comment ?

[Gallowglass]

If say a restaurant is privately owned. Do they have the right to allow poison in their food ? After it is privately owned and you have the right to not go there.

It depends on if deception or fraud is involved. If it is plainly clear that the restaurant is including poison on the menu and patrons will be exposed if they order the food and then the patrons willingly choose to do so, then I don't have an ideological problem with it. If a bar owner is open and honest about his/her intention to allow smoking and then you choose to go there, that's your own problem.

Why should there be any laws/rules what so ever to protect what you eat. That's oppression of the privately owned business ?

It is. The FDA should be abolished. You're starting to get the point.

Well what right does the owner have to allow the air in his establishment to be poison ?

It's his property. YOU choose to go there.

Collective authoritarian ? I thought we are a democracy where majority rules ? Am I wrong ?

Actually, we are a Representative Republic where it is the MINORITY of the majority (when you actually consider the ratio of voters/non-voters). Many of the founders of this country were pretty wary of Democracy.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."- T. Jefferson

"When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic."- Benjamin Franklin.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty." -B.Franklin

btw, my "collective authoritarian" appellation was intended to characterize the ideology behind your reasoning.

The HOLOCAUST was allowed to happen by a man who was not elected to office by the people, but was placed in office as ruler. Then he convinced the stupid people that another country had weapons of mass destruction. And country #1 should invade country #2 who had WMD first !

In March 1933, the Nazis had the largest proportion of the vote (44%), thus illustrating how the minority of the majority can consolidate power in a democracy. In Aug. 1934, 85% of the people voted to uphold Hitler as the leader of the state.

The very stupid people were whipped into a frenzy to go to war to take down this country. It turned out that country #2 had no WMD .

That my friend, is an example of an authoritarian government out of control.

BTW Country #1 is Germany and Country#2 was Poland.

Any parallel you see........well........are they coincidental or not ?

Certainly, if you think I am in support of the Iraq war you are mistaken. Besides, how is this relevant to the topic of the thread?

A bar is not a club. There are no members.
A place privately owned but open to the public, they must live by the rules set forth by the democracy. Or are you Ok if the cook spits in your food without repercussions ?

The rules of the democracy set forth that a business may nor deceive the public with false claims about its product. If I know the cook is going to spit in my food beforehand and I still go there, I guess I'm OK with it.

"why did you thank them" as I already said was tongue in cheek.

OK.

[lonewolf]

Just a little reminder that non-smoking laws for privately owned property are not and can not be legislated with the expressed intent of protecting patrons.

Smokers do not have a right to smoke on someone else's private property nor do non-smokers have a right to a smoke-free environment on someone else's private property. Be assured, a bar is private, not public. It is only open to the public at the owner's discretion. As long as tobacco use remains legal, it is the property owner's sole right to make this choice for the patrons. Smoking bans based on this premise are unconstitutional and the lawyers, er legislators know this.

The only protection given in any "successful" smoking ban has been for the protection of the employees. The old OSHA angle trick.

The PA ban is so full of exceptions that I wonder if it won't be struck down in superior court for unequal treatment of employees in exempted businesses versus those in affected businesses. We shall see.

[Gallowglass]

Are you for allowing privately owned companies to pollute water? After all, your right to swimming, fishing and drinking the water is negated by your ability to swim or fish somewhere else. And you can go buy drinking water if you want.

Comment ?

How do we balance the rights of the individual against the rights of a society (a community of individuals)? Whenever an individual's actions trespass or damage the boundaries of another individual's freedoms, redress is called for. You could make the case that individual cigarette smoking damages another individual's access to clean air unless it can be contained to the property of the source, which would be a pretty good argument. In that case, you better be ready to outlaw all smoking, automobiles, public transport, and manufacturing. By further extension you better be ready to outlaw drumming in any area not confined to a 100% soundproof room.

[bfoust]

I just want to say: I also have been to Maryland bars and.. WOW. I LOVE CLEAN AIR.

That's one of the main reasons I don't go out in Altoona... smoke+rude people = not a good time.

People in Altoona SUCK!
(Present company excluded, of course.)

As a NON-Smoker who has seen relatives pass away due to smoking, I welcome the right to clean air inside a bar. I actually don't want smoking anywhere near me since it has the possibility to kill me over time (Yes, I know everything else does too, but not everything else makes you smell bad and cough when it's right in your face.)

... </rant>

[Gallowglass]

..As a NON-Smoker who has seen relatives pass away due to smoking, I welcome the right to clean air inside a bar. I actually don't want smoking anywhere near me since it has the possibility to kill me over time (Yes, I know everything else does too, but not everything else makes you smell bad and cough when it's right in your face.)

... </rant>

As someone who has seen close relatives pass away due to automobile accidents, I am looking forward to the PA anti-driving act. I don't want anyone driving anywhere near me, since it has the possibility to kill me immediately (besides, automobile exhaust smells bad and makes me cough when it's right in my face)... Ok, this might seem satirical (even though I have had relatives killed by other people driving), but in reality all I'm trying to do is illustrate the point that if we were going to rely on the government to "protect" us from all possible dangers, none of us would be able to do anything. Does my right to be safe on the public sidewalk nullify everyone else's ability to drive?

[greaser]

People's rights ? If the place is a "public" place. The public has a right to clean air. Not poisoned air by the right of the poisoners.



I agree.....please stop driving an automobile.
Hopefully someday they won't let bands play through loud soundsystems in public places and finally cut back on all the noise pollution that damages the public's hearing.
I also think that the government should force people to wear sunscreen at public beaches so they don't get skin cancer.
I also wish bars would stop serving poison to their patrons.
I think it's a great idea for the government to tell buisness owners that cater to adults what they can and can't do. After all, my Grandfather didn't fight in WW2 so he could come home and sit down in a bar and enjoy a smoke with his drink.

(sorry for being a smartass, i couldn't resist... good topic though, good points made by both sides.)

[Banned]

Hawk you keep asking others questions and expect answers. You did not answer my question, if the government bans drumming to protect the hearing of its citizens, are you OK with it, after all, the government (nanny state) is protecting my hearing.

I feel that a private person who owns a business can do whatever, serve whoever, or not serve whoever he or she wants. A hard concept for statists, but it is called freedom.

[I have a question]

i could see the government telling you that you cant smoke in a hospital, where people might expect to be able to breathe clean air, but in a bar? come on...if you go to a bar you are likely someone who drinks alcohol which is poison. so how can you complain? smoking & drinking go hand in hand, like peeing & farting.

[bfoust]

Oh, and I'm all for individual bar owners deciding on whether to ban smoking in their bar or not.. if they don't, I just won't visit that bar (unless I go to see a band I *really* like)

[Banned]

Just because government does something, does that make it automatically right? This country had legalized slavery. Was slavery alright because government was protecting cotton growers?

This government once outlawed the sale of alcohol. Was it right because it was protecting the morals of non-alcoholics?

Comrade Hawk how would you feel if the government outlawed drumming, after all they would just be protecting the hearing of citizens. Us sheep citizens need protection, don't we?

Joe, we all know not all laws are good ones. And only losers feel a need to deliver personal attacks. I've been self employed for 32 years and own a few patents which I'm trying to market. It doesn't get any more capitalistic than that.

By the way Joe, the Federal Government just passed a law that NO LEAD can be put into children's toys.

I'm sure you would rather children would be allowed to eat all the lead they want right ? In order to keep government out of private business ? Please let me know what your opinion on this law is.

Authoritarian government can still be capitalistic. China and Russia both allow some capitalism today, in neither country are the people truly free.

As a capable adult, you can tell if there is smoking or not in a bar or restaurant, and make an informed decision. Children or parents of children do not have the means to test each toy for lead content. So in this case, making a law that we will not import toys with lead is good for the citizenry.

No citizen will lose a freedom with this. When you want to impose your wish for no smoking in privately owned bars, many, many citizens lose freedoms.

We have so few freedoms left. (BTW I am a non smoker, as well as an asthmatic, I only go to bars to see my favorite bands.)

[metalchurch]

Lloyd: "I would like to eat her liver with some farver beans and a nice bottle of Chianti."