Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
The "big deal" my friend is that it is their CHOICE to do so. They are not FORCED to do it by the government. The individual is allowed to decide for themselves!!!!
Rokenn was correct when he said that the case of the NY Mall vs the T-shirt was an issue concerning the First Amendent rights of the patron in question. He was incorrect when he said the ban on smoking was entirely different.
The Preamble of the Constitution garuantees EVERY American the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The smoking ban restricts two of these three rights.....the right to liberty {freedom from excessive gov't restrictions} and the pursuit of happiness {enjoying a cigarette after a meal or with their drink}. The smoker themselves are restricting their right to life...but it is their choice to do so.
Privately owned businesses should have the freedom to choose whether a legal activity is allowed to occur inside their establishment or if it will be banned within the confines of their walls. If they choose to allow smoking inside, then the individual (smoker and non-smoker alike) should be allowed to chose whether he indulges his pleasure and "lights up", or waits until he leaves the bar before having a cigarette.
In either case, the choice of policy is left to the business owner and the choice of compliance is left (primarily) with the individual patron. THAT is truly "equality for everyone".
|
Cerek, I made a post in the "Smokers and New York" poll I made that applies to this argument.
All I'll say on this are two things.
Choice seems to be a selective word used by critics of the smoking ban.
It's not a government, but smokers that force nonsmokers into either breathing their tobacco, or changing their lifestyle because of smokers. Suddenly the shoe is on the other foot and it's not fair? Smokers have been trampling all over the civil liberties of nonsmokers for decades. How is the democraticaly elected government suddenly elevated into the bad guy? Life, liberty and happiness? Smokers have been taking these things from nonsmokers all along!
Secondly, if you're championing choice and freedoms and rights, champion states and cities rights. As I stated in the other thread,
this is a localised response to a localised problem within a localised lifestyle. New York is not Savannah, Georgia. It has different issues, problems and solutions. Civil liberties in New York have been curtailed before because of the extreme problems our city has faced. With the blessing of the populace. If you are advocating choice, then allow the majority of New Yorkers to excercise their demcratic right, and create laws which will benefit the majority of New Yorkers, given the unique situations our city faces each day.
Only tonight I spoke to yet another waiter who is relieved the law was passed. Waiters were one of the only workers not protected by a smoke free environment, and now that's changed thank goodness.
The liberties of nonsmokers in New York have now been guaranteed by New Yorkers.
If and when your town and state debate the issue, take it up with the policy makers then.
[ 05-14-2003, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]