Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Thorfinn]

When they came for the socialists, I did not speak out -- because I was not a socialist. When they came for the trade unionist, I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jew, I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. And then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: And before we go on about the jobless having a choice, has anyone heard the saying "beggars can't be choosers?"

Dude, The reality of the situation is you can go work smoke-free at mcdonalds or taco bell, have a steady wage and they are almost always hiring. So I say the jobless do have a choice and aren't neccessarily beggars.

I realy find this to be a lame argument. If someone doesnt like smoke, they aren't gonna go work at a smoky bar, when Dennys up the road offers the same type job with at least a segregated smoking area.

What problem do you have with segregated smoking areas? The non-smokers get a smoke free enviroment and the smokers get an indoor social enviroment to smoke.
Non-smoking employees who have health concerns can work the non-smoking side if they choose. [/QUOTE]The banning is in NYC. NYC is full of bars. Taco bells are rarer. Not much money there. It's all about the bars and restraunts here.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: When they came for the socialists, I did not speak out -- because I was not a socialist. When they came for the trade unionist, I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jew, I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew. And then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

[/QUOTE]That is paranoia pure and simple Thorfinn.

For starters you've used the big "they". Who is "they" again?

In a representative democracy it's "we". We the Jews, trade Unionists, Socialists and I.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: You meant democratic I'm sure. The will of the people is just that. We don't want your smoke.

Well, what's the difference? Pure democracy = mob rule. Toss out the constitution, as the majority view needs no protection. The point in a FREE society is to protect the minority view. Look, Yorick, I don't want to force smoke into your lungs any more than I want to force a pub owner to run his business this way or that. Have smoking bars and non-smoking bars. Outlaw smoking in public places, if you like. But, don't place the protection of YOUR freedom on SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. There has to be a balance here that doesn't tread on ANYONE's liberty.

Oh, and on the noise. You are not up-to-speed on this, so I'll clue you in. NOise restrictions that I have ever seen are measured at the property boundary -- you can't let too much of YOUR noise enter MY property. But, so long as you can sound-proof your walls, you can keep cranking it up inside your building as loud as you like -- so long as it doesn't escape the property line. [img]graemlins/readingbook.gif[/img]

[Thorfinn]

The banning is in NYC. NYC is full of bars. Taco bells are rarer. Not much money there. It's all about the bars and restraunts here.

Hey, here's a thought.

MOVE WHERE THE FRIGGIN' JOBS ARE!!

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: For starters you've used the big "they". Who is "they" again?

My wife is a prosecutor for the state. She is a "they."

[Thorfinn]

That is paranoia pure and simple Thorfinn. For starters you've used the big "they". Who is "they" again? In a representative democracy it's "we". We the Jews, trade Unionists, Socialists and I.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. It is not like we expect schools to teach history or anything. I mean it has been a whole half century ago. Most of the people who actually remember it are already dead, so the rest of us might as well forget, too.

All hail Herr Ashcroft...

[ 05-13-2003, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Yorick]

Where are the cries for "State rights"? Where are the cries for the right of a city to determine it's own laws??

New York City has made a ruling for New York City based on our needs, concerns, people and lifestyle.

Unless you're supporting a dictatorship that overrides States and Cities rights of self government, I don't see how anyone living anywhere else in America is in a position to harp on about what our city is doing.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: That is paranoia pure and simple Thorfinn. For starters you've used the big "they". Who is "they" again? In a representative democracy it's "we". We the Jews, trade Unionists, Socialists and I.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. It is not like we expect schools to teach history or anything. All hail Herr Ashcroft... [/QUOTE]Actually I studied Ancient and modern history at school and university. Australias education system is so good, that America has been importing teachers and syllabus to teach New Yorkers in particular, how to read better.

So don't go crying "ignorant" because I disagree with your paranoia.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: Where are the cries for "State rights"? Where are the cries for the right of a city to determine it's own laws?? New York City has made a ruling for New York City based on our needs, concerns, people and lifestyle. Unless you're supporting a dictatorship that overrides States and Cities rights of self government, I don't see how anyone living anywhere else in America is in a position to harp on about what our city is doing.

The constitution and bill of rights trump the state's right to be a nanny where the protections afforded therein are breached. Go back to the original thread, where I tried to educate everyone a bit on the First Amendment freedom of association.