Smoking Ban part 2, original by Timber Loftis

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: And what would happen if the private establishment banned blacks from entering? Apartheid mk III?? The rights to exclusion are nonsense.

Private clubs - where you pay membership - can still ban blacks -- q.v. many golf courses (yes, still). Civil Rights Act is the ONLY thing that prevents a bar from banning blacks. Again, the constitution does not disallow me from being prejudice, rather it is a bar to the government making laws that discriminate.

Using fair logic, we make it up to the OWNER of the bar to decide whether smoking is allowed. Then, we BAN smoking outside, where it can affect anyone traversing the public property. This I would be more supportive of. Telling a pub owner what he must or must not allow is a sort of tyranny.

A night club can refuse you entrance if it does not like your shirt or the size/shape of your butt. Living in NYC I am sure you realize this. Now, under the law, it can still do this, but it must not allow smoking inside. This is absolute idiocy. Either the club owner owns his private land or he does not.

[edit] And, the club can still install all the annoying FOG MACHINES it wants!!! [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]You seem to be saying the bar owner should be allowed to do as he likes....somehow I can't see most people saying the owner should be allowed to run a prostitution ring on the floor of his bar or sell cocaine in the back,....those are illegal....well, NOW in NY, at least, so is letting people smoke around the other patrons. Laws are made and changed and even dropped all the time. I guess it just doesn't offend me as it seems to do for alot of people here.

Bars can be held responsible if they let a drunk drive home and injure/kill someone. What's so different about allowing smokers to innundate non-smokers with their smoke? As far as I know, it injures the non smoker- but that's ok..... by a lot of your (that's the general 'your') arguments in this thread, your reasoning is that you don't believe it hurts anyone. The government obviously decided it did....but then some of the arguments here seem to be that the government hasn't or shouldn't have that powere either... I dunno....my head is starting to spin with all this! LOL

Is it infringing on the pimp's rights to make prostitution illegal? Or the dealer's rights to make drug trafficking illegal? ; Maybe... LOL, but you know, I don't sit around assuming that each time a law like, 'all children under the age of *** must be in a car seat when in the car' or 'no smoking allowed in a bar etc', is going to suddenly make my government a dictatorship or assume my right to choose the color of my next car will be taken away. [img]smile.gif[/img] I think that's a little over the top, myself.

I don't buy all the 'explanations' I've seen for why 'smoke won't hurt you' because I know it DOES hurt me and frankly I can't imagine how people who aren't allergic, as I am, don't at least worry about the cancer issues.
Yes, yes.. I saw where some people tried to debunk that too, but I am old enough to remember (if vaguely!) when tobacco was supposed to be "good for you" and tobacco companies lied about adding nicotine to them to make stronger addicts of the consuming public.


OK- in Mod mode here- This thread has been going a long time and the subject matter wanders a bit from time to time, but let's not turn this thread into a KKK debate or a personal feud of any sort. Keep it civil!

Again, if your fuse is short, don't post til you've waited a while and don't post at all if you feel the need to 'retaliate' or 'get even' with someone's comments, that means no BAITING either. It's too easy to toss in a comment you KNOW is inflammatory in the heat of the moment. Don't do it- we'll have to close the thread.

If a person's posts anger you- move on and don't reply immediately or at all.

[ 05-13-2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Cloudbringer]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: quote: Australias education system is so good, that America has been importing teachers and syllabus to teach New Yorkers in particular, how to read better.

It's that good? Wow. Let me try to contain myself... [/QUOTE]I'm no expert, having only heard a few brief newsclips on the subject, but NYC HAS been importing teachers from abroad, Thorfinn. Apparently they need the structure and discipline that foreign systems impose in order to get results from the students these days. And from what I hear, some teachers from abroad will teach in conditions American teachers refuse to work in.

So it is entirely possible they ARE that good.

[Timber Loftis]

Here, Cloudy, let me clear it up:

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.

If pushed on the issue, I may very well argue prostitution should be legal -- after all, an actress can sell her sex, whether it's porn or Halle Berry in Monster's Ball. And, I might argue we should legalize all drugs, make folks legally responsible for their idiotic acts while hyped up on drugs, and let the chips fall where they may (Malthusian though the concept may be). Besides, who is the government to decide "X drug is good and legal while Y drug is evil and illegal." Sounds very subjective to me.

However, those are off-topic. When there is a way around an issue causing social disgruntlement that avoids trampling on individual rights, we should seek it. That is my point. The government goes too far all the time, and I for one am sick of it. Anti-smoking campaigns have done a wonderful job educating the population. At this point, non-smoking venues are common, and non-smoking bars are around as well. And, will become more common.

But, when the movement to educate the people becomes a movement to regulate those who don't want to learn the lesson, I feel we've gone too far. At that point, the anti-smoking campaign has done TOO good a job.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Lady Liberty weeps. Nanny culture opens the door wide for mob rule.

Naaaa, she doesn't just weep. She was beaten, raped, and sold into corporate slavery long ago .... but I digress .....

Yorick, true liberty is about choices and letting others live to pursue their own version of paradise. I don't smoke (well, the occasional cigar ...) but I don't want to remove peoples choice to do so. People should be able to make both good and bad desicions about their life. Free will is a double edged sword.

Just to pick up some of the aguments here. Music, sustained sound levels about 80 dB will cause hearing imparment. The lenght of imparment is variable. Now dB is measured by the reciever (person), not the generator, because sound attenuates over distance. Most clubs and concerts have the generated sound (at the cone) well in excess of 110 dB - the effect upon a person is varient depending on the shape and size of the venue. Yes there are sound ordinaces, but they are not enforced unless a complaint is made. Now, if I want to enjoy the entertainment, I need to make a health risk choice. Do I enter the establishment or not. How close do I get to the speakers? Otherwise I am free to forgo the entertainment.

Now to the hypothetical single mother waitress, who can only find a job in a rock 'n' roll club. For her health concerns, using your position, it is reasonable to put a sound restriction of 75 dB - peak at the cone! This now makes your chosen profession much more difficult as a performance musician in any but the tiniest of venues. And the limited exposure you now have due to limited ticket sales puts your job in jepardy for health reasons.

Of course, that single mother does have the choice to not work there. Or if she needs the job temporarily, she can find other work later comensurate with her skills, or she can improve her skillset and her marketability.

Tyranny can be applied by a plurality just as easy as a singularity. The Founding Fathers of this country recognised the dangers of true democracy as well as the benefits, and set up the original limited government to try to prevent the tyranny of the masses as well. Laws that force things upon others, for what ever good intention just set up future abuses for less well intentioned reasons.

Side note the "public deceny laws" IMO are redickulus, just as drug laws are. While I wouldn't masterbate in the town square, there doesn't need to be a law against it. These types of laws have grounding in our Puritanical roots and are just about controling personal behaviours, not protecting the well being of the community.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Actually it is the will of health boards in most communities, who are not elected and don't have the science to back their assertions. The process they go by is not democratic. Here in Framingham, MA outside Boston as I posted in the other thread, the voters supported requiring segregated smoking areas in resteraunts and giving bars a choice in the matter. They overturned the unelected health boards unilateral ban on smoking in bars. The will of the people here seems to be in sharp contrast to the will of the people where you are. I wonder did the people get to vote on the issue where you are at or was it an unelected health board with their facist seeming tendency to tell people how to live and where to live like it. If it was truly a health problem tobacco would be as illegal as pot. If you dont want the smoke, go away to a place that caters to people like you. If I want to smoke I wont go to a non-smoking place. Fair and equal. I firmly believe their is a compromise in this issue, but I guess you have to believe it to see it.

Damn Chewie...nicely writ! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

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.

Now here is a position that I defend.

Originally posted by Night Stalker: ***SNIP Lovely post ***Snip

Wow..Im agreeing with all my "enemies" today. Good post dude. You sound like a good Libertarian [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

That was an excellent post, Night Stalker. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Night Stalker: ***SNIP Lovely post ***Snip

Wow..Im agreeing with all my "enemies" today. Good post dude. You sound like a good Libertarian [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]We're enemies?! Er? Did I miss the the declaration of war? Maybe it's in one of my unread emails .... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: We're enemies?! Er? Did I miss the the declaration of war? Maybe it's in one of my unread emails .... [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Well [img]smile.gif[/img] I did put "enemies" in quotes I suppose "adversaries" might better describe some of our recent exchanges [img]smile.gif[/img] But it isn't a bad thing really [img]smile.gif[/img] TL and I butt heads now and then and even Yorick and I agree on somethings some times.

[ 05-13-2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]