Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Shogun]

Bars and restaurant are public places.

Schools, Post Offices, Sidewalks, government buildings, airports, public transit, ect ect ect are all public places.

Restaurants are private business establishments.

But they are still public places. Any privately owned business that is open to the public is a public place. The law has determined that. That is why Jim Crow laws were overturned.

like I said... tell it to the next business owner that exercises their right to refuse service to you.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Schools, Post Offices, Sidewalks, government buildings, airports, public transit, ect ect ect are all public places.

Restaurants are private business establishments.

But they are still public places. Any privately owned business that is open to the public is a public place. The law has determined that. That is why Jim Crow laws were overturned.

like I said... tell it to the next business owner that exercises their right to refuse service to you.

I want to say shogun is right but first i'm going to research that tidbit (when im done checking other things). Unless Mrs Kravitz would be kind enough to link the laws that state restaurants are public places.

 

[Anguille]

Effects of bans

[edit] Safety issues and effects on mental health

Enforcement of a ban can cause resentment among smokers, with potentially serious consequences. In July 2009 a Turkish restaurant owner was murdered by a customer after attempting to enforce the recently implemented smoking ban.[35] Resentment on the part of smokers over enforcement of a ban, or on the part of non-smokers over violation non-enforcement of a ban, is sometimes referred to as "smoke rage".


Smoking ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Smoke rage is clearly in evidence in this thread.

 

[Dante]

... in bars and restaurants?

I voted No. The laws are fair. Why? Because unlike prohibition laws anti smoking laws do not ban smoking in the same way. People do not primarily go to bars, pubs, and restaurants in order yo smoke.

Umm that's not really a justification of fairness. It doesn't really address how telling someone what they can allow on their property is fair.

What they can allow on their property? Nothing could be more simplistic.

No one has a right to operate a restaurant or bar in any way they choose. No one. Not now not ever..in the history of the USA.

What is fair is what people are subject to. You know, the old "your rights stop at my nose" principle?

Zoning, health codes...all are legitimate tools to limit what one person can subject others to under the guise of freedom.

 

[Dante]

... in bars and restaurants?

I voted No. The laws are fair. Why? Because unlike prohibition laws anti smoking laws do not ban smoking in the same way. People do not primarily go to bars, pubs, and restaurants in order yo smoke.

Its ok with you for the federal government to step into private business like that but its not ok with me.

See the difference there in our views? Its one of the reasons we rarely agree on things.

Wrong. The difference is in purity of ideology over reason, and extremist stands on issues of public debate.

I am not for the Fed stepping into private biz in the way you portray it. Ever since the founding of America it has been understood that the Feds have a duty to step into private biz...commerce. It is how and when the Fed steps in that reasonable people disgaree, but you tend to be unreasonable.

Or do you think you are reasonable on issue like this?

 

[Dante]

I do not smoke cigarettes
I can not stand the smell of smoke when I'm eating

I am AGAINST banning smoking in PRIVATE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS.

If a restaurant wants to allow smoking it is their right to do so on their property and it is my right to not eat there (and I wouldn't)

Now in public places and buildings I am OK with the smoking ban but never in private business or property.

Bars and restaurant are public places.

Just because the public goes there does not make them public places. By that rationale your own home is a public place should you allow a group of people to eat there.

You are misunderstanding the meaning of the term'public' in the context of the discussion.

The public is not anyone with a private invitation to a private event.

But we are starting to have private venues ban smoking because of the dreaded private sector...insurance companies...issuing fatwahs against the people who allow smoking. Insurance companies penalize landlords, property owners and biz owners for smoking policies.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Effects of bans

[edit] Safety issues and effects on mental health

Enforcement of a ban can cause resentment among smokers, with potentially serious consequences. In July 2009 a Turkish restaurant owner was murdered by a customer after attempting to enforce the recently implemented smoking ban.[35] Resentment on the part of smokers over enforcement of a ban, or on the part of non-smokers over violation non-enforcement of a ban, is sometimes referred to as "smoke rage".


Smoking ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Smoke rage is clearly in evidence in this thread.

according to the wikipedia article you quoted private businesses are not public spaces

Public space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW I am not a smoker and as I said I would not eat in a resataurant that allowed smoking....but I am for not stepping all over the private business owners rights.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I voted No. The laws are fair. Why? Because unlike prohibition laws anti smoking laws do not ban smoking in the same way. People do not primarily go to bars, pubs, and restaurants in order yo smoke.

Its ok with you for the federal government to step into private business like that but its not ok with me.

See the difference there in our views? Its one of the reasons we rarely agree on things.

Wrong. The difference is in purity of ideology over reason, and extremist stands on issues of public debate.

I am not for the Fed stepping into private biz in the way you portray it. Ever since the founding of America it has been understood that the Feds have a duty to step into private biz...commerce. It is how and when the Fed steps in that reasonable people disgaree, but you tend to be unreasonable.

Or do you think you are reasonable on issue like this?

Yes i find my stance on this issue very reasonable...i see you quoted me again right below...hold on before i say more

 

[Dante]

Its ok with you for the federal government to step into private business like that but its not ok with me.

See the difference there in our views? Its one of the reasons we rarely agree on things.

Wrong. The difference is in purity of ideology over reason, and extremist stands on issues of public debate.

I am not for the Fed stepping into private biz in the way you portray it. Ever since the founding of America it has been understood that the Feds have a duty to step into private biz...commerce. It is how and when the Fed steps in that reasonable people disgaree, but you tend to be unreasonable.

Or do you think you are reasonable on issue like this?

Yes i find my stance on this issue very reasonable...i see you quoted me again right below...hold on before i say more

hmmmm, you imagine yourself to be reasonable on this issue?

I don't see it.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Wrong. The difference is in purity of ideology over reason, and extremist stands on issues of public debate.

I am not for the Fed stepping into private biz in the way you portray it. Ever since the founding of America it has been understood that the Feds have a duty to step into private biz...commerce. It is how and when the Fed steps in that reasonable people disgaree, but you tend to be unreasonable.

Or do you think you are reasonable on issue like this?

Yes i find my stance on this issue very reasonable...i see you quoted me again right below...hold on before i say more

hmmmm, you imagine yourself to be reasonable on this issue?

I don't see it.

What do you find unreasonable, maybe we can hash this out.

 

[Dante]

Yes i find my stance on this issue very reasonable...i see you quoted me again right below...hold on before i say more

hmmmm, you imagine yourself to be reasonable on this issue?

I don't see it.

What do you find unreasonable, maybe we can hash this out.

You ignorance?

but really, where do I start?

 

[keee keee]

As for the original question...I would repeal the bans. It should be up to a business owner who they wish to do business with.

So you are in favor of not allowing blacks into bars and restaurants if the owner wants to run a whites only restaurant?

I think if the place was like that and wanted this policy why would any black want to go there in the first place? anyway a private business should be run anyway the OWNER wants to run it. If he runs it wrong it will go out of business and it is the Owners fault! Then if Obama decides to bail it out then he can dictate how it should be run,

 

[Dante]

As for the original question...I would repeal the bans. It should be up to a business owner who they wish to do business with.

So you are in favor of not allowing blacks into bars and restaurants if the owner wants to run a whites only restaurant?

I think if the place was like that and wanted this policy why would any black want to go there in the first place? anyway a private business should be run anyway the OWNER wants to run it. If he runs it wrong it will go out of business and it is the Owners fault! Then if Obama decides to bail it out then he can dictate how it should be run,

not true.
the market is blind to disease and mayhem.

People always ate in places with smoke. Smoke can kill. It always harms. A popular place will attract people willing to take a risk. That risk costs them and everyone else later on.

If smoking were outlawed would you support it?

 

[keee keee]

no cause the goverment would then raise my taxes more to make up for lost revenue that was created and collected from the fools that use to smoke. I use to smoke big time and the governments raising of cig taxes finally made me quit. It doesn't bother me to go to places with smoke, if it did I would not go to places that allowed smoking. Just like radio or T.V. if it is biased and left leaning I don't listen or watch. I'm not in favor of shutting down or dictating how it should be run. A country with less government would be a much better place!

 

[Dante]

no cause the goverment would then raise my taxes more to make up for lost revenue that was created and collected from the fools that use to smoke. I use to smoke big time and the governments raising of cig taxes finally made me quit. It doesn't bother me to go to places with smoke, if it did I would not go to places that allowed smoking. Just like radio or T.V. if it is biased and left leaning I don't listen or watch. I'm not in favor of shutting down or dictating how it should be run. A country with less government would be a much better place!

I used to smoke 3 packs a day. Sometimes more. I was a chain smoker and I fit everything...job, social life...around smoking.

I am not talking about less government. Most people want less government. Just depends on two things:

How you define 'less government' and what you think the government should be into.

People can go outside and smoke. They do. The laws banning smoking in entrances to buildings are curious.

What about smoking outside a hospital?

 

[Zona]

Absolutely.

Contrary to the disingenuous semantics, bars and restaurants are not "public places".

They are private businesses on private property, which are open to the public.

if you are correct, why is there no smoking in bars or restaurants?

 

[keee keee]

Give congress time they will find a way to tax these smokers for smoking in front of building to help pay for the future failure called Obama care!!!

 

[Dante]

Absolutely.

Contrary to the disingenuous semantics, bars and restaurants are not "public places".

They are private businesses on private property, which are open to the public.

if you are correct, why is there no smoking in bars or restaurants?

Dude, needs to get out of his cell more often. When I was wokring in the prison system, we had lots like him.

sad

 

[keee keee]

Absolutely.

Contrary to the disingenuous semantics, bars and restaurants are not "public places".

They are private businesses on private property, which are open to the public.

if you are correct, why is there no smoking in bars or restaurants?

to much government a cradle to grave mentality!!!!

 

[JenT]

... in bars and restaurants?

Obama says they should be banned (and taxed out the wazoo). Whatever Obama says, I must do. I don't want to go back to a reeducation camp. No, no, NO!

​