- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,320
- Reaction score
- 2,116
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Personally I think that businesses should be able to serve who they choose.
No blacks? No Irish? No Catholics?
Personally I think that businesses should be able to serve who they choose.
That is a different matter, that is one of parenting and child absuse. The parks example would depend whose property it is but I doubt whether secondhand smoke harm, if it exists at all, would be an issue in an open space.What about forcing your poison on your children at home? What about the pollution of this poison in parks where children are playing?
Firstly the courts have often overode liberty and constitution, that is nothing new. But businesses are still private property and this is nothing secret and involuntary, those who come onto the property know what is in store for them. To ban it is to ban private property.Also, business ARE places of public access. In the US, the courts have LONG ruled that the government has the right to regulate these businesses, especially as it comes to substances that are potentially harmful.
As far as I know however it is not poison to anyone outside the limited area it is being done, if that. If you are informed then it is your choice, we should not allow the rights of property holders to be overridden.Yes, cigarette smoke IS pollution. It is poison. The government has a compelling interest. Look at the reduction of heart attacks in just three years in this one community. The health benefits alone are a compelling interest for the government to step in.
Right...Personally, I think tobacco should be banned. The behavior of cigarette smokers is abmoninable.
No blacks? No Irish? No Catholics?
That is a different matter, that is one of parenting and child absuse. The parks example would depend whose property it is but I doubt whether secondhand smoke harm, if it exists at all, would be an issue in an open space.
Firstly the courts have often overode liberty and constitution, that is nothing new. But businesses are still private property and this is nothing secret and involuntary, those who come onto the property know what is in store for them. To ban it is to ban private property.
As far as I know however it is not poison to anyone outside the limited area it is being done, if that. If you are informed then it is your choice, we should not allow the rights of property holders to be overridden.
Same legal principle at work.
Nope, advocating the case for the government to tell you what you can not pollute the air people breathe with.
Business owners CHOOSE to make their "private property" a place of public access which the government has a compelling interest to regulate.
Do you think you have the right to pollute the air your children breathe at home and in your car?
Smoking is legal, so it should be allowed wherever the property owner thinks is appropriate.
Are you aware of the official social teaching of the Catholic church? Or what is called Disttributism and the importance its places on private property well dispersed? Have you read the works of G.K.Chesterton or Hilaire Belloc? I suggest you check them out.
The ChesterBelloc Mandate
Personally I'm far closer to them than the usual libertarians who blindly claim all property is basically sovereign. But we need to preserve and protect private property still.
That is a different matter if it is actually owned by the public.Nearly all parks (at least where I live) are completely public. Sorry, but if you are sitting next to me and my children and light up, I can smell that poison. That is causing me, and more importantly, my children, harm. No one has the right to do that.
The right to private property.Please tell me what part of the Constitution is being violated by LOCAL restrictions on smoking in places of public access and which courts have upheld this opinion?
Not even close. You cannot choose your race.
It is private property if you don't like it you can leave.
The business does make a contract to submit to a level of standards and practices as dictated by the state. But the government should only have limited rights.
I guess personal responsibility for ones own actions is to much to ask?
In my home or car? Damn skippy.
It again boils down to personal responsibility.
That is a different matter if it is actually owned by the public.
The right to private property.
What? I was trying to show you what the social teaching of the Catholic church was. Do you deny that Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno are the basis of Catholic social teaching and that Distributism was built on these?You are going to use a BLOG entry as evidence to the social teachings of the Catholic Church to defend the speading of POISON?:rofl:rofl
There is no reason why public access should override the rights of private property is this instance as access is only given toYou want private property? Don't make it public access, and don't have children.
I don't see your point. I'm not saying that public property can't have these bans.How many parks are NOT owned by the public?
Of course it isn't absolute but it is a good and necessary thing and your ban is way beyond any reasonable limits on private property and goes bascially to destroy it. Remember this action is not in isolation and can be used as a jumping point to over abuses. If people know it is a smoking area then they have the choice not to go, it is that simple, anything else is an invasion of private property.The right to private property is NOT absolute - not even in the US and definately not in the country where I live.
But the legal principle is the same.
Don't make it public access. I suppose that means the private business owner can violate public health laws as well - because the diner can simply leave. :rofl
And keeping the workplace and place of public access free of a known toxin is NOT an example of the state overreaching its bounds.
Sadly, many smokers wouldnt know the phrase "personal responsibility" if it smacked them flat on the forehead.
Children have the right to grow up in a smoke-free environment.
There is no reason why public access should override the rights of private property is this instance as access is only given to
I don't see your point. I'm not saying that public property can't have these bans.
Of course it isn't absolute but it is a good and necessary thing and your ban is way beyond any reasonable limits on private property and goes bascially to destroy it. Remember this action is not in isolation and can be used as a jumping point to over abuses. If people know it is a smoking area then they have the choice not to go, it is that simple, anything else is an invasion of private property.
No one is saying this. What we are saying is that there is still private property and this ban goes well beyond the reasonable limitations to private property and basically destroys it because it stops you allowing smoking on your property when you make those given access to it fully aware of this fact.Acess is only given to whom? Sorry, courts have regularly ruled against this notion. And yes, the issue of race IS relevant here because it was the issue of race that opened up the courts to this issue in the 1960s, linking it to the rights of the government under the interstate commerce clause. Governments DO have legitimate interests. No property is ABSOLUTELY private. You can not do anything you want on your property, even if it is NOT public access.
Just waiting for those who defend the forcing of poison on others to show up in this thread.
You are completely unreasonable and destroying private property, you are actually trying to say people can't choose to go into a place they know smoking will take place. If you can't put up with people allowing smoking on thier private property then that is your problem, don't use the tyranny of the state to try and force this collectivism on them and destroy private property.I disagree. Placing limits in poison in a place of public access and accommodation IS a reasonable limit. I am frankly SICK AND TIRED of the tyranny of the smokers of the world, who make up a minority. Frankly, we are striking back. If you don't like it, go to your home, have no children, and smoke there. Otherwise, watch it. We are coming. No more will we tolerate your POISON!
No it is not. Comparing discrimination by race to smoking is nothing but a red herring.
How long would they be in business if this were the case? With or without government intervention?
The government disagrees...
A federal court has taken a look at the Environmental Protection Agency's science on secondhand smoke and called it junk
And many do. We should not punish everyone for the actions of others.
I am so sick of hearing "It is for the children!" Every time someone wants to pass something into law that takes away just one more of our libertys it's the same mantra. :roll:
Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) (1, 3, 5).
Second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous to health. It causes cancer, heart disease and many other serious diseases in adults. Almost half of the world's children breathe air polluted by tobacco smoke, which worsens their asthma conditions and causes dangerous diseases. At least 200 000 workers die every year due to exposure to second-hand smoke at work.
There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. Children, pregnant women, older people and people with heart or breathing problems should be especially careful.
I was only comparing the legal principle involved. Another poster said that the business could admit anyone they pleased. Asking if that means can they limit access based on race, ethnicity, etc. is a valid question.
Don't know? I have seen some pretty dirty places stay in business for a long time.
It is hardly unanimous.
So, the judges are scientists now? The body of scientific evidence relating to the dangers of second hand smoke continues to grow.
But you are willing to tolerate the production of poison into the air.
Second-hand smoke is a known cause of many childhood health problems. Children have the right to live in a home that is smoke-free.
Hmmm... OK I agree it most definitely is valid. But it is also guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
I agree and people can choose for themselves to go to the establishment or not.
Simple capitalist thinking, and it works.
No. But like you or I they can evaluate the evidence.
That would depend. You willing to give up your car for the sake of clean air?
No it does not directly cause anything, but it can contribute to pre-existing conditions.
Children have the right to be in a world that is pollution free. That ain't going to happen until we give up factory's, cars, energy etc.
WHO | 10 facts about tobacco and second-hand smoke
World health caught lying again...
PASSIVE SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL
FORCES - EVIDENCE - PASSIVE SMOKING DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL
Based on the lack of scientific evidence, there is no conclusive data which says secondhand smoke causes cancer.
Does Secondhand Smoke Really Cause Cancer?
Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer
Smoking does not cause lung cancer, WHO 1999 statistics. Editorial from the Journal of Theoretics