So Liberals...

[Orton's Arm]

It goes both ways.

 

What about a smoker's right to life, libery, and the pursuit of happyness?

Show me anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights where it says there's any such thing as "smokers' rights." There ain't no such animal. The right to life, on the other hand, is protected, which means my right to clean air trumps a smoker's right to obey his addiction.

Each property owner should decide for themselves what policies that they have in place.  If *everyone* had smoking, and it was a big demand, then a place would open up that banned it.  Economics 101.

Let's move on to Economics 201, shall we? Restaurants already differentiate themselves along two axes: price/quality, and type of food served. In a small or mid-sized town, a restaurant that tried to differentiate itself along a third axis would be overspecialized. That's why such restaurants didn't exist in my neck of the woods before the smoking ban came along. Instead, restaurants had smoking and non-smoking sections, usually with no walls between them. This was what smokers wanted, and was considered "good enough" for non-smokers.

[Chilly]

Show me anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights where it says there's any such thing as "smokers' rights."  There ain't no such animal.  The right to life, on the other hand, is protected, which means my right to clean air trumps a smoker's right to obey his addiction.

 

O rly? Theres that thing in there about Liberty, you know, freedom to decide for yourself how to conduct your own business?

 

You're stretching the right to life: you don't have to go in that restaurant. No one is sitting down and forcing you to inhale second hand smoke. If they were, then yeah that'd fall under that. However, you can choose to leave, can't you?

 

Let's move on to Economics 201, shall we?  Restaurants already differentiate themselves along two axes: price/quality, and type of food served.  In a small or mid-sized town, a restaurant that tried to differentiate itself along a third axis would be overspecialized.  That's why such restaurants didn't exist in my neck of the woods before the smoking ban came along.  Instead, restaurants had smoking and non-smoking sections, usually with no walls between them.  This was what smokers wanted, and was considered "good enough" for non-smokers.

733797[/snapback]

 

You're making this too complicated.

 

And thus, because there wasn't a huge demand from non-smokers, there was no smoke-free restaurant. People were content with the walls.

 

If you are running a restaurant, and making it smoke free would easily get you many, many more customers, you'd be dumb not to. If the demand is high enough, someone would do it.

[Orton's Arm]

It has nothing to do with smoker's rights.  Though I'm not surprised you'd parrot that little tidbit.  Try looking at the big picture - I know it's hard.

OMFG.  You should be walking around wrapped in a giant maxi pad. Please protect me from everything, Mother Government.  It says so in the Declaration of Independence, which is somehow now incorporated into the law of the land.  Feel free to find your history teacher and ask him or her to B word slap you.

Where the hell do you live?  There are virtually no markets in America today where eating establishments that allow smoking outnumber those that don't.  Anchorage is one of the last bastians and non-smoking restaurants outnumber smoking nearly 3-to-1.  That's market forces at work, more than anything.

No one is involuntarily subjected to smokers, that paragraph is nothing more than typical fear mongering coupled with ignorance.  If you were an informed hippy, you'd be alot more concerned about the poison coming out of your tap at home than a privately owned establishment that allows smoking.  One you can avoid all together, with relative ease.

 

Those who would choose freedom over security deserve neither.  The next time you wonder why the police aren't able to keep violent criminals off the street, remember you and the rest of the hippies decided it was more important for them to be out on ashtray patrol than catching criminals.  That's right, your inability to walk through a different door, into a market capitalizing business that caters to your particular whininess is one reason violent crimes continue.  How's that for fear mongering?

733790[/snapback]

That's the first time in a long time I've been called a hippie. Thanks for giving me something to chuckle over. I'll have to start using lines like, "Even a hippie like me can see the wisdom of the death penalty, the need to radically curb Third World immigration, and the need to force someone who wants to collect social services to get their tubes tied."

 

As for this discussion, I know the Declaration of Independence isn't a legally binding document. Still, we should be guided by its principles, including the protection of the right to life. In this case, the right to life means people have the right to breathe air that's as clean as it can reasonably be made to be.

[HereComesTheReignAgain]

I being a commie pinko socialist liberal terrorist sympathizer, also am for welfare, with a Big But, that but being, The system was overhauled in the 90's and needs to be overhauled again, to reduce fraud and waste...There are still to many people collecting,that could work and choose not too, instead they keep the gov'tsfree bottle of nourishment fastened to their ----sucker....Out of the 200 plus people in my family line, 1 is on gov't assistance with welfare, section 8, and ssdi, due to lupus...She is able to work, she chooses to be lazy instead, and because of that she is shunned from the family...Yes we all,use to give her a fair shake. not no more, she's a loser and a user and she don't care..

 

Quick note on our discussion on the homeless..

I believe that food program was a charitable donation, without gov't assistance..

I'm not positive, I'll check and post my discoveries here with an edit feature...

That is why I was vocal on that issue, I'm all for charity..

 

(Edit) Yes the mobile food program feeding the homeless was A charitable organization, far as I can tell, your taxes didn't feed the homeless and hungry..

No worries there

 

Now me being an evil liberal, I need to consume some baby's blood to keep the dark force powerful

733598[/snapback]

 

Welfare would be much more acceptable if those in control had the ability and/or desire to enforce eligibility requirements.

 

I have no problem with people choosing to give their money away. I just don't want the government forcing me to subsidize some lazy scammer's twinkies.

 

Now being an evil conservative, I need to drink poor defenseless Bambi's blood and hang out at my gun club enjoying my ill-gotten oil profits.

[Chilly]

As for this discussion, I know the Declaration of Independence isn't a legally binding document.  Still, we should be guided by its principles, including the protection of the right to life.  In this case, the right to life means people have the right to breathe air that's as clean as it can reasonably be made to be.

733810[/snapback]

 

No, in this case it means that people have the right not to breathe air thats filled with smoke if they don't want to.

 

It doesn't mean that everyone has to cater to what you think is right.

[blzrul]

To say that the prisons of today are a liberal's dream is a load of crap. A true liberal would seek to make them into institutions that could actually rehabilitate these creeps (which is probably impossible in many cases). Prisons are in actuality nothing more than warehouses for people we want to keep away from society and if they weren't given just enough leeway to commit crimes on the inside they're be out of control. That would mean there would have to be a much higher ratio of guards to prisoners, or that each prisoner would have to be in 23-hour per day lockdown or chained up somehow. We're too busy throwing money away on phony wars and Halliburton to pay for more guards and chaining people up conflicts with our smug self-image of somehow being any better than the rest of the world.

 

It's nice that you care so much about those poor prisoners having to live in horrible criminal environments but if you're looking to blame "liberals" you're even more deluded than I'd previously thought.

[Orton's Arm]

O rly?  Theres that thing in there about Liberty, you know, freedom to decide for yourself how to conduct your own business?

Suppose a business wanted to serve whites only? Would you still feel the same way about business owners having the liberty to conduct their own businesses? Or do you feel that business owners shouldn't get to decide their own racial policies, but should be able to ignore reasonable public health standards?

[KRC]

Are you opposed on principle to the government mandating workplace health and safety measures?  Do you think employers should be the ones to choose how much exposure employees have to mercury, lead, and other toxins, and that any employee who doesn't like the policy should just quit?

733786[/snapback]

 

It is the responsibility of the business owner to inform their employees (and prospective employees) of smoking policies, safety measures, toxin levels, etc. It is the responsibility of the employee (and prospective employee) to determine if the levels are acceptable to them. Notice: no government involvement.

 

It is not the government's job to protect you from yourself. To quote another poster here: "Personal responsibility: Get some!!"

[kegtapr]

Paging Bill in NYC, your thunder is being stolen.

[Chilly]

Suppose a business wanted to serve whites only?  Would you still feel the same way about business owners having the liberty to conduct their own businesses?  Or do you feel that business owners shouldn't get to decide their own racial policies, but should be able to ignore reasonable public health standards?

733820[/snapback]

 

First of all, what is a reasonable public health standard is or isn't is very debateable, and I think that we aren't going to agree on that one.

 

Your racism anaolgy doesn't apply here. Businesses aren't just banning a group of people due to race or another similar issue. In fact, if a business says "We allow smoking", they haven't banned *anyone* from the place, but rather have opened it up to everyone.

 

Its more like, say, banning everyone from a business that has a cold, because other people can get it too, and it hurts their health.

 

Its still very simple: Don't like the secondhand smoke at ______ business? Don't go. No one's forcing you to.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Paging Bill in NYC, your thunder is being stolen.

733828[/snapback]

 

He might be plotting with adam to stop global warming by sabotaging solar stations.

[Orton's Arm]

It is the responsibility of the business owner to inform their employees (and prospective employees) of smoking policies, safety measures, toxin levels, etc. It is the responsibility of the employee (and prospective employee) to determine if the levels are acceptable to them. Notice: no government involvement.

 

It is not the government's job to protect you from yourself. To quote another poster here: "Personal responsibility: Get some!!"

It sounds like you've thought long and hard about this issue, so I doubt anything I could write will change your mind. So without trying to argue with you, I'll just tell you how I see things.

 

In a perfect market, employers would be forced to adopt high health and safety standards. A perfect market means that there's complete information transparency, that there are numerous small companies employing small numbers of people, and that it's easy for people to switch jobs because the job search process is so easy and efficient.

 

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that's anything like this. Many employers are large; and therefore have considerably more negotiating power than individual employees. The job search process is inefficient. For these reasons, government regulations with respect to health and safety have, in the past, created improvement that otherwise wouldn't have taken place. I know that regulation can often go too far, or be too complex or too costly. While I see the danger in this, I also see danger in letting health and safety issues take their natural course while hoping for the best.

[cromagnum]

Welfare would be much more acceptable if those in control had the ability and/or desire to enforce eligibility requirements. 

 

I have no problem with people choosing to give their money away.  I just don't want the government forcing me to subsidize some lazy scammer's twinkies.  

 

Now being an evil conservative, I need to drink poor defenseless Bambi's blood and hang out at my gun club enjoying my ill-gotten oil profits.

733813[/snapback]

I agree with your first sentence, and overhauling welfare with eligibility requirements will reduce the public tit accossiated with the program, and give assistance to those that truly need it, there are people who need it, for handicapped reasons...

 

I already killed bambi and used his esofoughas as a deer call

And there is a budweiser plant off route 3, and the deer cross the highway to eat the grain spilled behind the plant at the fill tube that connects to the freight train my pops operates...Just about every dawn, there is a dead deer, hit by a car, hopefully a honda fit...I have picked up the still fresh deer and butchered it in my backyard...Man, those tenderloins are great with eggs on a sunday morning...

I have better deer stories in maine, with those liberal maniacs...

 

 

Those of us who are liberal , have been called all kinds of sh-- the last 10 years.

As I said before I believe in personal responsability and reduction in all gov't spending, (including wasteful military exspences)

 

Now I'm chilled, so I need to wrap up in the warm and fuzzy pink woobie and rest in my socialist nest payed for, by ME

And crank up a tune for us sophistacated liberals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qF8A26-Kh6c&search=hazzard#

[KRC]

It sounds like you've thought long and hard about this issue, so I doubt anything I could write will change your mind.  So without trying to argue with you, I'll just tell you how I see things. 

 

In a perfect market, employers would be forced to adopt high health and safety standards.  A perfect market means that there's complete information transparency, that there are numerous small companies employing small numbers of people, and that it's easy for people to switch jobs because the job search process is so easy and efficient.

 

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that's anything like this.  Many employers are large; and therefore have considerably more negotiating power than individual employees.  The job search process is inefficient.  For these reasons, government regulations with respect to health and safety have, in the past, created improvement that otherwise wouldn't have taken place.  I know that regulation can often go too far, or be too complex or too costly.  While I see the danger in this, I also see danger in letting health and safety issues take their natural course while hoping for the best.

733846[/snapback]

 

So, the government should regulate private businesses because changing jobs is too much effort (in your words, "inefficient")?

 

You are right, we are not going to agree on this.

[Bill from NYC]

Paging Bill in NYC, your thunder is being stolen.

733828[/snapback]

 

C'mon Brother. Finish your beer and pick up my slack!

[Orton's Arm]

First of all, what is a reasonable public health standard is or isn't is very debateable, and I think that we aren't going to agree on that one.

 

Your racism anaolgy doesn't apply here.  Businesses aren't just banning a group of people due to race or another similar issue.  In fact, if a business says "We allow smoking", they haven't banned *anyone* from the place, but rather have opened it up to everyone.

 

Its more like, say, banning everyone from a business that has a cold, because other people can get it too, and it hurts their health.

 

Its still very simple:  Don't like the secondhand smoke at ______ business?  Don't go.  No one's forcing you to.

You say the racism analogy doesn't apply, because the racism thing is about people being banned. But say a restaurant chose to not serve children; or suppose it chose to only serve couples, or only celebrities. These things should be legal, even though it's a restaurant refusing to serve someone.

 

Having established the general principle that it's okay for a restaurant owner to decide to ban certain types of people, the question becomes whether said owner has the right to ban them because of race. If the restaurant owner doesn't get to decide his or her own racial policy, why should the owner have the right to ignore a reasonable standard of public health?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You say the racism analogy doesn't apply, because the racism thing is about people being banned.  But say a restaurant chose to not serve children; or suppose it chose to only serve couples, or only celebrities.  These things should be legal, even though it's a restaurant refusing to serve someone. 

 

Having established the general principle that it's okay for a restaurant owner to decide to ban certain types of people, the question becomes whether said owner has the right to ban them because of race.  If the restaurant owner doesn't get to decide his or her own racial policy, why should the owner have the right to ignore a reasonable standard of public health?

733859[/snapback]

 

I see you're being sucked into the PPP briar patch. Once you're here, you can never leave. Well, unless you're Tenny, RiO or some other mullet.

[KRC]

I see you're being sucked into the PPP briar patch. Once you're here, you can never leave. Well, unless you're Tenny, RiO or some other mullet.

733863[/snapback]

 

They didn't leave by choice. We changed the locks when they were not looking.

[Orton's Arm]

So, the government should regulate private businesses because changing jobs is too much effort (in your words, "inefficient")?

 

You are right, we are not going to agree on this.

733853[/snapback]

The inefficiency I described goes far beyond the effort of changing jobs. You may also need to change cities, to uproot your family, to have your spouse change jobs, to leave your friends behind, to have your kids switch to a new school . . . well, you get the point. Someone might go through all that to avoid being buried in a coal mine.

 

But let's say you were a coal mine owner who didn't want to install reasonable safety measures. You could simply advertise in the help wanted sections of out-of-town newspapers. People ignorant of your abysmal safety record would sign up for the higher pay.

 

The problems I described in the first paragraph prevent people from putting real pressure on their employers with respect to anything but the most dire workplace circumstances. But as I illustrated in the second paragraph, an employer can exploit information asymmetries to avoid eliminating these dire circumstances.

[Bill from NYC]

If the restaurant owner doesn't get to decide his or her own racial policy, why should the owner have the right to ignore a reasonable standard of public health?

733859[/snapback]

 

Are you really this much of a fool, or just a blind, self centered hypocrite? I truly am sorry, but I can't think of a way to be nice about this.

 

We are (or at least I am) specifically talking about bars. Not libraries, not health spas, bars. GD Effing BARS! A "reasonable standard of public health?" Are you shi#@ing me?

 

People who drink are more likely to assault other people (mostly their wives), commit murder, destroy their families, and cause fatal accidents when driving than those who do not indulge. Now, do you care to dispute this? No? Well, where is your call to ban bars altogether, if not alcohol entirely. Alcohol makes the world less safe, right? How can we allow this?

Bars are specifically designed to serve people alcohol, and you are concerned about the owner of one of these places allowing his customers on his property to smoke? I think that any sane person should be able to see the inequity of this equation.

 

How about mandated signs posted in front of bars that indicate whether or not smoking is allowed? Would this be OK? Of course not, because it doesn't fit into your selfish, short-sighted desires.

Btw, I don't think you are a liberal, because there are only a few left. Liberals used to stand for individual freedom. Now, they are taking away homes from people and turning them over to big business.