Smoking in Bars...

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by banana
I think it's the best thing to happen in my community, evar!

Oppressing people is fun!

[Wanker]

Originally posted by Tarmac
Oppressing people is fun!

Not sure about oppression, but breathing clean air in restaurants is a blast.

[vorticon]

wait wait...i got it...


you all say "if you dont like the smoke go to a different resteraunt" which basicly means let your choice of where to eat be controlled by the smokers...can you tell me why its all right for the smokers to choose where the non smokers (who are really iffy about that sorta thing) cannot eat but the government can't tell the smokers to step outside?

Why don't you read them yourself - you would know exactly what they were talking about. They give a very detailed analysis of all the past and present (swiss, etc) democracies, with though understanding of their strengths and weaknesses and tendencies and reasons of downfall.

yet right before this

Swiss have about 800 years history of direct democracy

the entire downfall statement is bull...sure they have weaknesses but so does every government...honestly i dont know much about governments but i do know when someone isnt making any sense whatsoever

Do you advocate taking children away from smoking parents in general? How about a private party where smoking is alowed that a family could attend? Should the house owner get jailed?

no...

the logic that "every country was ruled tyranically, so we must be too" is nonsensical

didnt say that...meant that every country had a leader who made big decisions on the military taxes what countrys they would trade with etc. etc.

Second, there were multitudes of countries in history who's governments - elected or not - did not "led" them anywhere but only administered the laws and maintained order

exactly...but somewhere along the line the government elected or not made decisions about what those laws would be...

Would it mean that you are killing your dining friends and helping friends? What would change if you collected money for food and gave some of it to the helpers? Just where is the limit that the government must invade and save your friends from you and themselves?

the government is preserving the non smokers right(to eat wherever they choose) in exchange for the smokers right to smoke however they choose...actually the owner doesnt even come into play because as any good owner he would want to maximize profits and by letting smokers smoker (without proper seperation for those who dont like the smoke...its a good trade off really) he drives away a large amount of paying costumers that may outumber the smokers...

Besides, what if a canadian commits a child-sex abuse - which may not even be a sex abuse according to their customs. Does our government in Washington, D.C. has a right to invade Canada and punish the offender? Not really. We do not have a jurisdiction. By the same token, I do not see why the government in Washington, D.C. has a right to enforce its silly laws in my State of New York - based on preferences of other states. We can sort our own issues here.

your right...but it wouldent change the fact that if canadians changed it you would applaud it...

[FUNKED1]

Originally posted by banana
Not sure about oppression, but breathing clean air in restaurants is a blast.

What was stopping restaurants from banning smoking in the past?

[Wlfgng]

I still say that "bar-owners choice" works...

that way you can choose where you want to drink...
with or without breathing in someone elses smoke.



it's all about making my own choice.

[miko2d]

vorticon: you all say "if you dont like the smoke go to a different resteraunt" which basicly means let your choice of where to eat be controlled by the smokers...can you tell me why its all right for the smokers to choose where the non smokers (who are really iffy about that sorta thing) cannot eat but the government can't tell the smokers to step outside?

 It is not the choice of smokers - it is the choice of a private business owner to open a restaurants for the smokers. He bears full financial responcibility for the success or failure of that venture. He serves certain customers. By serving them he does not deny you an opportunity to get service elsewhere. Private business is based on consent.
 Government on the other hand bears no responcibility for the outcome and it denies people an opportunity to get service they want. Government decisions are based on force only.

 It seems like you somehow feel entitled to get a smoke-free dinner at some establishment - let's say of a guy named Bob. What gave you that entitlement? What if Bob is running a swimming pool or a smithy or a shooting range and you want to have dinner only at that place? Does that make him obligated to switch from whatever line of business he was in and drop his customers and serve you?

didnt say that...meant that every country had a leader who made big decisions on the military taxes what countrys they would trade with etc. etc.

 Not really. In US it's the Congress has the authority over the budget and to declare war and regulate trade - and in the beginning it was actually practiced. And in US the president has more executive power than in most countries.

...but somewhere along the line the government elected or not made decisions about what those laws would be...

 That is the exact point when a legitimate government turns into a tyrany. Most democratic governments became tyranys fairly quickly but other forms existed for centuries. Constantinople existed for 1100 years, IIRC, and was militarily conquered by turks with the help of europeans.
 You are confusing Law with legislation passed for law.

 It is a common misconception that governments create laws because most historical documentation is left by the governments who attribute to themself the deeds they did not do. Society emerges and develops the laws and customs and then the government appears to administer them - except in case of outright conquest.

 Anyway, in an oppressive state it's a government that creates law - no question about it. Most states were/are oppressive. I am not arguing that US governments cannot ban smoking - surely they can.
 All I am claiming that people do not have rights. After all how can one say he posesses rights if somebody else determines whether he can exercise them or not. Ownership or posession means control. If someone controls your rights, it means he owns them, not you.
 
your right...but it wouldent change the fact that if canadians changed it you would applaud it...

 Sure. I could even exert whatever influence I could on them that does not involve coercion. That's the difference - everything that the government does is based on coercion.

 miko

[lazs2]

miko is correct... it is not the choice of the smokers or the non smokers... it is the choice of the property owners...

you and I have no right to vote on whether  a private bussiness allows smoking or not.  

We may have the right to vote on if public buildings allow smoking or not and we may have the right to make bussiness owners post warnings that smoking is allowed in their establishment.

workers have no right to work in a smoke free environment... they have the right to refuse to work in one where smoking is allowed.

lazs

[vorticon]

All I am claiming that people do not have rights. After all how can one say he posesses rights if somebody else determines whether he can exercise them or not.

hmm...isnt there a little government document that assures certain rights...in canada its called the charter of rights and freedoms...in america i beleive its called the constitution...are  you saying that those documents have no real meaning because someone can (rather difficultly but can) change something on it and will probably lose the next election if they do?

laz...you made sense there...and i mostly agree...till that end bit...and you do realize that you just agreed with miko...

workers have no right to work in a smoke free environment... they have the right to refuse to work in one where smoking is allowed.

exactly so where they can work is limited by smokers...the smokers are infringing on the workers right to work where they want

t is not the choice of the smokers or the non smokers... it is the choice of the property owners...

yes...but what im ticked off at is the fact that the smokers smoking there means that non smokers are forced to choose not to do whatever service is offered there...

[lazs2]

workers do not have the right to work where they want.   They have a right to choose where they apply for work and the right to quit if they don't like the conditions.

Again... it is not the smokers who are telling the workers where they can work..   It is simply the employer telling potential employees that the environment they wish to work in is either a smoke free one or not.

lazs

[vorticon]

workers do not have the right to work where they want. They have a right to choose where they apply for work and the right to quit if they don't like the conditions.

exactly...and the smokers are creating conditions in which the worker does not like thus causing them to simply not apply there in the first place...

[Tarmac]

I've always wanted to work in a sawmill.  But saws are loud and unsafe.  Can someone please ban saws in sawmills?

[FUNKED1]

Nothing is stopping an anti-smoking worker from opening his own establishment.  Nothing.

[lazs2]

the smoker did not create any such condition..   it was not his choice in the first place.   The choice was that of the owner of the establishment and, after that, the patrons based on the OWNERS choice.

If you don't agree with the owner don't go there.    Maybe you are a vegetarian and the sight of meat sickens you.... Are the meat eaters in the restaurant to blame?

lazs

[vorticon]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Nothing is stopping an anti-smoking worker from opening his own establishment.  Nothing.

but watch smokers scream when he does...

[Tarmac]

Originally posted by vorticon
but watch smokers scream when he does...

No, if he did, they probably wouldn't scream.  They'd either go somewhere else (that whole free will thing), or they'd refrain from smoking there.  The owner wouldn't be banning smokers from his establishment, he'd be banning the practice of smoking.  Big difference.