Indy Smoking Ban Kills Restaurants

[Archaic_Entity]

The way I see it, this is a matter of debate between individual rights and the rights of a private property owner/corporation (in some instances).

A lot of guys here are arguing the flip-flop of the same argument they would use for firearms in movie theaters, banks, etc. Which, I think, is inherently an invalid argument.

A movie theater can, of its own volition, ban firearms or smoking from their property and that is their right. In Indiana, all that means is that if they see you doing either, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave, then you are trespassing. And that is perfectly fine in both case. You, as the customer, have the option to do your business elsewhere.

However, with this smoking ban, you are cutting out the individual rights of both the customer and the establishment. The law is legislated to deny the property owner the right to use his property as he sees fit, as well as disallowing the private individual the right to do as he sees fit. This is akin to the government legislating that firearms are not allowed in movie theaters, banks, etc regardless of what either a) the establishment says, and b) what the individual says.

I hypothesize that all of you on-board with this smoking ban would be in an uproar if this were the case with firearms, because it infringes on your personal liberties. And that's where you get rankled.

Now, you have an almost legitimate argument when you state that you have a right to not breathing what someone else is smoking. Which is why you avoid those establishments that allow such behavior. Furthermore, if you really wanted to get picky about it. The government could, conceivably, regulate smoking on public property, as it is state-controlled property, and then in any public (state owned) property you could breathe your fresh air. Your right to breathe clean air stops the moment you infringe upon someone else's right to regulate the usage of their property. Which is exactly why our right to carry a firearm in an establishment is superseded by a property owner's right to disallow our patronage. Likewise, a movie theater does not ban the owning of cigarettes, and lets you keep them in your pocket. But the second you light one, they can refuse your admittance. Because their property rights trump your individual rights. And property rights should trump state regulation.

There was probably more to add to that, but I got side-tracked at work... so that's all I got for now.

 

[manwithnoname]

Unlike most here... I don't think regulation stems from debating property rights. I think property rights are being regulated because the government is stuck between a rock and hard place.

On one hand EVERYONE knows that cigarettes are worthless.... And even smokers will agree that the world would likely be better off if there was no such thing. They are expensive... they are unhealthy... they are addictive and they have ZERO benefits from consumption.

The "government" is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Who is the "government'?

Sarcastic comment aside, and in the interest of disclosure, I did not read your post beyond the paragraphs above. I will read the others though.

Whom is EVERYONE?
Why are cigarettes without worth?
What do you think the world would look like today had there never been such a thing as a cigarette?
Is there really ZERO benefit from the consumption of cigarettes?

 

[88GT]

Fortunately most adults have the ability to seek clean air... kids on the other hand DON'T. I suppose they don't get that right until they turn 18 and right now there is NO protection for them concerning cigarette smoke.

Unwrapping the superficial concern of children's health (does anyone else think that has a "for the children" tone to it?), what you are arguing is that for parents who don't make decisions regarding their children that you find favor with, you want to co-opt the government to do what you can't: CONTROL THEM.

Are you too daft to figure out that not all parents are as smart as I am?

But some of us are smarter, fortunately.

Can you bottle feed your 12month old a pint of gin legally? NO
Can you smoke 10 packs of cigarettes in his crib while you rock him to sleep? YES

So what you're saying is that the ability to control people's parenting decisions hasn't reached its zenith yet, but you're still working hard to remove the egg and sperm donor as operational parents?

I would love to see this logic applied to a discussion on the natural rights documented in the Second Amendment and the purpose of the Second Amendment, but I do not want the thread to be hijacked?

May I open a thread with your quote in the 2A section?

If you haven't already be my guest. No need to ask. If it's out there, it's out there.

Thanks for explaining the difference between public and private...

And no sir... you only care about your rights not the right of others and that is the purpose of government. I pay for the government to protect me from being infringed upon by others... just because children don't pay taxes doesn't mean that they should not be infringed upon and that is an argument you can't seem to dance around.

Again and for the last time... NO WHERE am I saying that you shouldn't have the right to chose on private property. NO WHERE so stop saying otherwise.

I simply state that children should have protection from your addictions. PERIOD. You can't force your child to drink alcohol even though alcohol is not a banned substance... you can't have sex with your child even though sex is not a banned substance... so why should you be able to force them to breathe your cigarettes or anyone else's? You want a smoking section in your restaurant... make it 18yo+. The same way you have to be 21yo to sit at a bar.

Beyond that, smoking in public should be regulated 100%... Go in your car, go into a smoking designated area... Stop walking the street with cigarette in your mouth. I don't want to breathe your addiction.

And please don't tell me about your childhood and your health exam don't tell me about your car exhaust or whatever else....

Legally, until rather recently, children were considered somewhat like chattel. And in all honesty, that's probably the best way for society to function.

It may offend your sensibilities that parents make decisions you find deplorable. Get over it.

I've got a neighbor who is infuriated over my choice to homeschool. There's another friend who doesn't believe in letting children have any exposure to firearms before age 12. Should we let them co-opt the government with the excuse that my decisions are potentially detrimental to their well-being?

I'll bet I could find something in your parenting choices that pisses me off. Wanna put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels?

Name a benefit to cigarette smoke and I will gladly retract my statement... other than that, breathing your smoke doesn't benefit anyone in anyway. And be my guest... ban cars and whatever else. I just assume go back to a time when we didn't need them.

Unfortunately for your argument YOU DON'T NEED CIGARETTES in anyway. So stop comparing apples to oranges.

Straw man.

I know you know this line, so say it with me: "It's not about a need."

 

[Bunnykid68]

Straw man.

I know you know this line, so say it with me: "It's not about a need."

You mentioned straw man, I could smoke a strawman

 

[LEaSH]

You mentioned straw man, I could smoke a strawman

I hope that's some sort of slang I've never heard.

 

[level.eleven]

How does everyone feel about the other assorted public health issues that are imposed on restaurants? Do I have to keep roaches out my pantry or is that government intrusion? I mean, how can the government tell me that cockroaches can't lay eggs in the food I am going to serve to you tomorrow? What a nanny state.

 

[LEaSH]

How does everyone feel about the other assorted public health issues that are imposed on restaurants? Do I have to keep roaches out my pantry or is that government intrusion? I mean, how can the government tell me that cockroaches can't lay eggs in the food I am going to serve to you tomorrow? What a nanny state.

So the board of health is overseeing the smoking ban? Or are you just waxing philosophical?

 

[level.eleven]

So the board of health is overseeing the smoking ban? Or are you just waxing philosophical?

Waxing, 80's style.

 

[jbombelli]

Unlike most here... I don't think regulation stems from debating property rights. I think property rights are being regulated because the government is stuck between a rock and hard place.

On one hand EVERYONE knows that cigarettes are worthless.... And even smokers will agree that the world would likely be better off if there was no such thing. They are expensive... they are unhealthy... they are addictive and they have ZERO benefits from consumption.

Therefore certain areas of government (the ones in charge of public health and child welfare) will take any measures they can to regulate their use.... Why? Because of irresponsible users.... Those who chose to abuse the privilege. Those who force their kids or others to breath in their addictions. You are the ones who give these governmental departments the ammunition they need to start to regulate cigarettes. It's your fault and no one else. Similar to the way that drunk drivers have irresponsibly forced regulators to constrict our liberties to drink responsibly. Now if I have a single beer and drive home, I run the risk of blowing a .08 or whatever it is and getting a felony/misdemeanor.

That is "The Rock"... "The Hard Place" comes into play when the government looks at how much revenue they collect from addicts.

The ONLY REASON any of you have the liberty of walking into a gas station and purchasing a pack of cigarettes is because you have paid the government a substantial amount of taxes. MONEY is the only reason they don't ban tobacco... thats it. Has nothing to do with "your liberties"... NOTHING.

This is the "check and the balance"
------------------------------------------------------------------

Where do I sit in all of this? Right in the middle... I don't like seeing the government regulate small businesses anymore than I like sitting in a plume of another persons smoke. I'm also smart enough to know that the government will get their money one way or another, so as far as purchasing cigarettes goes... be my guest. Spend your whole check on them!!! If the GOV gets billions of dollars from big tobacco and its minions, they will be less likely to look at my paychecks. I'm all for smoking... I just don't care to breathe it in.

That's why I don't care if they remove it from public places altogether.

As far as regulation of private property... just remember the next time you read statistics about the effects of 2nd hand smoke... That those who chose to smoke in private places... especially in front of children are the ones that prompt action from the government and they won't be looking to take it out of their own pocket books. They will be looking at other ways to regulate and private property seems to be high on the list of targets.

Reading this thread would be like reading an article about James Holmes complaining about gun control. You are doing it to yourself so stop complaining are start being more responsible and less selfish next time you light up.

And no... I don't believe YOUR RIGHT to smoke cigarettes trumps my right to not smoke your cigarettes 2nd hand. Be more responsible... be a little more courteous and over time maybe those 2nd hand statistics will decrease and GOV will leave you alone. Until then... cry me a river.

So you're for the ban. You just have to post a bunch of paragraphs dancing around it, and trying to explain away your desire to strip someone else of their property rights, so that you can enjoy their property the way you want, when you don't have ANY rights to enjoy their property in any way, shape or form in the first place.

Even though you said this:

Again and for the last time... NO WHERE am I saying that you shouldn't have the right to chose on private property. NO WHERE so stop saying otherwise.

Because it's not possible to not take your kids to a bar where people smoke, right?

I'm through with you. There's no getting through to someone like you. You're one of those people I referred to earlier, that believes in rights and freedom, but only those rights and freedoms that YOU like.

 

[88GT]

How does everyone feel about the other assorted public health issues that are imposed on restaurants? Do I have to keep roaches out my pantry or is that government intrusion? I mean, how can the government tell me that cockroaches can't lay eggs in the food I am going to serve to you tomorrow? What a nanny state.

Despite the rhetorical nature of the question, I have a not-so-rhetorical answer: it's all government intrusion. Short of deliberate poisoning with the intent to do harm, a restauranteur can have/do anything he wants in his establishment AFAIC. I don't imagine he'd last very long as a restauranteur though.

 

[level.eleven]

Despite the rhetorical nature of the question, I have a not-so-rhetorical answer: it's all government intrusion. Short of deliberate poisoning with the intent to do harm, a restauranteur can have/do anything he wants in his establishment AFAIC. I don't imagine he'd last very long as a restauranteur though.

So why are there public health codes? Did the free market fail? Health codes aren't a new invention.

OT: This opening ceremony is kicking butt.

 

[88GT]

So why are there public health codes? Did the free market fail? Health codes aren't a new invention.

OT: This opening ceremony is kicking butt.

Same reason we have all the laws controlling behavior that doesn't infringe on another's rights: control, under the guise of collective good.

 

[Ted]

Same reason we have all the laws controlling behavior that doesn't infringe on another's rights: control, under the guise of collective good.

Under the guise of the collective good? I suppose that someone could think that the prohibition of building one's outhouse, upstream from where people collect their drinking water, to be intrusive.

Of course, they're generally referred to as either idiots, or sociopaths.

Sometimes governing is a good thing in order to prevent such. Otherwise a bullet to the head is the only viable solution.

 

[RockofStrength]

Under the guise of the collective good? I suppose that someone could think that the prohibition of building one's outhouse, upstream from where people collect their drinking water, to be intrusive.

Of course, they're generally referred to as either idiots, or sociopaths.

Sometimes governing is a good thing in order to prevent such. Otherwise a bullet to the head is the only viable solution.

It's not like people were capable of dealing with these problems before the existence of health codes without resorting to gunfights.

 

[88GT]

Under the guise of the collective good? I suppose that someone could think that the prohibition of building one's outhouse, upstream from where people collect their drinking water, to be intrusive.

Of course, they're generally referred to as either idiots, or sociopaths.

Sometimes governing is a good thing in order to prevent such. Otherwise a bullet to the head is the only viable solution.

Perhaps it would be beneficial to discuss the differences of "collective good" (good having the meaning of welfare, condition, or benefit) and "public good" (good having the meaning of merchandise or commodity).

You seem to want to confuse the two.

Also, I think you attribute arguments to my statement that I have not made.

 

[Ted]

Perhaps it would be beneficial to discuss the differences of "collective good" (good having the meaning of welfare, condition, or benefit) and "public good" (good having the meaning of merchandise or commodity).

You seem to want to confuse the two.

Also, I think you attribute arguments to my statement that I have not made.

• Collective, meaning a group that share, or otherwise are motivated by a common issue or interest. One's water on one's property, belongs to the owner of the property.
• Common, meaning the equal belonging or sharing. One's water on one's property, belongs to everyone.

As you appeared to equate collectivism to control, and in favor of property rights....I thought my statement was spot on.

 

[tatters]

I'm a hypocrite. I love the fact that I can go into a bar and not smell the smoke. And I like eating in bars because it is usually quieter, no kids, that stuff.

That said, property rights are very important as well. I hate a government infringement.

 

[88GT]

• Collective, meaning a group that share, or otherwise are motivated by a common issue or interest. One's water on one's property, belongs to the owner of the property.
• Common, meaning the equal belonging or sharing. One's water on one's property, belongs to everyone.

As you appeared to equate collectivism to control, and in favor of property rights....I thought my statement was spot on.

I did not equate collectivism to control. I said the common good was the excuse for control. There is a difference. Control is authoritarian. How is it that you think I am equating control to collectivism?

 

[Ted]

I did not equate collectivism to control. I said the common good was the excuse for control. There is a difference. Control is authoritarian. How is it that you think I am equating control to collectivism?

....

Same reason we have all the laws controlling behavior that doesn't infringe on another's rights: control, under the guise of collective good.

 

[MBG]

Let me preface this by saying I am not in favor of mandating what a business can allow on its private property if its legal to begin with.

Yes, the smokers are upset the government dare tell a private business what can go on on their property. How many people here think that the government banning smoking is ****, but the government making employers allow your firearm in your vehicle on their property is ok?

You can't have it both ways. So if your answer to non-smokers was previously we shouldn't go to these restaurants, then your new answer is YOU shouldn't go now. Stop posting and stand up to the man! Eat at home! Where you can die younger from smoking...