2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

No they shouldn't, no more then they have the right to be provided healthy foods. Leave people some amount of responsibility of their lives, I don't go to mcdonalds because it is bad for me. People can not go to a smoking bar because it is bad for them. Or they can, they can choose to do something that is bad for them. Smoking bans are prime example of choosing popular hysteria over liberty.

I don't see how eating a fatty burger is the same as having to choose whether to rush out the door of a public place you were inside because a smoker has decided to light up and pollute the room

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't see how eating a fatty burger is the same as having to choose whether to rush out the door of a public place you were inside because a smoker has decided to light up and pollute the room

Again, we aren't talking about libraries here. We are talking about bars and restaurants you know allow smoking.

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I didn't know Europe had smoked filled rooms at every single art museum

who said art museum? i meant bars and restaurants and overall public. since when did we start talking about art museums?

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by motivez

What right do you have to poison me in a public place though?

There are publicly operated bars?

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't see how eating a fatty burger is the same as having to choose whether to rush out the door of a public place you were inside because a smoker has decided to light up and pollute the room

If the owner of the PRIVATELY OWNED bar or restaurant chooses to allow smoking in his PRIVATE PROPERTY, then you have the choice to deal with it or go someplace else.

[smokie700]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

If the owner of the PRIVATELY OWNED bar or restaurant chooses to allow smoking in his PRIVATE PROPERTY, then you have the choice to deal with it or go someplace else.

thank you. 100% on point. Smoking either needs to be legal or illegal period the bans are plain bullshit and infringing on my rights.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

who said art museum? i meant bars and restaurants and overall public. since when did we start talking about art museums?

Who knows!

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

There are publicly operated bars?

Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself? I'm not talking about bars or privately owned establishments, I made that point in my first reply to the thread..

[Roonie]

Ban it all. I am so glad Seattle did as I enjoy going to bars and restaurants without breathing in cancer. Let the people kill themselves at their own home with their own loving family by their side who will be following them to the grave after all the second hand smoke. That way we can weed out the week and keep the strong.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by smokie700

thank you. 100% on point. Smoking either needs to be legal or illegal period the bans are plain bullshit and infringing on my rights.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I'll take your and raise you another

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

If the owner of the PRIVATELY OWNED bar or restaurant chooses to allow smoking in his PRIVATE PROPERTY, then you have the choice to deal with it or go someplace else.

I don't think there's much of a choice...you're not smoking so you're not actually enjoying a cigarette...its simply are you going to deal with cancerous agents or not

its like saying "if the owner of a privately owned bar or restaurant chooses to have abestos leaking everywhere, it's your choice, even if not everyone who comes in realizes abestos seriously damages your health"

I like how its been disputed for years/decades whether second hand smoke had ANY negative affect whatsoever, now everyone is supposed to know as common sense that it hurts you

[Kytro]

I don't think private property confers unlimited rights, nor that all private property is "equal".

Operating a business means you have some duty of care to your customers (eg: you cannot sell off food) / employees and it is within the scope of law to define how second-hand smoke is dealt with

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't think private property confers unlimited rights, nor that all private property is "equal".

Operating a business means you have some duty of care to your customers (eg: you cannot sell off food) / employees and it is within the scope of law to define how second-hand smoke is dealt with

What people don't seem to realize is that hundreds of years of US law both before and after the constitution do not give strong property rights

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

What people don't seem to realize is that hundreds of years of US law both before and after the constitution do not give strong property rights

when this country was founded, property rights were much stronger than they are now.

Life, Liberty, and Property.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

when this country was founded, property rights were much stronger than they are now.

Life, Liberty, and Property.

Not really, check out Johnson v. M’Intosh

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Not really, check out Johnson v. M’Intosh

Some info:

Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that private citizens could not purchase lands directly from Native Americans. The Court determined that the United States government had acquired ultimate title to the land based on the longstanding practices of European colonization, and therefore Native Americans could sell their land only to the U.S. government.

Thomas Johnson bought land from Piankeshaw Indian tribes in 1773 and 1775. The defendant, William M'Intosh (pronounced "McIntosh"), subsequently obtained a land patent to this same land by the United States government. The plaintiffs, lessees of the son and grandson of Thomas Johnson who had inherited the land in the interim, brought an action for Ejectment against Mr. M'Intosh in the Illinois District Court, claiming that it was theirs by virtue of their grandfather's purchases in 1773 and 1775. Plaintiffs contended that their title ran directly from the Native Americans who owned the property and therefore it was superior to defendants’ title. Defendant M’Intosh, on the other hand, maintained that the land belonged to him by virtue of the United States’ land patent. The district court held that defendant M’Intosh’s claim was superior on the grounds that the Piankeshaw were not able to actually convey the land because they never “owned” it in the traditional sense of the word. The Plaintiffs requested review of the decision which granted title to the property in that state to defendant M’Intosh on the basis of the land grant from the United States.

The Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether Native Americans had the power to give or sell land that had been "discovered" by European powers.

The Supreme Court upheld the finding for M'Intosh, ruling that individuals could not buy land directly from Native Americans, since the United States government had acquired ultimate title to Native American lands.

In a long and philosophical opinion, the Court outlined the history of European land acquisition in North America, laying the groundwork for its rationale behind creation of the "Discovery Doctrine". The Discovery Doctrine consisted of two key elements: First, European nations assumed free title to lands they "discovered"; Native Americans on those lands, according to this doctrine, retained the right of occupancy (like tenants in an apartment building), but had never really been considered "owners" of the land. ("Discovery is the foundation of title, in European nations, and this overlooks all proprietary rights in the natives.") Second, the doctrine established a restriction on alienability of the tribes' occupancy rights, which meant that tribes could sell their limited rights of occupancy only to the discovering sovereign.

The Court frankly acknowledged that this longstanding European and U.S. practice treated Native Americans "as an inferior race of people, without the privileges of citizens, and under the perpetual protection and pupilage of the government." This ruling later supported decisions of the Court upholding lesser rights afforded to residents of U.S. territories in the Insular Cases.

Johnson v. M'Intosh

[Ardentfrost]

404: relevancy not found

[thomez]

that shit has nothing to do with the thread