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

[hsmith]

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

this doesn't even make sense

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

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

If you like not smelling smoke so much, why don't you start a bar that disallows it?

[hsmith]

i mean really, if you people think it is such a great idea, why aren't you putting up the money to start smoke free bars? why are you forcing, at gun point, the banning of it?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i mean really, if you people think it is such a great idea, why aren't you putting up the money to start smoke free bars? why are you forcing, at gun point, the banning of it?

because he's a socialist; it's easier for socialists to force everyone else to do something through the government than it is to just do it themselves. If they had to do it themselves, then there might be the potential for a real financial loss. And we all know that socialists are hypocrites at their core, and any potential for real personal financial loss is unacceptable unless it is in the form of government taxation.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

this doesn't even make sense

Law adopted in the US was made before the the constitution...how many times do I have to explain common law on here?

Common law decisions in America in 1750 would be adopted by the states in 1790 as US Law

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by hsmith

uh, there are plenty of bars that offer smoke free. There is a "ad campaign" of bars in MD that offer "free air," so they are marketing themselves as smoke free.

OH NOES TEH FREE MARKET AT WORK!

Fantastic!

Then there is no need for the bans.


They have nothing like what you are describing out here. Cook county is passing a ban soon and other counties near it (like the one I live in) are thinking about it.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i mean really, if you people think it is such a great idea, why aren't you putting up the money to start smoke free bars? why are you forcing, at gun point, the banning of it?

The same reason I'm "forcing, at gun point" collecting taxes for a national guard...it's a good idea and the people want it

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Law adopted in the US was made before the the constitution...how many times do I have to explain common law on here?

Common law decisions in America in 1750 would be adopted by the states in 1790 as US Law

He isn't questioning this, he is questioning your unsupported assertion that these laws endorsed extremely weak property rights.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

because he's a socialist; it's easier for socialists to force everyone else to do something through the government than it is to just do it themselves. If they had to do it themselves, then there might be the potential for a real financial loss. And we all know that socialists are hypocrites at their core, and any potential for real personal financial loss is unacceptable unless it is in the form of government taxation.

Socialists believe workers should elect their boss and the government not private persons should own the means of production, I believe in neither

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The same reason I'm "forcing, at gun point" collecting taxes for a national guard...it's a good idea and the people want it

It always amuses me how you fall back on that argument ... You act as if "the people" is some overwhelming huge majority of 95% or something. There are plenty of people that disagree with these laws, both smokers and non-smokers, so your assertion that "the people" want it is idiotic.

On the other hand, there ARE an overwhelming majority of people that believe that the Federal government should use tax dollars for our national defense.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Fantastic!

Then there is no need for the bans.


They have nothing like what you are describing out here. Cook county is passing a ban soon and other counties near it (like the one I live in) are thinking about it.

What prohibits anyone from opening a smoke free bar?

You say that people want this, then if they did someone would fill the need. THere is no reason to NOT fill the need if there is such a high demand.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The same reason I'm "forcing, at gun point" collecting taxes for a national guard...it's a good idea and the people want it

smoking in bars is the same as national defense

ok

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Fantastic!

Then there is no need for the bans.


They have nothing like what you are describing out here. Cook county is passing a ban soon and other counties near it (like the one I live in) are thinking about it.

I don't have a lasertag arena in my hometown. Lets pass a law.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

He isn't questioning this, he is questioning your unsupported assertion that these laws endorsed extremely weak property rights.

There is a long list of the the US endorsing "weak" property laws:

-If you are busy and cannot check up on another residential location you own, someone can sieze it without paying a dime by simply setting up a trailer and making a dirt road
-Deeds obtained from owning parties are not valid unless they come directly from the US government, if you buy a house on a reservation and then the US declares it not to be a reservation anymore, someone can buy your land you live on without even talking to you by going to a judge and asking to buy this "new state land"
-Information obtained at high cost is not real property as soon as you sell it to the public, which although it violates many tenets of patent law, property of such nature is held to a much loose standard
-If you go for medical testing and a doctor finds a rare substance that leads to a medical breakthrough, your own body parts are not considered your own property, they'd be considered the property of the first doctor who extracts them and finds them useful
-If you are not paying attention and someone starts using a section of the property you live at for a purpose (small garden, drive a bike, etc) you will lose that part of your property
-If you allow one small thing, like a phone line, you automatically submit to cable wires, electric grid wires, all sorts of a mess right on your property, because it's for the "greater good" of the community...this is not new law
-If you buy two stores so you're one store will be profitable, the government can seize the store if you do not follow covenant laws to the letter and a previous owner claims he did not think you would shut down the store so yours would survive
-If you buy a tract of land that is part of a general development to simply build houses (without any contract to live up to any expectation), like say around a lake, you have very little property rights as now you have an implied obligation to adhere to what the original planner and/or neighbors think will add to the value of the community
-If you are not informed about how a previous owner restricted his house, and the seller makes the deal, you are now subject to restrictions that may be several generations back, such as you being legally bound not to ever play music inside your own house
-If you want to transfer land in a deal that will basically take longer than 21 years to go from yourself to one relative/friends, it will be declared void and you will lose your property


That's leaving out a lot of law of the past 50 years, which ofcourse has been adopted by basically every state, conservative or liberal, and the supreme court

-Slum lords are criminals
-If you do not pay attention to your property and part of it is used for a criminal purpose, your house is siezeable without compensation
Ofcourse, I'm not even stratching the service, but I think everyone knows not only condos, but homeowners associations and any land you bought as part of several tracts sold to other owners...even under a plan that had no details...you are subject to any rules they apply and lose almost all your "property rights" to live in your house as you wish as long as it does not bother another

This is just a general summary, I'm not a property lawyer, but besides my knowledge of property law, I have never found ANY set of laws supporting strong property rights

In general, when our country was young, the emphasis was put on order of the federal government and the need to expand and use the land...over an individuals "rights" and we kept such laws and further expanded upon them

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by hsmith

What prohibits anyone from opening a smoke free bar?

Nothing.

Originally Posted by hsmith

You say that people want this, then if they did someone would fill the need. THere is no reason to NOT fill the need if there is such a high demand.

Obviously some people want it. They have gone crying to the government about it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I don't have a lasertag arena in my hometown. Lets pass a law.

Hells yes. I want one of those too.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Publius

It always amuses me how you fall back on that argument ... You act as if "the people" is some overwhelming huge majority of 95% or something. There are plenty of people that disagree with these laws, both smokers and non-smokers, so your assertion that "the people" want it is idiotic.

On the other hand, there ARE an overwhelming majority of people that believe that the Federal government should use tax dollars for our national defense.

Nearly three-quarters of Kansas voters responding to a recent poll said they would favor a state law or local ordinances prohibiting smoking indoors, including in bars and restaurants.

Kansas.com | 07/05/2007 | Poll: Kansans favor smoking ban

A super-majority, in deep red conservative Kansas, support it...yet I'm an idiot?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Nothing.

Obviously some people want it. They have gone crying to the government about it.

So why not open up a non-smoking bar for non-smokers, instead of forcing all bars to ban smoking? Smoking may be destructive to one's health, but it is their choice to put that shit into their body and your choice as to whether or not you CHOOSE to be near them. You don't (shouldn't) have the right to take away something they enjoy because you don't want to experience it.

I don't want to be subjected to small children throwing tantrums when I'm in the grocery store, we should pass a law banning children from the grocery store (or requiring that they be muzzled).

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Nearly three-quarters of Kansas voters responding to a recent poll said they would favor a state law or local ordinances prohibiting smoking indoors, including in bars and restaurants.

Kansas.com | 07/05/2007 | Poll: Kansans favor smoking ban

A super-majority, in deep red conservative Kansas, support it...yet I'm an idiot?

Lets poll those same people and see how many think the US government should hand them a $10K check for being good americans.

I think the numbers would be higher.