Smoking Ban?? Update??

[dcsnomo]

If it isn't a right, what is it then?
It isn't illegal to smoke, therefore it becomes my right to do it.
To me, a privilege is something that can be taken away at any time for any reason.
But after reading the following, I can see where either could apply.
Dictionary:
Privilege:
1.) Restricted RIGHT or benefit
2.) Special honor
3.) Rights and advantages enjoyed by the elite
Right:
1.) Entitlement or freedom - a justified claim or entitlement or freedom to do something
2.) Morally appropriate thing to do

Nobody told Philip Morris they had " the privilege" to grow, and manufacture cigarettes.
Since the product isn't illegal they have the right, to the extent they are capable of assuming the risk associated with production, to make the product and sell it to the public to make a profit. AND - the government taxes them, AND smokers copiously for their right to do it.
I'm sorry, but I don't get all the semantics about rights vs. privilege. What does it matter?
Until they make it illegal, people will do it. But then, why not repeal prohibition too - and go back to the 1920's.
It's like you've all been reading too many press accounts of Clintons testimony about the meaning of the word "IS". Fine, if it makes you feel better - call it a privilege and I'll call it a right, because either way if I want to fire up a cigar and smoke it, nobody is going to arrest me when I'm out on the boat fishing, drawing on a Muriel.

No, no, no!

A right has a legal definition. Period. Your rights are those things contained in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. THOSE ARE YOUR ONLY RIGHTS! That's it.

These rights are inalienable, and the government cannot legislate against them.

Yes you can have a cigar on your boat, it is not the interior space of a government licensed business.

 

[dcsnomo]

You won't find anything in the bill of rights about pornography either, yet Playboy has been around forever making a product because they have a right to assume the risk of business to manufacture. If people don't buy the product - they go out of business. Nobody will revoke their privilege to make the product. This isn't trail access we are talking about.
So Playboy has been granted the special honor (privilege) to produce pornography? Or does Playboy have the freedom and entitlement (right) to be in business to produce a product to profit from its sale?

The founding fathers produced the Constitution some 300 years ago. There is no possible way they could have forseen the evolution of the country and free markets to create a document to properly govern or describe every event.

Playboy is covered under the RIGHT of free speech, US Constitution Bill of Rights, First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is the same right that is allowing us to have this free discussion on an uncensored internet.

 

[dcsnomo]

The founding fathers produced the Constitution some 300 years ago. There is no possible way they could have forseen the evolution of the country and free markets to create a document to properly govern or describe every event.

That is correct, and the ongoing interpretation of these documents is what the Supreme Court and the court system does.

 

[mxz_chris]

A "right" has a legal definition. It is those things that are in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that the government CANNOT infringe upon. They are limited, but specific...The right to bear arms, free speech and assembly, religion, due process, equal protection, etc. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SMOKE, OR DRIVE, OR FISH, OR HUNT, OR DRIVE SNOWMOBILES.

Legality of a product has absolutely nothing to do with your rights.

You are confusing use of a product vs. where you are using it. The privilege is not THAT you can use a product, it is WHERE you can use a product. You can drive your car drunk at 100mph on your own land, but driving on a public road is a privilege granted by the state, and you must follow the rules or be punished.

Because society has felt the need to protect itself against unsafe conditions, society has asked its government to regulate the sale of alcohol, food, motel rooms, and to regulate saftey in the workplace. To do this, the government requires business licensing. As a business owner I have no RIGHT to this license, operating a business is a PRIVILEGE that has been granted to me by the state. To maintain that license I must follow a variety of rules or the privilege of being in business will be taken away from me. Since July 5th I can no longer allow smoking. Therefore, when you are using my business I must enforce the rules that allow me to keep my license. The government is not telling you THAT you can't smoke, they are telling you WHERE you can't smoke. And where you can't smoke is in interior spaces of licensed businesses where other people are subjected to this vial habit.

Yes, it is a legal product. No, you can't use it everywhere.

Well said, but in Wisconsin I believe our constitution actually states hunting and fishing are a right. I think it was put in last year sometime.

 

[mxz_chris]

If it isn't a right, what is it then?
It isn't illegal to smoke, therefore it becomes my right to do it.
To me, a privilege is something that can be taken away at any time for any reason.
But after reading the following, I can see where either could apply.
Dictionary:
Privilege:
1.) Restricted RIGHT or benefit
2.) Special honor
3.) Rights and advantages enjoyed by the elite
Right:
1.) Entitlement or freedom - a justified claim or entitlement or freedom to do something
2.) Morally appropriate thing to do

Nobody told Philip Morris they had " the privilege" to grow, and manufacture cigarettes.
Since the product isn't illegal they have the right, to the extent they are capable of assuming the risk associated with production, to make the product and sell it to the public to make a profit. AND - the government taxes them, AND smokers copiously for their right to do it.
I'm sorry, but I don't get all the semantics about rights vs. privilege. What does it matter?
Until they make it illegal, people will do it. But then, why not repeal prohibition too - and go back to the 1920's.
It's like you've all been reading too many press accounts of Clintons testimony about the meaning of the word "IS". Fine, if it makes you feel better - call it a privilege and I'll call it a right, because either way if I want to fire up a cigar and smoke it, nobody is going to arrest me when I'm out on the boat fishing, drawing on a Muriel.

Prohibition was repealed by the 21st amendment.

 

[Firecatguy]

I'm not saying a smoker has the right to smoke anywere I'm fighting for the rights of the Bar owner's...

 

[dcsnomo]

I'm not saying a smoker has the right to smoke anywere I'm fighting for the rights of. Bar owner's...

And that is a valid point for the discussion. I think the issue here is that regulations regarding age of drinker, temperature of soup, hours of operation are cut and dried operational issues, but behavior of customers is not. It's like the state telling the bar owner you can't have Lady GaGa on the jukebox because we don't like it.

The difference is that legislatures now believe that smoking is dangerous to those who come in contact with the smoker, not just to the smoker. Therefore, under our desire to make workplaces safer it is not allowed. Smoking and Lady GaGa are both annoying, but smoking is dangerous and LAdy GaGa is not. So, the 22 year old next to you in the bar can annoy the **** out of you with the juke box, bit if he lights up throw his azz out.

 

[G]

Uh, isn't that the way this country runs for the most part, majority rules. The bigger group of voters gets to tell the rest how it goes, until opinions differ and things are changed?

Unfortunately, sledding is not a right, it is a privilege (you can't ride your sled anywhere you want any time you want). That is why we sledders need to do what Lenny has said and act responsibly, or we may not like the results in the future.

-John

Excuse me but no the majority does NOT control how the country runs. The Presidency is decided by the electoral college. It is possible to get elected without winning the popular vote. The President then appoints key powerful positions without a vote. See Pelosi, Reed And Frank. The general public has no say in most matters from then on. We elect a person that we trust and hope will represent our desires. You have only to look at the polls to see that the majority has problems with a lot of issues - the Arizona immigration law being at the top right now. The Congress and Senate reps are elected by popular vote (except for Al Franken) but it really makes no difference. One person can't get anything done so they have to get in bed with each other and soon all the campaign promises are out the window. Do you really believe that the majority of Americans would have supported outsourcing so many jobs overseas? How is it that the environmental wackos have so much power? They are certainly not the majority. Follow the money. Yes, Smoking is bad. So is Obesity. There is no end to the improvements that could be made to make us all happier and healthier. But there are a lot more important things going on that need the attention of our best and brightest before non-issues like this. O.K. I am done. You can delete my post. I feel a little better though.

 

[dcsnomo]

Excuse me but no the majority does NOT control how the country runs. The Presidency is decided by the electoral college. It is possible to get elected without winning the popular vote. The President then appoints key powerful positions without a vote. See Pelosi, Reed And Frank. The general public has no say in most matters from then on. We elect a person that we trust and hope will represent our desires. You have only to look at the polls to see that the majority has problems with a lot of issues - the Arizona immigration law being at the top right now. The Congress and Senate reps are elected by popular vote (except for Al Franken) but it really makes no difference. One person can't get anything done so they have to get in bed with each other and soon all the campaign promises are out the window. Do you really believe that the majority of Americans would have supported outsourcing so many jobs overseas? How is it that the environmental wackos have so much power? They are certainly not the majority. Follow the money. Yes, Smoking is bad. So is Obesity. There is no end to the improvements that could be made to make us all happier and healthier. But there are a lot more important things going on that need the attention of our best and brightest before non-issues like this. O.K. I am done. You can delete my post. I feel a little better though.

PHEW! You must feel a whole lot better, Grub! And probably about 20 lbs lighter, too! Just one procedural note, the President does not appoint Congressional leaders, Congress elects its own leaders.

 

[G]

PHEW! You must feel a whole lot better, Grub! And probably about 20 lbs lighter, too! Just one procedural note, the President does not appoint Congressional leaders, Congress elects its own leaders.

My bad. You are correct. Just kind of got caught up a little.

 

[Hoosier]

I still think this is a private property issue. You can drive your car 100 mph on private property and you should be able to smoke on private property, provided no minors are exposed (anyone of age is there on their own free will). The only compelling side of it that I can possibly see is for the workers, but I still don't think that holds water as the worker is not forced to be there. They don't have a right to the job.

Property rights is one of the foundations of the Constitution, and I hate to see how many are willing to ignore that when it doesn't suit their preferences.

I hate sitting in a bar full of smoke when I'm snowmobiling and just trying to enjoy a cheeseburger and move on my way, but I'm not the one who made the investment in the property and is providing the establishment. It's sure as heck not my decision what legal activities the owner allows in there. ****, that cheeseburger isn't good for me, and may offend the PETA guy sitting at the next table.

 

[cat_man_mike]

All of the political Yip Yap asside (and there has been a ton of it here and I wouldn't be surprised if this thread was deleted by the time I hit "post") the main point still remains that you still have your privilage/right to smoke, you just can no longer harm others in a public place by doing so. It is a law to protect, not regulate. I would imagine the number of packs of cigarettes sold since the ban has been in place has not gone down at all. So how can it be assumed that it is a ploy to harm the tobacco industry? (Conspiracy theorists, discuss) Like I said in my first post, go talk to someone who has contracted lung cancer without smoking a day in their lives and see how they feel about your "right".

 

[dcsnomo]

I still think this is a private property issue. You can drive your car 100 mph on private property and you should be able to smoke on private property, provided no minors are exposed (anyone of age is there on their own free will). The only compelling side of it that I can possibly see is for the workers, but I still don't think that holds water as the worker is not forced to be there. They don't have a right to the job.

Property rights is one of the foundations of the Constitution, and I hate to see how many are willing to ignore that when it doesn't suit their preferences.

I hate sitting in a bar full of smoke when I'm snowmobiling and just trying to enjoy a cheeseburger and move on my way, but I'm not the one who made the investment in the property and is providing the establishment. It's sure as heck not my decision what legal activities the owner allows in there. ****, that cheeseburger isn't good for me, and may offend the PETA guy sitting at the next table.

Offending the PETA guy is considerably different than injuring the waitress.

 

[lenny]

The only disagreement I would have with your last response is the statement, "smoking harms all - including those that don't smoke". Well guess what, there are situations where an individual can smoke and have zero impact on other people. Out in the woods, in his yard, in his OWN house - any non-confined space. The person has every right to do whats legal as long as they do not effect others. The problem is, I detect a slippery slope here and liberal incrementalism at work. First take away the right to smoke anywhere in public, no matter how confined the space is, then next, take away the right altogether. Again, we quibble about the definition of "rights". If it isn't illegal, IMO it becomes a right. The bill of rights/constituion could never have been so detailed as to specifically define each individual human right. This would never have been practical. And just because it isn't specifically defined or described in the constitution doesn't mean it couldn't be a right.
There are many sides to this story and many points to be debated.

there are many things a person can do that is legal. As far as I know it is legal for me to smash my finger with a sledgehammer or gouge out my eye with a spoon. I can dive into the shallow end of a pool, especially in my own pool. I can drink so much water till I die. better yet I can ride a sled in the twisties so fast till I run off the trail. We are lacking common sense here.

Right,,,privilege,,,, call it what you want but common sense has to take precedence. Smoking has not a singe benefit to a person, in fact it harms them unlike the food analogy sited. So when people don't have the sense to stop doing something that harms others around them, someone steps in and changes the rules. we do it in our own home, school, church, it's the way it is. It's a negative reaction to a problem, it's negative because someone is gonna be unhappy with the outcome. I do believe things like this for some public officials, to get the ball rolling for other regulations, very unfortunate. We have had talk about insurance companies charging higher premiums for obese, smokers, unhealthy people. I wouldn't want to insure a person who is lacking self control and eats like a hog, they suck the system at a higher rate than the healthy person. We need to practice social behaviors and concerns because the result of lack of social behavior has a huge impact and shows up with symptoms like what we are dealing with now. Were treating a symptom here people, lets go to the root of the problem. Harm doesn't come about by treating people with respect and decency

Moderation, consideration, respect and responsibility are much more of a crucial aspect of prevention. Most things can be prevented with consideration to others. We can put that into practice now to prevent other similar issues. Funny thing it, they wont come to the surface because they wont exist,

 

[ezra]

I think growing tobacco and smoking it is not in the Bill ofRights because the founding fathers never thought government would become a nanny state that it has and ban the use of a product that this country was basically founded on .John Rolf some how got a hold of tabaco seed (not ez to come buy in those days] brought it to James town in 1612 and the crop took off and by 1619 jamestown had exported over 10 tons of tabaco to Europe.if not for tabaco the early settlers would have prob not made a successful go of it. they were starving had nothing to trade their other crops were not working out because of early frost and late spring.

 

[russholio]

I still think this is a private property issue. You can drive your car 100 mph on private property and you should be able to smoke on private property, provided no minors are exposed (anyone of age is there on their own free will). The only compelling side of it that I can possibly see is for the workers, but I still don't think that holds water as the worker is not forced to be there. They don't have a right to the job.

Property rights is one of the foundations of the Constitution, and I hate to see how many are willing to ignore that when it doesn't suit their preferences.

That's exactly the point. It's not about whether smoking and second-hand smoke is good or bad, good or bad for you, right, wrong, offensive, whether it's a right or a privilege, or whatever. Right vs. privilege, well, that's an interesting topic and while I have enjoyed seeing both sides of it presented here, I don't think it's the crux of the matter. I think most of us have seen enough information on smoking and second-hand smoke that we would probably come to the conclusion that there really isn't much good about it. But, I'm confident that I'm reasonably intelligent and educated enough that I can make an informed decision on my own whether I care to expose myself to it. Just as I should be free to decide if I want to patronize a business, I should also be free to decide NOT to patronize it. I for one don't need the government to make that decision for me. I'd rather they concentrate their efforts on protecting me from things I CAN'T protect myself from -- terrorists, invaders, industrial polluters, etc.

 

[russholio]

On a lighthearted side note....didja know that way back in the day, the military actually ENCOURAGED smoking because it calmed soldiers' nerves before going into battle?

This little tidbit brought to you by your friendly neighborhood history geek.

 

[cat_man_mike]

NOBODY IS TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN'T SMOKE!!!!!! The law is telling you that you can't smoke somewhere that it could harm others. Feel free to smoke yourself to death (litteraly) in your car or the privacy of your own home. But when you make the choice to venture into public and visit someone's place of work, or someones favorite dining establishment, leave the cigarettes in the car. Did you ever think you are infringing on OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS? Why should the nonsmoker have to find another bar or resturaunt because he does not want to expose himself to second hand smoke? Nobody is saying the smoker can't go there, but by allowing smoking, you are making a nonsmoker make a choice. Either stay home, or risk lung cancer by second hand smoke. Either way, somones will is going to be forced on others. Either the smoker is forcing second hand smoke on the nonsmoking patrons or forcing them not to go there altogether, or the nonsmokers are forcing the smokers to take it outside. If you had to make that choice for the good of the people who elected you, which would you choose?

 

[700classic]

On a lighthearted side note....didja know that way back in the day, the military actually ENCOURAGED smoking because it calmed soldiers' nerves before going into battle?

This little tidbit brought to you by your friendly neighborhood history geek.

That's it boys! End of discussion! Kick back and take it easy now. Smoke'm if ya got'em!

 

[yamalaris]

Here in Iowa the only business blessed with inside smokin' are the casinos. Pretty sure there wasn't any lobby money slid under the table on this one???!!! Yeah, RIGHT!! As a bar owner, it is kinda nice not havin' yellow sticky goo all over the inside of my building, but what personal freedoms are next on the hit list?? Kinda scary!

No casino lobby money was slipped under the table, Indian tribes are sovereign nations and as such are not subject to our laws, the states cannot force them to go smoke free!