Indy Smoking Ban Kills Restaurants

[Ted]

......Quit trying to force other people to conform to YOUR ideals ON THEIR PROPERTY. If everybody would do that, the world would be a far, far better place.

The same argument was used in the deep South in the 1960s too.

 

[LEaSH]

Property rights also include the ability to control what harmful substances that are introduced into my body.......a body which also my property.

While I may not have the right to not be offended, or the right to be free of inconsiderate people....I still have a right to not be introduced to harmful substances entering my body. Its almost akin to telling someone that they don't have a right to not be shot, simply because they are in proximity of a shooting range.

It's not akin to that at all and you know it. Your rights and your responsibility to put things into your body are completely under your control and always have been.

 

[lucky4034]

 

[88GT]

I also have a right to walk down the street and not be exposed to stale cigar smoke from the guy blowing it at passersbys too. Though he has a right to smoke outside as well.

Where do we draw the line?

I don't see that you do. Or rather, I don't see regulating others' behaviors as a direct means of providing you with something as a right. I see this argument as functionally equivalent to a "right" to an education, a "right" to adequate housing, a "right" to a job.

Rights are a freedom to act. If it's a thing or a condition that you are claiming is a right, I don't think "right" is being used correctly. You have a right to breathe clean air, but only inasmuch as you should be unfettered by others and government to seek it out in a free market environment, whatever form that market takes. Just like you have a right to an education in that no one can forcefully prohibit you from taking action to getting one, but not to the point where we have to regulate their behaviors such that those regulated behaviors are what enables you to get an education.

 

[Indy317]

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. I will also say that selfishly it is very nice to go out to eat and no come home smelling like an ash tray.

although i hate seeing the little man struggle to keep doors open and make a living, i myself enjoy the ban..i can actually go to a bar and enjoy it.
(not saying i didn't go and enjoy myself before) but still it's a little nicer.
it's pretty bad that a 'smoker' can't go and have dinner and be away from the smoke for an hour or so.

Boo hoo, I don't like getting lung cancer nor smelling like an ash tray.

Smoking cigarettes falls under a completely different category of regulation for me. I will get flamed for it, but why should someone be allowed to infringe on my right to breath clean air?

With that said... I'd care less if they banned tobacco all together. Its a completely useless drug that has little to no known benefits....

You want to kill yourself, fine, do it in the privacy of your own home and kill your kids.

The above are examples of why many are totally OK with a controlling government, so long as the government doesn't control something they like. This is why our future will be one of complete control. I don't care how many gains we have made for firearms rights. We will have more mass shootings, and types of guns and magazines will be regulated in some fashion. Don't worry though, folks really don't need anymore than ten rounds in a magazine, and folks really don't need an AR-15, or AK-47. If you want to carry your gun, fine, just do so in your home.

I see this support for government control on private business and I know why it gets easier for more and more people to not care. People demand someone sign the loan documents, take all the investment risk, and fully support government coming in and telling people how to run their business. Again tell me why I should support public carry? Why should I support allowing cheaper, dangerous, polluting lead ammo to be used? Why should I care about mass killer recommended high capacity magazines being legal?

If I go out to eat and I don't want smoke, I go to a place that is smoke free or eat at home. I don't run to government demanding rules and regulations. Seems many folks here have taken a page from the Bradys' when it comes to getting government to use laws to give them what they personally want. Then the same people will cry when hi caps and assault weapons are banned. These same folks will decry LEOs who lock people up for having high caps in states where they are banned, but cheer the same LEOs writing tickets to business owners who allow smoking, or the court system issuing orders to take the property for smoking law violations.

The amount of personal narcissism in this country is amazing.

 

[manwithnoname]

although i hate seeing the little man struggle to keep doors open and make a living, i myself enjoy the ban..i can actually go to a bar and enjoy it.
(not saying i didn't go and enjoy myself before) but still it's a little nicer.
it's pretty bad that a 'smoker' can't go and have dinner and be away from the smoke for an hour or so.
i understand i'm not addicted and i understand it's a hard habbit to break.. but c'mon it's an hour?!

What's a loss of Liberty and private property righs so long as the tyrant is a bit happier?

 

[LEaSH]

China smokes like a nation of Dice Clays. Good info. Wonder if they can smoke in businesses.

 

[Ted]

.....I was pointing out that by that logic one could easily ban darn near anything a person does that has strong potential to cause harm, and in doing so hoped to point out that that line of logic is moot.

A holstered weapon is of no danger to anyone. A unlit cigarette isn't a danger to anyone either.

I'm not opposed to either in my presence. I am opposed to either when the products discharged from their use, affect my health.

 

[jbombelli]

The same argument was used in the deep South in the 1960s too.

Strawman much?

 

[LEaSH]

A holstered weapon is of no danger to anyone. A unlit cigarette isn't a danger to anyone either.

I'm not opposed to either in my presence. I am opposed to either when the products discharged from their use, affect my health.

You should oppose walking into a smoking establishment rather than supporting the of loss private business owners property rights.

 

[jbombelli]

The above are examples of why many are totally OK with a controlling government, so long as the government doesn't control something they like. This is why our future will be one of complete control. I don't care how many gains we have made for firearms rights. We will have more mass shootings, and types of guns and magazines will be regulated in some fashion. Don't worry though, folks really don't need anymore than ten rounds in a magazine, and folks really don't need an AR-15, or AK-47. If you want to carry your gun, fine, just do so in your home.

I see this support for government control on private business and I know why it gets easier for more and more people to not care. People demand someone sign the loan documents, take all the investment risk, and fully support government coming in and telling people how to run their business. Again tell me why I should support public carry? Why should I support allowing cheaper, dangerous, polluting lead ammo to be used? Why should I care about mass killer recommended high capacity magazines being legal?

If I go out to eat and I don't want smoke, I go to a place that is smoke free or eat at home. I don't run to government demanding rules and regulations. Seems many folks here have taken a page from the Bradys' when it comes to getting government to use laws to give them what they personally want. Then the same people will cry when hi caps and assault weapons are banned. These same folks will decry LEOs who lock people up for having high caps in states where they are banned, but cheer the same LEOs writing tickets to business owners who allow smoking, or the court system issuing orders to take the property for smoking law violations.

The amount of personal narcissism in this country is amazing.

Very well said, and repped.

I've said many times, American's don't care about freedom and liberty. They only believe in those freedoms THEY support and exercise, and then only for those people THEY approve of. This narcissism, as you call it, will be the ultimate downfall of all of our freedoms, one way or another.

 

[Ted]

It's not akin to that at all and you know it. Your rights and your responsibility to put things into your body are completely under your control and always have been.

Tell that to the two cops and the dead bystander that were shot in Pendleton last night.

 

[manwithnoname]

Very well said, and repped.

I've said many times, American's don't care about freedom and liberty. They only believe in those freedoms THEY support and exercise, and then only for those people THEY approve of. This narcissism, as you call it, will be the ultimate downfall of all of our freedoms, one way or another.

And this is very well said and repped.

Many claim to long for Liberty, then **** their pants when she shows up.

 

[LEaSH]

Tell that to the two cops and the dead bystander that were shot in Pendleton last night.

What does that have to do with this thread?

Shameful.

 

[lucky4034]

I don't see that you do. Or rather, I don't see regulating others' behaviors as a direct means of providing you with something as a right. I see this argument as functionally equivalent to a "right" to an education, a "right" to adequate housing, a "right" to a job.

Rights are a freedom to act. If it's a thing or a condition that you are claiming is a right, I don't think "right" is being used correctly. You have a right to breathe clean air, but only inasmuch as you should be unfettered by others and government to seek it out in a free market environment, whatever form that market takes. Just like you have a right to an education in that no one can forcefully prohibit you from taking action to getting one, but not to the point where we have to regulate their behaviors such that those regulated behaviors are what enables you to get an education.

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.

 

[jbombelli]

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.

Don't take your kids into bars or sit them in the smoking section of a restaurant.

Is it really that hard to figure these things out?

 

[mike8170]

Boo hoo, I don't like getting lung cancer nor smelling like an ash tray.

Another reason I f-ing hate people. Controlling hypocrites. See it first page in the thread.

 

[RockofStrength]

A holstered weapon is of no danger to anyone. A unlit cigarette isn't a danger to anyone either.

I'm not opposed to either in my presence. I am opposed to either when the products discharged from their use, affect my health.

So does the discharge from the car that just drove by; so does a cough from that coworker with the stomach flu who came into work today instead of staying home in his own house to keep his disease away from others. If it were truly a concern for your health that was paramount, why wouldn't we ban those things too?

 

[Ted]

Strawman much?

Its completely on point.

If you can't see the validity of the statement when used upon the statement quoted, then nobody can explain it to you.

 

[Ted]

What does that have to do with this thread?

Shameful.

A statement to the quote used. People don't have absolute control over what goes into their bodies, as the example demonstrates.