Indy Smoking Ban Kills Restaurants

[jbombelli]

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.

Well how about you explain it, then? Explain the connection between the Jim Crow laws and a smoking ban.

Oh, that's right. You can't explain it. You said so yourself.

 

[littletommy]

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

This is a response I expect to see on some of the hippie guitar forums I look in on occasionally. Why do people always resort to this stupid argument?

 

[manwithnoname]

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.

Justifying the state's encroachments upon private property rights by referencing the states's prior encroachments upon private property rights is hardly on point.

 

[gunowner930]

There are some real authoritarians in here.

The smoking debate is about property rights and free market solutions, not "public health," or one's "right" to violate property rights of another. One should not demand the force of government on another's property for one's convenience or comfort.

The free market has a funny way of picking winning and losers. Nonsmoking patrons and employees who can't stand being cigarette smoke they can... OMG work or patronize an establishment which does not allow smoking!!! And guess what smokers could work at or patronize establishments that did allow smoking. Everybody should have been happy. But we have mini-authoritarians who like to decide what everybody else's behavior should be and we got a statewide smoking ban in restaurants and smoking ban in bars in Marion County.

The call to ban smoking in outside public places is also asinine considering the amount carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions that one can inhale in a parking lot or in traffic, not to mention being around factories in places like Lafayette. Additionally, I can tell you as a smoker, that catching a whiff of cigarette smoke from somebody smoking outside is negligible to your health. If you don't believe me, smoke a cigarette and inhale and then tell me that catching a whiff of it outside has the same effect.

 

[rockhopper46038]

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.

And another rep for an extremely well written post.

 

[LEaSH]

Well you see Ted, in the 1960's there were individual business owners that wanted to discriminate against certain people based on the color of their skin.

In the year 2012, the Indianapolis City council has decided to ban certain businesses from allowing smoking. Regardless if the Business owner agrees or not - it is imposed against his/her wishes.

If the business owner does not comply with the dictation of the (democratic majority)city council, that business owner is penalized financially.

Oh, right I totally see the similarities between 1960 South and 2012 Indianapolis.

 

[Ted]

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?

Would you still want automobiles without pollution emission controls to limit their pollution discharge? Or a coworker with active Tuberculosis, or Legionaries walking about your office?

There are laws that we accept to limit excesses of such harmful things in our life. The dangers of tobacco weren't even acknowledged by the tobacco industry, until it was forced upon them in the 90s.

Freedom isn't free. Liberty isn't absolute.

 

[manwithnoname]

There are some real authoritarians in here.

The smoking debate is about property rights and free market solutions, not "public health," or one's "right" to violate property rights of another. One should not demand the force of government on another's property for one's convenience or comfort.

The free market has a funny way of picking winning and losers. Nonsmoking patrons and employees who can't stand being cigarette smoke they can... OMG work or patronize an establishment which does not allow smoking!!! And guess what smokers could work at or patronize establishments that did allow smoking. Everybody should have been happy. But we have mini-authoritarians who like to decide what everybody else's behavior should be and we got a statewide smoking ban in restaurants and smoking ban in bars in Marion County.

The call to ban smoking in outside public places is also asinine considering the amount carbon monoxide from vehicle emissions that one can inhale in a parking lot or in traffic, not to mention being around factories in places like Lafayette. Additionally, I can tell you as a smoker, that catching a whiff of cigarette smoke from somebody smoking outside is negligible to your health. If you don't believe me, smoke a cigarette and inhale and then tell me that catching a whiff of it outside has the same effect.

Well said, Sir.

Surely you did not expect the forum to be filled with defenders of Liberty just because there are a number of gun owners.

 

[littletommy]

I'm out of rep for the day, I've used it up in this thread! some of you, I'll have to get tomorrow.

 

[littletommy]

Well you see Ted, in the 1960's there were individual business owners that wanted to discriminate against certain people based on the color of their skin.

In the year 2012, the Indianapolis City council has decided to ban certain businesses from allowing smoking. Regardless if the Business owner agrees or not - it is imposed against his/her wishes.

If the business owner does not comply with the dictation of the (democratic majority)city council, that business owner is penalized financially.

Oh, right I totally see the similarities between 1960 South and 2012 Indianapolis.

I owe you again for that post.

 

[TopDog]

The smoking ban being debated yet again? mrjarrell you are a naughty boy.

I was under the impressing that the INGO brain trust had come to the understanding that the majority of us view the smoking ban as an infringement on the rights of property owners (mostly restaurants and bars). Most of us that dont smoke (I included) do not appreciate the lack of respect that smokers show to non smokers but do not support the government stepping in, ie; the smoking ban.

So perhaps I was wrong and the debate need to be beaten some more?

Carry On...

 

[LEaSH]

Well said, Sir.

Surely you did not expect the forum to be filled with defenders of Liberty just because there are a number of gun owners.

Nah. Some ride the effect of liberty, but only when convenient. Those same people would never stand up for someone else's liberty.

 

[gunowner930]

I owe you again for that post.

Repped him for you

 

[littletommy]

Justifying the state's encroachments upon private property rights by referencing the states's prior encroachments upon private property rights is hardly on point.

I'll rep you when I recharge!

 

[RockofStrength]

Would you still want automobiles without pollution emission controls to limit their pollution discharge? Or a coworker with active Tuberculosis, or Legionaries walking about your office?

There are laws that we accept to limit excesses of such harmful things in our life. The dangers of tobacco weren't even acknowledged by the tobacco industry, until it was forced upon them in the 90s.

Freedom isn't free. Liberty isn't absolute.

But the government is not the necessary force to influence those changes. If I want pollution emission controls then I can get a whole crap ton of people who also care about it to boycott, say, Honda, to do so, or perhaps throw money at a company to develop them and market them to businesses and they can use the emission controls as a marketing deal.

If a fellow wanders around with TB in my office, then I can complain to my supervisor or if I am his supervisor tell him to go home because it is in the best interest of any business to have healthy employees. Alternatively, I can quit my job if the situation does not improve.

Liberty is not absolute, I agree, but it is the people of the nation who maintain those broad limits over companies and individuals, not the government.

 

[ilikeguns]

It blows my mind how people will invite government intrusion into their lives. It is even more of a mindblower when the people aren't your typical leftwingers who do so on a daily basis. People who,when it comes to anything that would take away one of THEIR rights,will scream bloody murder about Big Brother's intrusion and their freedoms. Yet somehow, if it is something that will affect them personally in a positive way, they are all for it. You don't get it both ways people. Either the government has the right and power to infringe on private property or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose based on your personal likes and dislikes. You don't give the government power and then take it back when it suits you. Once they have it they don't give it up. How do you not understand that? How do you still believe their is even such a thing as private property if the government can dictate what you do on it? Do you wear your blinders so tightly that you convince yourselves that all is right with the world and Uncle Sam just wants what's best for you? What will your reaction be when they tell you what you can do in your own home? Still be all for it then will you? How far away is that really? Private property is private property right? I mean you bought and paid for it whether it is your home or your place of business. I feel sorry for all of the blind hypocrites out there and even sorrier for those of us who have to live with the consequences of your twisted thought processes.

 

[littletommy]

It blows my mind how people will invite government intrusion into their lives. It is even more of a mindblower when the people aren't your typical leftwingers who do so on a daily basis. People who,when it comes to anything that would take away one of THEIR rights,will scream bloody murder about Big Brother's intrusion and their freedoms. Yet somehow, if it is something that will affect them personally in a positive way, they are all for it. You don't get it both ways people. Either the government has the right and power to infringe on private property or they do not. You don't get to pick and choose based on your personal likes and dislikes. You don't give the government power and then take it back when it suits you. Once they have it they don't give it up. How do you not understand that? How do you still believe their is even such a thing as private property if the government can dictate what you do on it? Do you wear your blinders so tightly that you convince yourselves that all is right with the world and Uncle Sam just wants what's best for you? What will your reaction be when they tell you what you can do in your own home? Still be all for it then will you? How far away is that really? Private property is private property right? I mean you bought and paid for it whether it is your home or your place of business. I feel sorry for all of the blind hypocrites out there and even sorrier for those of us who have to live with consequences of your twisted thought processes.

I agree! It's why America is doomed. People just don't get it.

 

[lucky4034]

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?

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

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

Maybe we should just ban kids instead of cigarettes? I have no problem if you make your private establishment 18yo by choosing to allow cigarettes, but nothing is gonna fix child neglect unless you change the way cigarettes are currently regulated.

AGAIN... I DON'T CARE TO SEE SMOKING BANNED ON PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY... nor have I ever said they should be. Dumb parents should be banned....

Besides, as I've mentioned twice before... The more you smoke the more the government you despise reaps the rewards... the more rewards they reap.. the more powerful they become.

YOU FEED THE MACHINE THEN CRY WHEN IT DOES WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO. Stop crying... or stop feeding the machine.

 

[Bunnykid68]

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.

Not on my property they don't. They can go outside if they dont like my smoke

 

[manwithnoname]

Nah. Some ride the effect of liberty, but only when convenient. Those same people would never stand up for someone else's liberty.

Very true..... and well said.