[alan]

Not gun related, yet bound to upset some amongst readers. For those so inclined, please carefully read and consider the comment about PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE OWNERSHIP THEREOF.


Study Says Smoking Ban Cuts Heart Attack Risk by Half
The Chicago Sun-Times reports, "People who live in Helena, Mont., got more than just smoke-free meals when they voted to ban smoking in public buildings last year. They also halved their risk of suffering a heart attack, a study presented Tuesday to a Chicago medical conference showed.

"Doctors said their study was the first to find that smoking bans--enacted in Helena, New York City and the state of California, among other places, and proposed but not passed in Chicago--might have immediate heart benefits."

In the name of "public health," smoking ban proponents often claim that the potential health benefits of smoking bans outweigh the imposition of such bans on private property owners. But Cato Institute Senior Fellow Robert Levy, writing about the New York City smoking ban in "Bloomberg Smokes Out Property Rights", says: "To put it bluntly, the owner of the property should be able to determine -- for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all -- whether to admit smokers, nonsmokers, neither, or both. Customers or employees who object may go elsewhere. They would not be relinquishing any right that they ever possessed. By contrast, when a businessman is forced to effect an unwanted smoking policy on his own property, the government violates his rights.

"That's the controlling principle. Private property does not belong to the public. Employing a large staff, or providing services to lots of people, is not sufficient to transform private property into public property. The litmus test for private property is ownership, not the size of the customer base or the workforce."

Christopher Kilmer, editor, ckilmer@cato.org

[bastiat]

There was recently a discussion of this on the radio. One of the callers said he had been out to california and noted how 'nice' it was to be able to go into bars that had formerly allowed smoking and are now smoke free. He used that as his justification for such a ban. No legal or constitutional standing, just that he liked it better without smoking, so it's hunky-dory to ban it. Apparently the fact that he thought it was much 'nicer' trumps the right of the property owner to determine whether or not to allow his patrons to smoke.

Too many people that say they like freedom (and I'm sure some of them will chime in when they see this thread) and individual choice are willing to cite the will of the marjority when it comes to smoking. They may not like it when government does X, but when they want government to do Y, they're all for it, basic property rights be damned.

"Yes, you are wearing government mandated chains, but we all voted for them. Besides, they're really nice and shiney and it makes me feel better to see you in them."

[Justin]

One of the callers said he had been out to california and noted how 'nice' it was to be able to go into bars that had formerly allowed smoking and are now smoke free. He used that as his justification for such a ban. You know why he said that? Because he's a fool.


Freedom is Slavery indeed...

[faustulus]

Did you know the two studies anti smoking rights groups use to support their bogus claims are fake. One is a WHO report that actually found that there was no statistical link between second hand smoking and disease, yet the headline on a WHO press release about the study claimed the opposite. The other study was done by the Envoiromental department and was later throw out by a federal court. The court found the study was "pure fabrication" finding that the numbers had been manipulated and the data the study collected did not support its conclusion.

[Khornet]

if there ever was a junk "study", this is it. ONE YEAR after a smoking ban, these 'researchers' can detect a change in disease risk? For a disease which is the cumulative effect of decades of behavior and biology? In a teeny town like Helena? In the tiny subset of residents exposed to smoke in public buildings?

There is simply NO WAY any responsible researcher could claim to find such an effect, and no responsible researcher would generalize a single data point to the universe. This ain't science, it isn't even junk science...it's politics.

Or as one wag said in another context:

"That isn't right....it isn't even wrong."

[Kevlarman]

While this "study" is highly dubious, I for one am happy that I do not have to put up with secondhand smoke in restuarants or bars. Wheter you're for or against smoking, you can't debate that inhaling any type of smoke is going to be harmful to your lungs.

[Al Norris]

Kevlarman, I don't much care what you think about smoking or second hand smoke. It's irrelevant to the entire topic. Address the issue of property rights.

It's "your" property and "your" business. What gives the government the authority to meddle in it? Because a majority of people say so?

A majority of people can tell you that you can't conduct a legal business? A majority of people can tell others they can't indulge in a legal pastime?

Smoking is bad. Guns are bad. Smokers are bad people. Gun owners are bad people. How can you be for the rights of one and against the rights of another?

There is a word for this kind of thinking.

[alan]

Al Norris:

Re your quite valid response to Kevlarman, his position might be summed up as follows, though I'm absolutely certain that some would disagree. His personal feelings, he is "happy" with smoking bans will always trump such arcane and unimportant issues as individual rights/responsibilities.

His "feelings" obviously superceede the questions you ask/the points you make, though I for one would like to hear him squeal when someone elses "feelings" become superior to his individual rights, as sooner or later, given his line of thinking, will surely come to pass, if it hasn't already.

[Pendragon]

This was beated to death and back on TFL.

If you think it is ok to allow smoking at work, then you should think it is ok to allow sexual harassment and sexual favors for employment/advancement.

You could actually make a pretty good libertarian argument as to why sexual harassment should be legal.

After all, if you dont want to ****/inhale, you should just go elsewhere right?

[bastiat]

Pendragon wrote:

If you think it is ok to allow smoking at work, then you should think it is ok to allow sexual harassment and sexual favors for employment/advancement.

I can't believe you actually made that comparison. This is what it has come to - demonizing smokers has become so acceptable that it is now proper to categorize them with someone who sexually harrasses another. It's an insulting comparison, both to smokers and to the integrity of someone who would make such a comparison. It's disgusting that you have to resort to such tactics, and it shows the bankruptcy of your position.

Here's a comparison that's not as silly: I don't drink. I don't like being around people who drink. A lot of fights start because people are drunk and act stupid. Drunk drivers kill thousands of people on the road each year.

So should I be able to demand that people should no longer be able to drink in public? Bars should be only able to serve soda, water, juice and milk. They'll be much more enjoyable to go to because you won't have loud, obnoxious people acting like they're really funny. Waitresses won't have to worry about being harrassed by drunk men (look, I got to use your sexual harrasment angle!). Thousands of lives would be saved because people won't be driving home from bars drunk!

Now most sane people would say that this is just ridiculous, because people who go to bars know that there are going to be people around who drink. They go into them knowing the risks, and remain there voluntarily. If they don't like what is going on there, they could leave. And after all, it's the bar owner's property and business, and he should decide whather he allows drinking and all the potential negative effects that come with it on his property.

The same goes for smoking: You go to a bar or restaurant of your own volition. You assess the situation and decided whether you want to patronize the establishment or go somewhere else. The power to choose remains in your hands. However, the anti-smoking extremists feel that choice is good for them but bad for smokers and businesses. They can't stand the fact that somewhere someone might want to enjoy a cigarrette and some bar own might have the gall to actually let them do it!

If this thread continues, I can predict what will happen, because I've seen it too many times: The pro-freedom side will cite property rights and a constitutional basis for the ability of property owners to allow smoking, while the shrill anti-smoking side will take up the tactics of the anti-gun crowd to justify their positions. To wit:
Anti-gun argument: "We should ban guns because all have a right to feel safe" (a Diane Feinstein original)
Anti-Smoking argument: "We should ban smoking because we all have a right to breath" (even at a private establishment I don't own and may never go to).
And as illustrated above, they're willing to make inflamatory comparisons that have no basis in facts (guns are only made for killing / smoking is like sexual harrassment). Throw in the "Guns kill / second hand smoke kills" comments that are just meant to inflame rather than inform, because there's no context provided with them.

It's sad that some of the same people who demand personal freedom, hard facts over emotional arguments, and constitutional safeguards when it comes to gun rights will abandon those same standards and principles when it comes to smoking. It explains why gun owners always have to worry about protecting their rights - because people say they want freedom for themselves, but when it comes to something they don't like, they're all too willing to have the other side's freedom taken away and ignore anything that might stand in their way.


edited because I used the wrong 'to' earlier. Doh!

[Ol' Badger]

I would like to find where that guy lives and sneak into his house and smoke a big stinky Cigar in his bed :fire:
Maybe in his closet too :D

[dustind]

well said Bastiat, my thoughts exactly

I hate smoking but respect others rights to do so, as with drinking, i will never do it, but respect others rights, and i respect property rights on a matter of principal

[alan]

Bastiat:

I believe that the subject might well have been "beat to death" at The Armed Citizen also.

In any event, I believe that your comments are the most lucid exposition on the subject that I recall having seen.

Seems that entirely to many folks either never understood/knew about, or have forgotten the virtues of Living while letting others do the same.

[MitchSchaft]

I want to hear somebody refute bastiat's comments.

[Pendragon]

Im busy at work, but the refutation is coming ;)

In the mean time:

Why cant I as a private business owner say things to female employees that are currently considered S.Harassment?

If it is "something I enjoy" and "it does not really harm anyone" and "they don't have to be there" then whats the big deal?

should we not let the business owner exercise his rights to be a chauvanistic exploiter - as long as he does not physically force anything - right?

I realize that is very provacative, but please explain the difference.

I am exercising a behavior that I enjoy, on my private property and I am not physically harming anyone - if people want to enjoy the benefits of being at my establishments, they should decide what they are willing to tolerate and make their decision accordingly.

[Note: I find sexual harassment as abhorrent as you all do.]

More to come.

[TheBluesMan]

Pendragon - When you respond, you might want to use the exaple of blackmail rather than sexual harassment. Libertarian purists believe there's nothing wrong with that. (Not to say that you're a libertarian purist, but maybe you are. I don't know.)

[Pendragon]

Thanks Bluesman,

Honestly, I just kind of pulled the idea out of the air, mulled it for a minute and ran with it.

I think the parallels are pretty striking.

Blackmail is nice just because it is not going to disproportionally affect women - but S.H. is essentially black mail.

Really - all three of these things involve the same elements:

1. Private property owner wants to engage in conduct that he enjoys or benefits from.

2. Employees or customers or patrons have to make a decision - will they accept the behavior to get the benefits of staying at the establishment or will they cut and move on.


If anything, you could argue that blackmail and S.H. are less abhorrent because they do not expose people to chemicals that may (I said "may" so drop it) create a health risk. Although "submitting to the end game of the harasser may lead to a bio hazzard :o exposure.

Ok all you defenders of freedom - tear it up.:neener:

[Al Norris]

Danged hard to beat a strawman to death, since he was never alive to begin with....

[Pendragon]

LOL!

If this was the worst thing we had to worry about, we would be so free that this discussion would be silly.

Still, its a fun argument. :neener:

[Yohan]

Smoking is bad for your health. Haven't the TV ads thought you guys anything? :rolleyes:




:uhoh:

[dustind]

Those anti smoking ads on TV have caused an increase in smoking, who would fall for such stupid propaganda?

Those comercials piss me off, but guessing by who pays for them, its no wonder, they are ment to increase smoking.

[bastiat]

Well, since a diversionary strike has been launched, I suppose it must be dealt with it before the real issue is tackled (which for the record is smoking, not sexual harrassment).

Here's where that silly little analogy falls apart: Sexual harrassment is a quid-pro-quo arrangement that is not part of the job description. Basically a "you're a secretary in my office, but if you want to keep your job, you had better sleep with me". It falls outside of the requirements to do your job. More on this later.

Now we have smoking, and I don't know how in the world these two things got put together, but someone did it. You come in for a job at a restaurant. You see that the restaurant has a smoking and non-smoking section. You can take that job or leave. You know the conditions of the job and it applies to all people working at the job. You are not being singled out, and you are not being asked to have sex with someone or lose your job. And it's certainly not that you didn't realize you'd have to deal with cigarrette smoke and your boss makes you sit 2 feet away from him while he deliberately blows smoke in your face under threat of termination. They are two competely different circumstances, and trying to draw any correlation between them shows a lack of thought in making the analogy.

You may say "Now Bastiat, do you really believe that it's okay to make an employee put up with second hand smoke just because they knew about it beforehand? You can't make someone have sex with you just because they knew they would be required to as part of the job."

But yet again you'd be wrong. The thing is that you _can_ require a person to have sex as part of a job - it's done all the time in the adult entertaintment industry in this country (which oddly enough, is really big in california - the same state that thinks that waitresses putting up with second hand smoke is a health risk. I wonder what they think the health risks are in adult entertainment...but I digress.) If you're an actress or actor in adult films, and you know your job requires you to engage in sexual activity or be fired, than you have no grounds to complain when you're fired for refusing to engage in sexual activity as directed.

The key to destroying this attempted sexual harrassment analogy once and for all is the nature of the job. Any person going into a waitstaff job - male or female, young or old, ugly or attractive- is going to have to put up with cigarrette smoke. And they're going to know it from the beginning that it's part of the job description. And that's what it is - a necessary part of the job. It's not something that's forced on them from out of the blue like a boss sexually harrassing another employee.

Alright. Now that horse is dead and buried. Let's stop throwing out distractions and get to the heart of the matter. Here's a question for the anti-smoking crowd:

Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

Yes or no?

[general]

OK- try this on for size....

It's my house (Biz) and I'll burn it down if I want to!

(I think that made the revelant point I wanted to convey);)

They are trying to put this on the ballot in C.S. Co and
I for one will oppose it - smoke 'em if you got 'em I say.

[bastiat]

OK- try this on for size....

It's my house (Biz) and I'll burn it down if I want to!

(I think that made the revelant point I wanted to convey)
I'm not sure what your point is, but you can destroy your own property if you so desire. However if you're in the city, you have to make sure it doesn't damage other people's property (and they're on their own property, not yours, so it really doesn't fit the smoking situation). Demoltion is done all the time. Burning really isn't the preferred method since fire can be unpredictable depending on the conditions surrounding your property. If you're in a rural area and want to burn down your property to destroy it, you should arrange it with the fire department, because they'd probably want to use your house as a practice burn (and they'd probably give you help with it for free in exchange for the training they'd get).

So yeah, you can burn your building down if you want to, just make sure you respect other people's property while you do it, otherwise you'll be in the same situation.

[general]

What I was trying to get across is ... (devils advocate here) is it ok to risk someone elses' health if they are unknowingly risking it? Or entering into some sort of contract by going into a smoky club of their on violition? (I guess the house thing was a little over the top - cigarettes don't quite emit that volume of toxins) follow me?

Answer to question - No.

[bastiat]

How can you say someone going into a place where smoking is going on is unknowingly risking something? According to everything on TV, the radio, on billboards and in the paper, second hand smoke is the devil itself. No person alive and able to see, hear, or read can claim that they haven't heard about second hand smoke or cigarrettes.

The real irony is that the claimed damage of second hand smoke greatly outstrips what they've been able to prove about it. The previously mentioned WHO report that was buried proves that the second hand smoke claims are as dubious as the global warming sideshow that's going on. It's all junk science pieced together to further a cause, not science.

[alan]

bastiat:

Re the question you asked, "Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

Yes or no?", pl;ease let me know if you actually get an answer.

Alan

[general]

I don't think there has ever been a confirmed death by the CDC with a listed cause of "second hand smoke" - but yes it does get the red headed stepchild treatment don't it.

[MeekandMild]

At the risk of getting flamed, I think if you have the right to smoke where I have to breath it I should have the exact same right to shoot past your ears. No, there's nothing you can do to prove the damage wasn't the result of your own lawnmower, rock music and your own shooting habits. Besides you got in my way and its a free country. :fire:


(No, I wouldn't really do it. With rights go responsibilities. A responsible smoker would not deliberately hurt another person and would assume anyone around them was an asthmatic or had some other major difficulty with smoke exposure, now wouldn't they.) :confused:

[bastiat]

..and what I predicted earlier becomes true.

I'm too young to be this jaded.

[alan]

Mek and Mild:

Hardly a "flame", but you might consider the following, re what you wrote, see below for reference. "At the risk of getting flamed, I think if you have the right to smoke where I have to breath it I should have the exact same right to shoot past your ears. No, there's nothing you can do to prove the damage wasn't the result of your own lawnmower, rock music and your own shooting habits. Besides you got in my way and its a free country."

Perhaps you "should" have the right you speak of, but in fact, you don't because your action is likely to cause physical harm to me, possible loss of hearing, or if your aim should be just a mite off, immediate death which is the worst form of "physical harm".

As to your "besides...", given the fact that you might bother and or otherwise annoy me, giving rise to my shooting you, my reference to the fact that it's a free country would not make much of a defense, agreed?

While I seldom smoke anymore, this past weekend I enjoyed a very good cigar, the first one in about 6 months, and I consume on the order of a couple of cigaretts a week, some weeks none at all, I do now and then spend time in various ginmills, where many people smoke. If you really believe it sensible, reasonable or anything else other than bloody stupid of me to expect all these others to cease smoking, at my appearance, or perhaps your arrival, how about explaining, given the fact that you can walk down the street, to that other establishment that runs on a no smoking here basis.

Other than this, I submit the following. In my estimation, and this is really likely to stir the pot, the "movers and shakers" amongst the anti-smokers, the anti-gunners, the anti abortionists are plainly concerned with gaining power and control, end of story. The issue of the moment, whatever it might be, merely serves as a hook, upon which they might hang their coat.

If you want to consider yourself having been "falmed", by my guest, but please note the smallness of the flame.

[Pendragon]

Excellent response bastiat.

However, I am not satisfied.

You are trying to put me to bed without supper, but I think a few points need to be brought into sharper focus.

1. Your response is predicated on the notion that:

a. The person who took the job at the smokey place knew in advance that they would have to deal with the smoke.

b. The person who took the job with the lecherous creep did not know what they were getting into.


Since the root of this monkey circus is the notion of private property rights, and the right of the owner to do as he pleases with his property, I feel compelled to point out:

In example "a", the owner can smoke or allow smoking at any time. This means that the employees could be in a smoke free environment for a few years, then the owner takes up smoking and hires a few human chimneys and suddenly, they have to choose - stay and suck smog, or pound sand.

In example "b", it is entirely possible that the sexual harassment could begin in the interview - with something of a casting couch arrangement. Maybe the owner does not do anything overt to his employees - maybe he just starts playing porno on the TV in his office and on the TV in the break room. Perhaps like the above example, he just starts doing it one day.

The way the laws and the courts are right now, you can be busted for S.H. simply for telling your buddy a sexual joke in confidence - but if someone overhears it, you can get pinched. Even worse, if I am in the room and I overhear it, but am not party to it, I can get pinched as well. I think in some cases the law goes too far, but I tend to agree with the spirit of the law.


So - if it is your private property, should you be able to post up X-rated pictures and play adult movies at the job site? I think that is a lot more analogous to smoking than just "put out or you're fired".

A lot of people view porn as harmless and a lot of people view it as addictive, corrosive, destructive, degrading and evil.

Kinda like a certain other product :neener:

Like someone mentioned, you cannot just burn your place down, neither can you shoot next to someones head. Some things are just considered too dangerous for society.

So, as I mentioned in the post on TFL, if you think "society" cannot ban or regulate certain behaviors, where do you draw the line?

If we say smoking should be legal for the cause of liberty, then what about:

Fire regulations for theaters?
Health Codes for restaurants?
OSHA codes for industry?

What about laws that require building inspections and require you to dispose of your garbage and sewage in a certain manner?

Could you not make an arguement that these are all infingements on the rights of private property owners?

Certainly.

Now I do realize that right now, the anti smoking laws are at the state and local level. Perhaps you would all be happier if there was a Federal law?

The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. It would be a small matter indeed to make the point that allowing smoke in public businesses is an issue that affects interstate commerce. (You know, tourism, the tobacco trade, etc - hey, if they can use it to ban machine guns...)

Ok, I had a few more points, but I am pretty tired right now... someone else run with this.

[faustulus]

I have left jobs because of how I felt about their policies. If I didn't agree with how they were operating the only thing that was keeping me there was myself.
Sexual harrassment is rude, and uncalled for. It should not however be illegal. You do not have a "right not to be offended." No one has to take it, you are not compelled to stay in one place and can leave anytime you wish. By the same token smoking should be the choice of the property owner, if people do no want to work there the employer will have to change his policy or offer greater monitary compensation, thereby hurting his bottom line, but the choice should be up to the owner. How would we feel if our city passed a law saying no guns in the workplace/resturants/department stores? After all the CDC says they are a public health issue, just like smoking. It may seem like a silly debate but make no mistake, the antis have found a way to attack smoking and they will do the same thing to guns, red meat and anything else they deem inapporptate for the vast unwashed masses.
Our problem is we all too often only worry about our own problems, and focus on our own fight. Trust me they are all linked. They will use tactics learned in other battles on us. I don't smoke and don't like smoking. I also don't like modern country music. But I am not asking that it be banned. Sappy country songs probably do more damage than second hand smoke. There are at least as many studies out to support that.

[Al Norris]

This is the never ending debate.

If growing tobacco were an unlawful act;
If manufacture of tobacco products were an unlawfull act;
If consumption (in and of itself) of tobacco products were an unlawfull act;

Perhaps the anti's would have a leg to stand upon.

The parallels to the gun industry are amazing. This isn't about health issues. It's about control. Pure and simple. Go back and re-read this thread with a view of substituting guns for tobacco. The arguements against tobacco usage are red herrings and strawmen. Nothing more and nothing less. They are in fact, the same arguements to one extent or another, as those used by the anti-gunners.

The fact of the matter is that we have a few misguided people who wish to impose their sense of morality upon the whole of society. The rights of the majority do not in all cases trump the rights of the individual.

[MeekandMild]

faustulus

Politics aside, if smokers were as polite as gun owners there would be no problem.

You never know when the guy you are bothering with your smoke has had major breathing problems and an attitude and a weapon. Think of the ordinances as a way of reducing unneeded social disturbance and violence. Also, consider the fact that if somebody puts out your cigar the hard way some day, I might be on his jury.

(To look at me you'd never tell I have a 70% breathing obstruction from smoking related cancer so in the absence of polite smokers who ask or move away without asking I really appreciate antismoking ordinances.)

[publius]

If you think it is ok to allow smoking at work, then you should think it is ok to allow sexual harassment and sexual favors for employment/advancement.

You could actually make a pretty good libertarian argument as to why sexual harassment should be legal.

After all, if you dont want to ****/inhale, you should just go elsewhere right?


Right. Your boss doesn't employ you out of the goodness of his heart. He does it because you make him money. If you want to make some lecherous, disrespectful oaf richer, that's your business. If you want to F*** him, that makes you a prostitute, a profession I believe should be legal.

Much more on the facts about secondhand smoke and the government jihad against tobacco can be found here:

http://reason.com/tobsuit.shtml

[Al Norris]

MeekandMild wrote:
Politics aside, if smokers were as polite as gun owners there would be no problem.
Politics aside, if nonsmokers were as polite as gun owners there would be no problem.

You seem to think it is all one-sided. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are as many impolite nonsmokers as there are smokers.

Since I couldn't tell that you are "breathing impaired," it would be incombant upon you to inform me of your condition. I flunked mind-reading 101. You could then politely ask me not to smoke around you. I have had this happen before, albeit rarely, and I have complied.

Where I get my dander up is for those inconsiderate jerks who think I'm a jerk for smoking and treat me as such. So it cuts both ways.

[alan]

Al Norris:

Re your observation on the fact that some folks seek CONTROL, what I described as POWER, see below a portion of my response to Meek and Mild, who expressed concern about being, as he described it, flamed.

Other than this, I submit the following. In my estimation, and this is really likely to stir the pot, the "movers and shakers" amongst the anti-smokers, the anti-gunners, the anti abortionists are plainly concerned with gaining power and control, end of story. The issue of the moment, whatever it might be, merely serves as a hook, upon which they might hang their coat.

You and myself, at least, seem to have grasped what is plain to see.

[bastiat]

Pendragon in particular and others in general:

The issue isn't about anything you've touched on like sexual harrassment, OSHA regulations, or anything else. It isn't whether or not the people knew there would be smoking in the restaurant before they went there, either to eat or to work. So please stop dancing around the real issue - either address it or move on. The real issue is property rights as it relates to smoking. Stop drying to draw parallels to other issues before you address the primary issue.

So I ask again, and I haven't received an answer from the anti-smoking side:

Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

Yes or no?

[Pendragon]

Sorry bastiat,

I reject your principle of narrowing the scope. I think the principles and parallels are legitimate because the question is:

Are there any limits on property rights.

Perhaps you could add "constitutionally valid" in there.


I think there are a lot of principles going back to the common law that justify socially imposed limits on the use of property - espcially within a town/city.


As to your "have you stopped beating your wife" question:

Do you believe that your assumed rights as a person that doesn't like to breathe second hand smoke, and who may or may not ever patronize a particular bar that allows smoking trumps the constitutionally derived property rights of the person who owns the business, pays property taxes, and earns their livelihood by operating the bar as they see fit?

1. I do not presume that my dislike of SS grants me any rights not held by other citizens.

2. I do not believe that my patronizing a bar or not has anything to do with the debate. Either they can allow smoking or they cannot.

3. I do not believe it has been conclusively proven that allowing smoking in a public business is a "constitutional right".

4. The fact is, you simply cannot "operate your bar as you see fit" if your views do not align with certain civil codes. You must have fire doors, you must be clean, you must be safe. Smoking falls within this sphere. You can debate the dangers of SS, but dangers aside, the annoyance factor is enough in my opinion to make it bannable. Same with many many other things.

Also, please note - there is no "right to smoke" explicitly recognized in the constitution like there is with RKBA. The slippery slope argument is weak because smoking does not have valid constiutional protection nor can you do it without (potentially) harming (or annoying) people around you.

Banning guns is prior restraint - because I *might* accidently shoot someone.

Banning smoking is not because my exposure to SS is a forseeable effect of public smoking.


I have a lot more respect for people who say they are willing to make blackmail and sexual harassment legal along with smoking in business - I disagree strongly, but I admire the consistency of thought...

[Chainsaw]

No matter how one feels about smoking, this thread is a good example to me as to why gunownership rights will be facing even tougher scrutiny in the near future.

It shows that it is relatively easy for a majority to repress a minority.

As Pendragon states RKBA is constitutionally protected, but does that really mean much at this point in time, where most in a position of authority have already wiped their arse with that document?

We are in for some rough times-----------Chainsaw

[George Dickel]

The other night the wife and I went out to eat. We were seated near a large group conisisting of 4 supposed adults and 5 of the most obnoxious, ill mannered brats imaginable. These brats were running around screaming and yelling at each other and slopping food all over the table and floor. I want kids banned from restaurants, malls, movie theaters and any other public place. I have the right not to be bothered by nasty little rug rats.

Yes I did express my extreme displeasure to the manager and in very ugly terms when she refused to do anything about the situation. Wrote the CEO of the corporation that ownes the chain and received a very nice letter of apology and an assurance that the manager would be spoken with. He wouldn't ban kids though.

[bastiat]

Well, Pendragon, that's probably as direct an answer as I can expect. May your chains rest lightly upon you...

[MeekandMild]

Bastiat I think your points are quite valid as far as they go. I agree with you you should have the right to run your own bar as you see fit. In 21st century America you are bound by a whole nest of regulations, fire codes, public health codes, tax laws, et cetera so good luck.

Most of the smoking ordinances I see in our town are addressed to conduct on "The Commons". The problem of the commons is one which dates back to medieval times, how to keep one or two good citizens from grazing too many cows and squeezing out the rest of us. I'm afraid that with the passage of the 1960's era civil rights laws relative to "public accomodations", private enterprise has long ago been drawn into the commons, like it or not.

Al, we seem to all be in agreement that it would be unwise, unkind and downright rude for me to walk up to strangers on the commons and pop off a few rounds past their ears. It seems also probable that IF I were stupid enough to do so the burden of public censure would be mine to bear.

On the other hand there are many who believe I should be free to light up my stogie on the commons and place the burden of avoidance on the poor sucker who happens to be sitting there having an asthmatic attack. And he'd damned well better be polite, no cougning in my face or wheezing. I expect him to say "please sir, I'm having trouble breathing," in plain words and with enought deference so as to not offend my delicate sensibilities.

George, a funny thought. We went out to eat a while back and were seated in a booth. A crowd of very "stout" folk came in and were seated in the booth behind us. After a few minutes of being shaken like a martini I asked to be moved to a table. The water buffaloes in the next booth were totally oblivious to the whole thing and kept right on grazing. :neener:

[Pendragon]

May your chains rest lightly upon you...


http://www.crimsonguard.com/forums/graemlins/smokin.gif http://www.crimsonguard.com/forums/graemlins/50cal.gif

http://www.crimsonguard.com/forums/graemlins/nono.gif

http://www.crimsonguard.com/forums/graemlins/evil_lol.gif


:neener:

[Pendragon]

...

[publius]

I have a lot more respect for people who say they are willing to make blackmail and sexual harassment legal along with smoking in business

What has blackmail got to do with sexual herassmeant? I mean, blackmail is ordinarily about hiding one's own wrongdoing, or it's about crimes of theft or possibly fraud. Sexual herassmeant laws are about, well, maybe I'm not supposed to say here at THR. Let's just say I can spell, and they're about money.

Sexual herassmeant laws deny the consensual nature of employment. Co as in two as in a free agreement. They can only rest on your right to your job. You have no more right to your job than your employer has a right to your labor. He can ask for whatever he wants, you can leave whenever you want. If you take away half of that equation, saying he can only ask for, or say, whatever is politically correct at the moment, but you can still leave whenever you want, it's no longer a free agreement. Your right to dictate the terms must be based on your right to your job, which I'll say again, you do not have.:banghead:

[Pendragon]

I fully understand that line of thought publius.

However, I do not agree with it.


I see blackmail and sexual harassment as very similar and in your line of thinking, they should both be legal - perhaps they should be - but the problem is, you cannot just make those things legal in a vacuum.

Sexual harassment is a form of exploitation. We frown on most forms of overt exploitation in our society and we have passed laws against it.

Are we a less free nation because we cannot get away with chasing our secretaries around the desk?

Could you argue that an employer adopting a "have sex, keep job" policy is guilty of some form of assault or rape?

It is interesting to note that to be convicted of rape, you do not have to commit violence - if someone indicates they do not want to go through with an act and you should reasonably know this and you continue, that is rape.

So... If a woman has a sick child and she has medical coverage for her childs condition - perhaps without expensive medicine his life would be in serious danger - her boss says "come on over to my place and we can discuss your future with the company".

I guess its just tough crap for her and her kid - she makes the decision - sex with creepy boss or her kid gets sicker.

Woohoo! Let freedom ring!


:barf:

[publius]

Are we a less free nation because we cannot get away with chasing our secretaries around the desk?


Yes, matter of fact, we are. First of all, the notion that that was a huge problem at any time is farfetched to all but NOW members, who see men as the enemy of humanity. The laws, far from changing our society, as usual are reflecting politicians following cultural trends, not creating them. Basically, chasing the sec around the desk became even less acceptable than it had previously been, and then the pols got on board and passed laws.

Getting back to those laws...yes, they've made us less free, as all laws do. The question is, to what benefit? In my life, I've seen a couple of business owners, known or strongly suspected by me to be innocent, persecuted by vindictive employees using these laws. They're "are you still beating your wife" laws. An accusation is guaranteed to be expensive and is potentially ruinous. The law has placed that kind of power in (99.9% female) employees' hands, and not surprisingly, many have an expanded view of what herassmeant.

Could you argue that an employer adopting a "have sex, keep job" policy is guilty of some form of assault or rape?


"Guilty" of running a whorehouse would be more accurate. Someone who sleeps with men for money is a whore, plain and simple. If she does it because her kid is sick, guess what? She's still a whore! That's her choice.

Of course, in the example you provided, if the employee is a good one, she could find other work and use COBRA laws to maintain her current insurance coverage for a year while she gets new coverage with her new company. A bad employee, so lame and lazy that she wants to keep working for this exploitive person because she knows she's lucky to have any job at all, is the only kind potentially "protected" by sexual herassmeant laws. She's also the kind most likely to abuse those laws to blackmail her employer.

Just my personal experience, but I've seen a couple of cases of the abuse of these laws. Haven't ever seen a secretary chased around the desk. I don't believe in the class warfare "all bosses are evil" message. I think most are good. I've never seen anything resembling real sexual harassment.

I conclude that the laws solve a non-problem, are not necessary, and are being abused.

[Pendragon]

"Guilty" of running a whorehouse would be more accurate. Someone who sleeps with men for money is a whore, plain and simple. If she does it because her kid is sick, guess what? She's still a whore! That's her choice.

Interesting take.

My mom had bosses literally chase her around the office when she was a young woman before she met my dad. She is a proud woman and there is no doubt she would never give in to such scum.

When I was 18, I was hired to be a sales person at a car wash (talk people into more services). Before I could even start, the owner told me he wanted me doing something else because he wanted a girl with nice T+A to be out there selling.

By the way - right now, if the woman with the child was in my shoes, she would be completely hosed:

1. My COBRA payments were $575 per month.
2. If I lose my job right now, my chances of getting another one are miniscule because there are thousands of people in my area who are out of work.
3. I have a serious medical condition that if I go without health care, could kill me literally at any time.

So I guess if Demi Moore was my boss - like in that movie, then I better just let her have her way eh?

I thought about this a lot last night.

I think that your position is morally bankrupt. It is not in the interests of freedom and liberty to allow people to require employees to do degrading things in order to keep their lively hood.

If this were allowed to happen, all sorts of mischief could ensue - even beyond the simple (but utterly sickening) exploitation of individual workers.

If I was "big boss" and you worked for me and your wife taught my child, I could essentially apply coersion and let you know that if my little angel did not get an "A+", that your job would be in jeapordy.

All sorts of disgusting power plays could be going on through out society. Favors being traded in one area for favors in another. This kind of coercion could be used against police who try and write citations or respond to domestic violence calls. It could be used to influence city council votes and land use policy.

Inside of a year, we could turn our communities into miniture bannana republics.

This is why Congress has the power to regulate commerce...

[MeekandMild]

I think this has digressed. To me the main point is rather "who has the prerogative to enforce social will"? Regardless on whether the social transgression is sexual, physical or whatever who is the authority to make the rules and settle conflicts?

The person involved? (Can you shoot your harrasser or the guy who blows smoke in your face?)

Family? (Do you tell your grandmother who then sends a squad of cousins to beat them into submission?)

Community? (Does the Lord of the Manor or the town council get to decide what is best?)

State, Federal, International, Interplanatery or The Galactic Overlord in increasing order of complexity and harsheness? (Galactic overlord blasts your planet if you smoke in bed or wink at the secretary?)

[aikidoka-mks]

I dont smoke but it seems to me if you dont like being in a smoke filled place then just do not go. let the owner determine if that will hurt their business and then they can act accordingly.

Mark

[Pendragon]

Mark, the problem is - why can't you extend that argument to fire codes?

If you dont think the business has adequate fire protection, just don't go...

If you don't think the restaurant practices appropriate hygine and safe meat handling, just do not go there...


There is a point at which it becomes anarchy - some would say that as long as there is a choice, then it is all about liberty and freedom...

However - there are far reaching concerns - about the effects of smoke long term, and about fire safety and sickness being spread by "Typhoid Mary" types, etc.

I think the tests, should be "community standards and essential liberty".

[aikidoka-mks]

Pendragon,

This subject isnt my forte but I will give it a shot. I dont think 2nd hand smoke rises to the threat level of fire and the risk of serious illness from bad hygiene. Sure it is nasty to some but the jury seems to be out on the health affects of second had smoke on a healthy person.

I do agree that at some point we reach anarchy but at this point I am not convinced that govt. needs to ban smoking in restaurants/bars as the danger has not been proven.

Here is an odd thought - I suppose some could say that we could do away with laws for fire protection and safe hygiene as long as each business publicly posted their lack of such features and what could result from such.

Mark

[Pendragon]

Fair enough to say that smoking does not rise to the level...

I think that fire safety and smoking are on different planes (and while your last idea is interesting, I am already up to my eyeballs in the smoking issue here ;))

So - if some people will agree that there is a place for a community to impose fire codes and health codes, then there is precident for the smoking ban.

The question simply becomes - where do you draw the line?

I think it is reasonable to let the line be drawn by community standards.

As long as we are not talking about "essential liberty" which I would generally lump as speech, self defense, etc - then I am comfortable with letting city councils and state legislatures pass anti smoking laws.

Same with sexual harassment laws.

I understand some people think all of these laws are a form of tyranny. What can I say? I guess I am 99% for freedom and 1% for oppression.

Sue me.

[faustulus]

Pendragon,
My problem is there is no hard science to back up the antis arguements. Some people have decided that they don't like smoke, therefore they want it all banned. I don't see any difference between that and people who don't like guns and want them banned.
Community standards is too close to mob rule. A community may decide that it is in its best interest to stone to death one of its members every year, this however doesn't make it right. You are right there is no constitutionally protected right to smoke, of course there is no consitutionally protected right to life either.
I understand where you are coming from. I don't like people who bring kids to movies, but I have to live with it. If I had a movie theater no kids, no smoking. But it should be my decision, not the governments. If people do not like my policies they can stay away from my business, if enough do then I would have to change or lose money, if more liked it then I could run it as I see fit and the people who didn't like it could go to another theater.

MeekandMild,
a. I don't smoke.
b. If you are somewhere and there is smoke and if adversly affects your health shouldn't you be the one to leave? If you are near a microwave oven and have an old pace maker do you want the microwave moved? In the end the choice is yours to stay or leave. No one is forcing you to be there.

[Pendragon]

Faustulus,

There is a place between total mob rule, "wolves voting to eat the sheep" democracy and a society of absolutely no rules or regulations.

Do you think people should be required to be what we currently recognize as a medical doctor to perform surgery?

There are many basis for these kinds of regulations and rules dating back to the common law days.

It is actually possible to ban boorish, unpleasant and disturbing behavior and still have a society where people can defend them selves and prosper and speak ill of the government and the dead and Liberace.

I do think people should be able to smoke like chimneys in their own homes - but I think that if a community decides to ban smoking in public places and places of employment, that that is not unreasonable.

Communities are defined by the level of law and regulation they impose. Some people like living in the more regulated areas, some like the areas that are more loose.

I like that only certain areas have the ban - it lets people pick and choose the kind of environment they want to live in.

There are a lot of things about CA that I hate - however, I put up with them and stay because there are things that I like here that make it (at times) worth putting up with the crap.

How about we just create a national smoking/no-smoking section :neener:

[Al Norris]

Pendragon wrote:
There is a place between total mob rule, "wolves voting to eat the sheep" democracy and a society of absolutely no rules or regulations.
That place would be the wolves voting and the sheep being armed!
Do you think people should be required to be what we currently recognize as a medical doctor to perform surgery?
Red herring alert! Outside the scope of property rights.
There are many basis for these kinds of regulations and rules dating back to the common law days.

It is actually possible to ban boorish, unpleasant and disturbing behavior and still have a society where people can defend them selves and prosper and speak ill of the government and the dead and Liberace.
Just as it is possible to have virtually no bans or regulations on property rights. The arguement swings both ways.

What is lacking is personal responsibility. And the more laws, rules or regulations passed the less responsibilites the people have. The less responsible people become, the more laws, rules and regulations are needed. The epitomy of the circular arguement.
I do think people should be able to smoke like chimneys in their own homes - but I think that if a community decides to ban smoking in public places and places of employment, that that is not unreasonable.
In their homes, their cars; the out of doors. If it's my property, in my business. The community cannot co-opt my property and call it a public place. The fact that we have allowed this shows how much we enjoy our chains.

If there were money to be made in non-smoking restuarants and grocery stores, they would already be in existance...Oh, guess what? They were! Many restuarants and stores banned smoking long before this current fad of defining them "public places" came into existence.

That it has taken a quasi legal fiction to produce non-smoking bars (among some other few places), should tell you something.

SImple economics will tell you that if a hotel begins to lose its' customer base because it allows smokers, then the business owner will adjust his model. There is no need to use force of law here.
Communities are defined by the level of law and regulation they impose. Some people like living in the more regulated areas, some like the areas that are more loose.
Communities are defined by the ethics and morals of the people inhabiting that particular community. While laws, rules and regulations may serve to reinforce the morals and ethics of the community, they are not the defining standard. You sir, have it backwards.

faustulus wrote:
You are right there is no constitutionally protected right to smoke, of course there is no consitutionally protected right to life either.
Yes, smoking is not a right per se. However, the ability to consume or use a product that is not prohibited is inherent in that dubious "pursuit of happiness."

As for a right to your life? It was recognized with the DofI and is generally protected from infringement by the 9th amendment and more specificly by the 2nd.

[MeekandMild]

b. If you are somewhere and there is smoke and if adversly affects your health shouldn't you be the one to leave? The answer to this depends upon whether we are on the private property of the smoker or are in the Commons. Allegorically speaking I will not give up my one cow's right to graze The Commons so you can graze your herd. The question is not whether the nonsmoker has the prerogative to defend his rights to remain, but whether he may rightly shoot the smoker, get his grandmother's thugs to beat him up, call the cops or get the Galactic Overlord to blast the smoker's planet. In our society it is customary to call the cops. :D

Now, reframing the question about restaurants and bars: Are these Public Accomodations which are the modern day equivalant of The Commons? I say that regardless of our own libertarian beliefs they are by reason of the Civil Rights Act. (We ARE "law abiding gun owners"?) Bar owners have a known and well proven recourse. They can stop serving the general public and go to a members only status. Then they can legitimately (regardles of the morality of it) ban Blacks, Jews, Uglo-Americans and... nonsmokers.

[faustulus]

Pendragon,
How about we just create a national smoking/no-smoking section
OK :D
My problem is where do you draw the line. I don't like ill-defined lines because then you get to the point where it is OK to stone someone eventally.

Al Norris,
I agree with you I was just making a point that not everything is enumerated in the Constitution.

MeekandMild,
I understand your arguement and this may sound bad but the civil rights movement used some questionable tatics in an attempt to do a good thing. To think that private business establishments are Commons is to strech the use of the commons and to ignore history. I am not saying that it hasn't been done only that it was wrong. As long as I pay my taxes and my policies do not directly affect the well being of my fellow man, (id est i can't kidnap him and kill him) I understand in your case smoking does directly effect your well being, however you are the exception not the rule, the impetus is on you to change your behavoir.

[publius]

I think that your position is morally bankrupt.

Well, likewise, I'm sure.

It is actually possible to ban boorish, unpleasant and disturbing behavior and still have a society where people can defend them selves and prosper and speak ill of the government and the dead and Liberace.


No, it's not. I note that you didn't address what has happened to my two friends, unjustly persecuted by vindictive employees because of this law. Could that be because you are reluctant to attempt what the law has failed to do: namely, to try to define sexual herassmeant in a way that does not result in workplace standards built around the employees who are easiest to offend?

Inside of a year, we could turn our communities into miniture bannana republics.


Panic! Every boss is just salivating to become a molester! :rolleyes:

This is why Congress has the power to regulate commerce..

Uh, no, it's not. If you'll read the Federalist Papers (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html), the intent of the INTERSTATE commerce clause was to ensure a nationwide free trade zone and prevent the states from waging trade wars, which frequently lead to the shooting kind.

The "living document" idea that anything "in or affecting" interstate commerce comes under Federal jurisdiction is responsible for the leviathan state we have now.

So - if some people will agree that there is a place for a community to impose fire codes and health codes, then there is precident for the smoking ban.


In August of 1992, the people in my old neighborhood South of Miami learned the hard way that a Dade County inspection certificate was worth the paper it was printed on, nothing more. It didn't mean the codes had been adhered to, it might just mean your bureaucrat had been bought off.

I bring this up because there is a voluntary, non-coercive, non-morally bankrupt way of ensuring safety: contract the job out to insurance companies. The other day, I left home, then remembered that I had left my coffee maker on. I continued on my way, certain that I'd return home to find my house still standing. Why was I sure? Was it because of the Consumer Products Safety Commission? Heck no! It was that little UL sticker on there. It tells me that people with money on the line, people who can be fired if they're wrong, said it was safe. (For those who don't know, UL means Underwriters' Labs, which would be the insurance company testing grounds.)

How does this apply to building codes and fire safety? Insurance companies can be agencies of trust, just like governments. The difference being, if an insurance company says a building is safe, and it turns out not to be, the insurance company must pay, and very likely some people are going to be fired. If a bureaucrat says a building is safe, but it turns out not to be, the insurance company pays and no none gets fired (at least, that's what happened in Dade County). I know who I'm more likely to trust.

So, on my way into any building, I should look at the front door, right beside where they put what kinds of plastic they accept. If I see nothing, I know I'm just taking the owner's word for it that the place is safe. I can go in, or not. If I see the sticker of some sleazy insurance company, I can interpret it to mean the same thing. If I see the sticker of some mid-level insurance company, I can be pretty sure that at least some inspections were done by someone who can be fired. If I see the sticker of a company with a really gold-plated reputation, I can be sure that that business has undergone really serious, continuing inspections.

And the really nice, non-morally-bankrupt part of it all, is that no one has to impose his version of what is right on the property of anyone else for us all to be just as protected as we want to (or can pay to) be.