Smoking ban upheld in my city!! Critique my letter....

[Jeeper]

I assume that everyon here that thinks the goverment cant regulate on "private" property thinks that all OSHA regulations, asbestos requirements, and alike are completely un-needed and would support working in a workplace that didnt have any health standards for their employees. You would happily work around toxic waste with no protection and so forth. Just like back in the good old days in the mines where everyone died of black lung and other diseases. Otherwise you would really be quite a hypocrite.

 

[Moparmike]

I wouldnt work there because it was unsafe. You forget that libertarian principles dictate that a company like that would go down in flames due to the unpopularity it would recieve from its employees dropping like flies.

No server, bartender, or restaurant owner would come foward and complain about smoking and join the Smoke Free side. All of them said it would impact them negatively with the money lost in revenues and tips. If smoking was bad enough to discourage the workers and customers enough to harm the business in the libertarian utopia, then the free market process would force everyone to become smoke free. Otherwise, its a moot point.

 

[Pendragon]

I wouldnt work there because it was unsafe. You forget that libertarian principles dictate that a company like that would go down in flames due to the unpopularity it would recieve from its employees dropping like flies.

Or, all business would operate with minimal regard to safety and health and they would still find people to work there.

Why do you think these regulations came to exist? Was it because private industry was doing such a bangup job keeping the work environment safe and healthy and harassment free, etc - that the government was afraid a spontaneous libertarian utopia could break out at any moment?

Newsflash - the Constitution is not overwhelmingly a "libertarian" document. It grants congress the right to regulate interstate commerce - how are they supposed to do that without, in some way, infringing on your limitless private liberty?

 

[thefitzvh]

Ensuring that buildings are up to code, and that things are done properly to ensure employee safety are a tad different than allowing a bar owner to let people smoke in his bar.

That's why people GO TO BARS... to sit around, and entertain their many vices...


I'm not a smoker (read comments above) and I still think that a bar or restaurant should be able to allow smoking if it wants. Nonsmokers can either deal, or go elsewhere.

Same with employees.


James

 

[CommonSense]

Hi Jeeper: You bring up an interesting question. At what point should the government interfere with business. Let’s keep the conversation on thread though.

1. Do you think smoking is unhealthy?
2. Do you think working in an environment with smoking people will harm your health?
3. Have you ever seen a warning regarding the risks of being around tobacco smoke?
4. Have you or anyone you know suffered harm from tobacco smoke?

If you answered YES to any of those questions, you should not visit places where the owner allows smoking if it worries you.

That said, no. I would not work in a place with asbestos or coal dust. Why? Because I answered the same questions I just asked you above and decided that wasn’t for me. I don’t care to put myself in what I believe to be harms way. Hypocrite? If you insist.

But seriously, working around asbestos or coal dust is now regulated with laws that dictate you have to wear certain clothing and breathing apparatus because of the proven effects of these items.

If you believe it’s been proven that second-hand smoke is killing you, you’d be wise to wear special clothing and breathing apparatus if you feel forced in to entering a business that allows smoking.

 

[Moparmike]

Interstate commerce has nothing to do with my bar or restaurant. Each establishment is a separate entity, performing its own business for itself or for an owner. That Ma & Pa diner down the road has nothing to fear from the regulation of Interstate Commerce in relation to its smoking/non-smoking status.

Now if it was Intrastate commerce, you might have an arguement, albeit weak.

 

[CommonSense]

Pendragon: Bullets have been proven to kill people. Should those be banned as well? Okay, you have the right to bear arms – just no ammo.

 

[Ryder]

RE freedom

There is no end to appeasing control freaks. It's only a matter of time until they conquer the secondhand smoke issue enough to move on to the next item on their hit list. As was mentioned gun ownership is at risk but what about microwave radiation? I can hear it now. "Are not the waves of your cell phones intruding on my body? I don't care if you want to cook your brain and die after 30 years of use but what about me? Why should I be forced to live in a soup of microwave radiation 24 hours a day?". Scientific evidence exists that cell phone use does cause a localized elevation of brain tissue temperature. Why wait another 10 or 15 years until people start dropping like flies?

What about electromagnetic radiation? Should the government shut down electric companies? Make sitting too close to an electrical appliance illegal? Science shows that this affects fertility rates. That's a public health issue! Some suspect it increases cancer risk too but it doesn't take real science, only enough brainwashed people to complain.

So what is next? I sure don't know. Maybe we can skip straight to the sight of certain people being offensive and ban them as was done in Germany during WWII?

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Ensuring that buildings are up to code, and that things are done properly to ensure employee safety are a tad different than allowing a bar owner to let people smoke in his bar.

What is that difference? Bar employees that breathe secondhand smoke for eight hours a day ARE being poisoned.

Go read about studies on both sides of the argument: http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72529.htm

 

[Pendragon]

CommonSense:

Bullets have been proven to kill people. Should those be banned as well? Okay, you have the right to bear arms – just no ammo.

I am trying to discern if you are using this fallacy on purpose, or if you really do not see the difference.

Bullets in my pocket harm nobody (even if installed in a gun also in my pocket).
Cigarettes in my pocket harm nobody.

Smoking in public places is at best only extremely annoying, at worst, a serious health hazard. The only reason to smoke in public is to enjoy the God-given gift of tobacco.

Discharging a firearm in public is, at best annoying, at worst, tragic. There are several good reasons to discharge a firearm in public - to preserve life being the primary valid reason. In this world of "competing harms", the risk of discharging a firearm in public in a self defense situation is mitigated by the need to avoid assault or death.

Many Non-smokers believe that the pleasure derived from smoking does not mitigate the risk and annoyance of second hand smoke in a public area.

Oh, but of course, your RIGHT to smoke is inviolate. I am curious if your state constitution or local charter has any passages about the regulation of "private" business.

Surely there are all sorts of other laws that are imposed on your private business? Why were you not down there protesting fire inspections and health regulations?

Your Ox not getting gored?

Well, now your Ox is run through and you are upset. It seems to me that you are upset because now you cannot smoke in places you used to be able to smoke in.

Of course, its much grander to step up on the soap box and proclaim that your libertarian sensibilities are now deeply wounded.

But where were you when the Taco bell had to install a $50,000 ramp for wheel chair access? What about the business that had to upgrade its fire alarm and sprinkler system or any other expense or inconvenience foisted upon the owners of "private property"?

Maybe you were there, fighting the fight - upholding your principles, living your words. I don't know - I don't know you or your town.

But I do know that when I leveraged the CA smoking laws to have the smoking area moved from the main courtyard to a less used corner of the property, MOST of the people I worked with were ECSTATIC.

Most people do not smoke and do not like to be around it. The nice, pretty courtyard was unuseable to most employees because it was not possible to sit out and enjoy the scenery and weather and eat your lunch with people smoking.

Most people do not smoke and are glad when smoking is removed from their environment. Also, most people are intelligent to be able to think, simultaneously "lets heavily restrict smoking while not heavily restricting other products".

The reason the slippery slope scare tactics do not really work is because 99.9% of gun owners do not bother people with their guns. We keep them tucked away and hidden, we just try to enjoy our hobby without bothering people.

The reason the smack is coming down on smokers is because smoke is just so annoying and so everywhere and non-smokers are just tired of it.

And if the smokers write and tell us they are not going to show up or go to our favorite hot spots, most of us are going to think "great! now not only do I not have to breathe the smoke, I dont have to sit near people who reek of it!".

Ryder:

There is no end to appeasing control freaks. It's only a matter of time until they conquer the secondhand smoke issue enough to move on to the next item on their hit list. As was mentioned gun ownership is at risk but what about microwave radiation? I can hear it now. "Are not the waves of your cell phones intruding on my body? I don't care if you want to cook your brain and die after 30 years of use but what about me? Why should I be forced to live in a soup of microwave radiation 24 hours a day?". Scientific evidence exists that cell phone use does cause a localized elevation of brain tissue temperature. Why wait another 10 or 15 years until people start dropping like flies?

What about electromagnetic radiation? Should the government shut down electric companies? Make sitting too close to an electrical appliance illegal? Science shows that this affects fertility rates. That's a public health issue! Some suspect it increases cancer risk too but it doesn't take real science, only enough brainwashed people to complain.

So what is next? I sure don't know. Maybe we can skip straight to the sight of certain people being offensive and ban them as was done in Germany during WWII?

I am sorry Ryder, libertarians are few enough as it is - and of the ones out there, a lot of us (I suspect - ok, maybe just me) are willing to betray our principles to live in a world without smoke. Thats how much I hate I hate being around it. Out of the normal population, virtually all non-smokers are willing to put you under the collective boot because smoking is just so annoying - did I use the word annoying enough yet - smokers just do not seem to comprehend how much smoking is hated by most non-smokers.

Microwave and EMR do not annoy me. I rarely think about them except when I want a really fast meal, then I think happy thoughts about them - as most people probably do. If people want to ban microwave foods, all the soccer mommies will be taking up rifles because microwaves are such a time saver.

We all tried that whole "lets all just have dialog and be civil about smoking". It didn't work. We still got way too much annoying smoke.

Principles and ideologies are fine for discussion and forming opinion, but when people really have a problem with something, they want a solution - a quick, easy, painless solution. Yes, I do think the ban violates people rights.

I will be writing them appology notes during the times I cannot sleep because of it.

 

[jimpeel]

Bob Locke

There is public property, owned by the people at large and operated by their representatives, and there is private property, owned and operated by a person or a group of people. No middle ground legitimately exists.

Incorrect. The courts have ruled that there is private property where there is "usual and customary public access". Sounds like middle ground to me. I manage one of those types of properties.

In fact, the USSC ruled in PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) that privately held properties which have usual and customary public access cannot prevent persons from entering those properties in the pursuit of political free speech. That includes leafletting, signature gathering, and speaking to patrons of those properties.

 

[Pendragon]

Oh no jimpeel, someone needs to tell them bozos that private property is immune to all forms of regulation and that anything less is tyrranical oppression.

To arms!



Smokers brought this on themselves.

 

[jimpeel]

How about THIS ARTICLE from the London Daily Telegraph Sunday 8 March 1998 which states "THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect."?

The World Health Organization conducted the largest study in world history and got that result. The scientific community was eagerly awaiting this study and when it got here they spiked it because it didn't have the expected results. In fact, it stood all prior studies on their head.

Here is the full text of the article:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a later article entitled "Study fails to link passive smoking with cancer" published Sunday 11 October 1998 they stated "THE World Health Organisation has finally published a study which shows that there is no significant statistical link between passive smoking and lung cancer."

The article is located HERE and here is the text of that article:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study fails to link passive smoking with cancer

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE World Health Organisation has finally published a study which shows that there is no significant statistical link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

As reported by The Telegraph in March, the 12-centre, seven-country European study failed to prove the anti-tobacco lobby's assertion that there is a significant correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer.

The 10-year study was co-ordinated by the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer, based in Lyons, France, and involved 650 lung cancer patients who were compared with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to or worked with smokers, who worked with and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

Data was also collected on other environmental factors, such as heating and cooking arrangements, exposure to known occupational lung carcinogens, and, in some centres, dietary habits.

The study, which has been published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and is the largest of its kind in Europe, shows that there is "no relationship between childhood exposure to second-hand smoke at home and lung cancer".

And it found a "statistically non-significant positive association" between exposure to spousal smoking and lung cancer and for those who work with smokers.

The IARC scientists said in March that their findings translated into a 16-17 per cent relative risk of contracting lung cancer if you lived or worked with a smoker. But they now concede that 16-17 per cent is statistically non-significant, implying that it could have been produced by random chance.

The Telegraph was criticised for reporting the findings, which had been quietly published in abstract form in the WHO's biennial report. Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) reported The Sunday Telegraph to the Press Complaints Commission claiming the article was "false and misleading".

Clive Bates, the director of Ash, said in a press release that the publication supported his interpretation of the statistics. Mr Bates's objection to this newspaper's report was largely founded on the headline: "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Lung Cancer - Official". The word "official" referred to the provenance of the findings - the WHO.

Mr Bates continued: "As yet, there has been no retraction, correction or apology by the newspaper . . ."

The PCC has not yet made a decision on the complaint and the Ash press release suggested that this was because of the appointment of Dominic Lawson, the editor of The Sunday Telegraph, to the commission.

Mr Lawson said last night: "The Sunday Telegraph has no intention of apologising for stating that the WHO study showed no significant statistical correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer. The press release from the National Cancer Institute refers to 'statistically non-significant' links and in the case of childhood exposure 'no association' with lung cancer."

Mr Lawson added: "It is reprehensible of Ash to imply that I could in any way delay the judgment of the PCC and, indeed, it would be most improper of me to play any part in the PCC's deliberations on this matter."

In an interview with this newspaper on Friday Mr Bates said: "We are not saying that if you are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke you are going to fall down dead. If you are a non-smoker, you are not that likely to get lung cancer."

He also said that the issue was heart disease. This was not, however, the subject of the IARC report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of the links at the Telegraph page to the ASH site do not work as ASH has taken them down. All you get at the ASH pages is "Sorry - we couldn't find the page you requested."

This story was published NOWHERE in America. We had to go to a foreign news source to see it.

It ... just ... doesn't ... fit ... the ... agenda.

 

[jimpeel]

Smokers brought this on themselves.

No, anti-smokers brought this onto smokers. It is laughable to think of smokers going out and recruiting others to abrogate their rights.

If someone, somewhere, is enjoying themselves; you can bet your sweet a-- that there is someone, somewhere, working diligently to curtail that activity; and they are coming for you, next.

 

[Pendragon]

No, anti-smokers brought this onto smokers. It is laughable to think of smokers going out and recruiting others to abrogate their rights.

But thats exactly what they have done.


When I worked at the previously mentioned job and had people smoking litterally 6 feet from my desk and where I had to walk through clouds of smoke every time I came and went from my office, it annoyed the holy hell out of me. It made me angry and vindictive.

There was exactly one way to my office and it was through the smoking area - and the smokers congregated right by my door.

I started by asking my manager - please do something, I smell smoke all day, it annoys me, it is gross, etc.

He did not do nothing because he was a political eunuch.

Fine - next level was facilities supervisor - he said they had checked and the smoking area was legal and I was SOL.

Next level was regional facilities manager - he said he had to find a way to balance the rights of smokers against non smokers. Ah, I see. After further complaints, he came over and moved the "line" about 8 feet. Didnt help.

The political reality was that the managers did not want to mess with the "smokers lobby" at the company - most of the smokers were union and union complaints carry more weight than exempt (non union) techs.

I went to chief legal counsel. She liked me and I told he what I did and what I was going to do - I had an attorney interested in my case already. I told her what they did - she went over and checked out the area and the SHTF situation happened right there. She scolded the whole line of fool managers and shut the smoking area down on the spot (it was completely illegal under CA law).

The people at my site had been complaining about the smoking area for YEARS. Every complaint was ignored. The non smokers ate lunch inside, the smokers (less than 20% of the employees) owned the courtyard.

When I finally won, dozens and dozens and dozens of people thanked me - for weeks and weeks.

I did not do it because I saw people having fun. If smoking is a thrill, I say enjoy it. But to me, and many many many others, it is a nasty, gross, annoying habbit that forces us to gag and choke for the enjoyment of someone else - and that just pisses people off.

I have never seen a smoker ask me if the smoke bothered me or care one bit about the comfort of others.

So hop down off the soap boxes - smoking is not being banned because we non smoking puritans cannot stand to see you all enjoy your little habit. Its not about you, its about us.

If someone comes up with a way to make smearing dog feces all over yourself enjoyable, and 10% of the population decides to take that habit up, I will be first in line to help hand out the woop-a**. Smoking and wearing dog feces smeared on your clothing - in my mind, the same thing. Do it at home, in your car, etc - but I see it as fair game for society.

The majority of Americans are more or less live and let live types - but the smoking bans are getting traction because - and the smokers all seem absolutely impervious to this dynamic:

/Johnny Cochran voice on:

For the smoker to enjoy! - He must annoy!

/Johnny Cochran voice off.

Same deal with the loud sub blasting stereo freaks. You like to listen to crummy music really loudly? Fine - keep the noise in the car.

Dogs on leashes
Mufflers on cars
Stereos not disturbing the peace
Total ban on wearing of dog feces
Ban on public nudity
Ban on casual discharging of firearms
Ban on public smoking
Ban on public intoxication
Ban on "fire hazards"

Lordy take me home - civilization is oppressing me.

 

[0007]

Yep, pendrag, I'm glad to hear that you managed to move them eeeevil smokers, and by the way that brand of cologne you are wearing annoys the hell out of me and my nose, so stop wearing it or go somewhere else...

Still haven't got anyone to come up with the SCIENTIFIC STUDY to show that second hand smoke is harmful. BUT I got no arguement for the "it sure does stink" crowd 'cause it surely does...

 

[Pendragon]

There was someone at work who did wear too much perfume and they were asked to go home and come back when they did not smell that way. If there was a "perfume test" area by your desk so that all the perfume lovers could "enjoy" their little "habit" at the expense of your olefactorial sensibilities, you would... what? Follow your livertarian principles and put up or go find a new job?

I had the smoking area moved not for the sake of all the fun the smokers were having, but because they were enjoying themselves at my expense.

Yet the smokers all want to climb up on to a cross and play martyr for the cause of liberty - they never want to discuss how incredibly offensive their habit is to others around them.

Used to be what? 40-50% of the adult population smoked? Now it is like 15-25% or around there - depending on location.

And let me also say this - if just 1-2% of gun owners were as annoying to the population as the smokers are (and yes, I know they are not annoying on purpose) then our gun rights would be obliterated in a decade - or less.

If there were ND/ADs in every town, every day and the world really was the "wild west" scenario the antis are always predicting - then rights be damned, something would be done.

It is interesting how we often talk about the "unintended consequences" (not the book) of a law or policy or event. Ban AWs and mags over 10 rounds and what happens? We got lots of small, powerful handguns - they didn't see that coming.

The biggest thing gun owners can to to protect their rights is to just be safe and decent. Once the majority gets it in their head that something is a threat or an extreme annoyance, they are going to come after it.

The smokers have been oblivious or indifferent to the comfort of the majority, and now it is way past the discussion of rights and politeness and all that - now its to laws and fines. Thats the political reality - the rights of the minority, in reality, exist at the pleasure of the majority.

 

[jimpeel]

And what would you do if the guy in the next cubicle was an Italian who just loved his Italian cuisine and whose flatulence was legendary for its garlic and onion aroma?

 

[Pendragon]

Ok, now the terms shift.

Smoking and perfume use are 100% optional and are done for personal enjoyment/enhancement.

If a person has a severe odor problem, at most companies, they will be talked to. If they have an actual medical condition that causes them to smell, then perhaps they will be moved - to a closet or something - it is unlikely they will act as receptionist or field sales agent.

Everyone farts from time to time - sometimes people have bad breath or poor grooming. My freshman algebra teacher was practically a WMD just with her breath and B.O. - I skipped class almost all the time because it was intolerable.

But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about voluntary behaviors, not biological functions/malfunctions.

 

[bountyhunter]

Health tyranny? Gotta hate people arguing for better health.

Here's my take on it:

I had the good fortune to be born allergic to cigarettes, but the son of a chain smoker. I had pneumonia or bronchitis a minimum of four times a year until the age of 14 due to that exposure. At age 18, I had a lung X-ray done and the radiologist said that I had so much scar tissue it looked worse than his patients with TB.

I developed asthma at age 14, which almost killed me on a few occasions. I now have to carry two different steroid inhalers to prevent that from happening, and the side effects are not fun.

I spent the first 40 years of my life choking on people's smoke in restaurants, bars, movies, stores, and every other public place. I also spent many nights at 3AM watching an old movie instead of sleeping because I was coughing so much sleep was impossible.

So.... I'll bet you can guess which side of the "no smoking in public places" laws I am on.

 

[bountyhunter]

The smokers have been oblivious or indifferent to the comfort of the majority, and now it is way past the discussion of rights and politeness and all that - now its to laws and fines. Thats the political reality - the rights of the minority, in reality, exist at the pleasure of the majority.

But smokers conveniently forget that they are (and always have been) the minority. Yet somehow, their addiction should give them the right to inflict early death on the general public.

I've got an idea: if you want to smoke, do it at home and kill your kids and pets. Don't try claiming it's a constitutional rights issue to pump public places full of noxious fumes.

 

[Bob Locke]

jimpeel,

I said "no middle ground legitimately exists". The fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong doesn't mean my assertion is any less valid. (This isn't the only case where I am of the opinion they erred, and I'm sure you think they've missed the mark several times as well.)

This is where the boat is being missed: You do NOT have the right to be on someone else's property without their consent. If you did, they could not order you to leave or have the option to call the police to have you arrested for trespassing for failing to comply with that order. It is a PRIVILEGE extended to you by the proprietor for you to be in his establishment.

The person or people who have put the capital at risk to open a place of business should be the ones who set the rules for the use of that place of business. Period. It really is that simple. Bringing your personal biases or physical problems to the discussion makes it an emotional argument versus a reasoned, rational one, and when emotions take over bad laws result. Just look at Sarah Brady if you don't believe that.

And I say all I have said as a non-smoker who grew up in a non-smoking household.

But I am a BIG believer in property rights, and this "movement" is absolutely contrary to those rights.

 

[jimpeel]

bountyhunter

Yet somehow, their addiction should give them the right to inflict early death on the general public.

I've got an idea: if you want to smoke, do it at home and kill your kids and pets. Don't try claiming it's a constitutional rights issue to pump public places full of noxious fumes.

So the study from the World Health Organization is wrong? It pales by comparison to your personally held beliefs?

Now, here's the real skinny on smoking:

• It has nothing to do with health;
  
• It has nothing to do with safety;
  
• It has nothing to do with the preservation of life your your own good.

It has to do with POWER.

Live taxpayers pay taxes every year -- year after year.

Dead taxpayers pay taxes only ONCE.

The ONLY reason they want you alive; and the ONLY reason they have turned non-smokers against smokers; and the ONLY reason they have mounted this campaign against the tobacco companies is

MONEY, MONEY, AND MORE MONEY!

And non-smokers remain their biggest pawns as well as their greatest allies.

 

[jimpeel]

I said "no middle ground legitimately exists". The fact that the Supreme Court got it wrong doesn't mean my assertion is any less valid.

So a property that has usual and customary public access has the right to prevent that same public from entering the premises -- lawfully, peacefully, and without interfering with the businesses normal operating function -- to pass out leaflets or gather signatures?

They should only be allowed to come on the property for the purposes of shopping -- whether they buy anything or not, they are still "shopping" -- and they should shut the f--- up for the period of time they are on the property?

Should there be a requirement that something be purchased every time someone enters a property that has usual and customary public access?

Aren't they trespassing if they do otherwise and fail to purchase something?

You obviously didn't read PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER v. ROBINS, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) or you would understand why they made the decision they did ... maybe.

 

[cordex]

libertarians are few enough as it is - and of the ones out there, a lot of us (I suspect - ok, maybe just me) are willing to betray our principles to live in a world without smoke. Thats how much I hate I hate being around it.

Sums it up nicely, don't it?
Principles are principles except when something is inconvenient or annoying, then it is to hell with it - we want ours.

Goes nicely for both extremes of this issue, come to think of it.

Our company had an employee who went into horrible coughing fits to the point of not being able to breathe whenever he was exposed to smoke. Or even mild cleaners. Or perfume. We limited the use of all of the above when he was around. Didn't take a law against smoking or cleaning for us to accomodate him. I should note that he also didn't push for banning the use of cleaning products that irritate him in businesses he frequents.

Lots of the arguments on this are scary similar to arguments about other "rights". Quite a bit of "there's no need to ..." and "right to not be exposed to ..." and "well, it's annoying, so ..."

My take:
If you own the property, you should be allowed to set the rules for that property. If you want to let people smoke, you should have that choice. If you sell people eat unhealthy foods cooked in awful smelling grease, you should have that choice if they want to eat them.

If no one wants to come over to your house or patronize your business, don't come whining to me.
By the same token, if your business suffers because you don't let people smoke, and people who want to smoke go down the road to a place that will, don't go and pass a law to bring them down to your level.

Jimpeel,
I skimmed that decision. I still don't understand why the shopping center should be required to allow people to collect signatures for a petition on shopping center property. Or why a business should be forced to serve anyone for any reason.