private business != public health

or were you for the trans-fat ban in chicago at restaurants?

3/22/2007 2:18:37 PM

so the state can't inspect a private establishment?

if the people of chicago thought that was a legitimate threat to public health, then sure.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 2:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 2:19:14 PM

Quote :

"my point is that banning something like smoking in a private business is a violation of private property rights "

your point is wrong though. there are plenty of laws already in place that do the same thing...they are legal. this would be legal as well.

Quote :

"you already admitted the only reason you'd be for this is due to the smell of your clothes after a night at the bar, and that you disagree with it constitutionally"

and we've also already established that my opinion doesnt matter, so this is a moot point.

3/22/2007 2:19:16 PM

I have no problem with people smoking in bars but its not a right to have smoking in your bar. Just as its a crime to have prostitution and certain types of food served.

3/22/2007 2:19:17 PM

whats wrong with protecting the publics health if they're too moronic to protect it themselves? or at least prevent them from hurting others with their self destructive behavior.

oh wait, you're probably for decriminalization of drunk driving as well with your logic.

3/22/2007 2:20:10 PM

dbl post

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 2:21:57 PM

Quote :

"if the people of chicago thought that was a legitimate threat to public health, then sure"

fuck that...eating some fatty foods is a legitimate threat to public health? are you even listening to what you're saying?

Quote :

"at least prevent them from hurting others with their self destructive behavior."

THANK GOD WE HAVE THE GOVT TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES SINCE NONE OF US CAN MAKE CHOICES ON OUR OWN

Quote :

"you're probably for decriminalization of drunk driving as well with your logic"

you're probably for not letting kids ride bicycles or play baseball because we have to protect them from themselves at all costs!

3/22/2007 2:22:52 PM

Quote :

" THANK GOD WE HAVE THE GOVT TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES SINCE NONE OF US CAN MAKE CHOICES ON OUR OWN"

how can you even make this argument while saying its ok for a woman be forced to view a picture of her ultrasound before an abortion?

3/22/2007 2:24:06 PM

Quote :

"fuck that...eating some fatty foods is a legitimate threat to public health? are you even listening to what you're saying?"

trans-fat is just bad for you. it doesn't taste better. the only reason restaurants use it is because it's cheaper.

3/22/2007 2:30:07 PM

^how does what someone orders in a restaurant relate to "public" health

^^choose to have an abortion = choose to allow smoking in your restaurant

i'm not here saying abortions should be illegal...the woman has the right to choose

just like i'm not saying smoking in bars should be illegal...the bar has a right to choose

however you have to follow the bar's rules...just like the doctor's rules

so you really didnt make the point you thought you did, did you?

3/22/2007 2:35:03 PM

......................................__................................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,..........................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,....................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\.................................
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\................................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,...........................
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)..........................
.................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,..................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........

3/22/2007 2:36:02 PM

Quote :

"why should bars get a special exemption again?"

Since I started this . . . because they're bars. I'm opposed to it in principle still, but I'm offering a practical compromise.

Sanitation laws serve the benefit of ensuring that the public has a transparent means of judging the health quality standards of a restaurant since there is no practical way for them to go back into the kitchen and examine it for themselves. You can walk right in a bar and decide whether or not it has smoke.

If a business owner opens a restaurant and invests his time and risks his capital then he has the right to provide the atmosphere he wants. It is a private business and you have no more right to be in there than you do someone’s home. He chooses to open it to the public in order to make money. If you don't like it, tough-titties man.

3/22/2007 2:38:37 PM

yes but you were argueing the gov't should be able to force someone to view a picture of their baby before abortion... and then go on here about the gov't shouldn't be able to regulate smoking in bars.

give me a break

3/22/2007 2:39:27 PM

^^ you could make the exact same argument for allowing smoking in ANY business.

3/22/2007 2:47:21 PM

And, in principal, I would. There is the obvious exception of government buildings and establishements which are both necessary to social functions and in limited supply such as hospitals.

I only mentioned bars as a pragmatic exception.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 2:50:10 PM

second hand smoke is not a legitimate threat to public health...

3/22/2007 2:57:29 PM

now that you have so firmly established that, we should pack up and go home.

3/22/2007 2:58:28 PM

Quote :

"yes but you were argueing the gov't should be able to force someone to view a picture of their baby before abortion... and then go on here about the gov't shouldn't be able to regulate smoking in bars. give me a break"

Well, to be truthful, he actually wasn't really making any point in that thread. I did see some trolling about abortion being more heinous than forcing a woman to look at a picture, but thats the best I could glean from what others were commenting on.

Do yourself a favor folks, put him on block. You're IQ will go up for it.

3/22/2007 3:00:55 PM

^^^^Private business doesn't mean "Hey its my private thing, I can do what I want" it means it's owned privately and not publically traded. There are still tons and tons of regulations, laws, and permits that apply. I guess you're pushing the viewpoint that government should not get involved with almost anything and thats a whole different discussion I guess.

Quote :

"It is a private business and you have no more right to be in there than you do someone’s home. He chooses to open it to the public in order to make money."

^ lol

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ']

3/22/2007 3:04:32 PM

^^

Quote :

"You're IQ will go up for it"

Obviously it has already damaged yours.

^Its a slippery slope, and while I'm a theoretical Libertarian, I'm also a pragmatist. Your definition of "private" is correct and more precise than mine; but by being private, and not publicly traded, he has the right to do what he wants with it within the rules of the law. I'm arguing that this isn't a needed law.

3/22/2007 3:08:31 PM

Yea, I thought about editing that and realized the irony was too rich, so I left it.

3/22/2007 3:15:30 PM

well done, appreciate the set up.

3/22/2007 3:29:49 PM

for someone who has me on block, you sure do pay a lot of attention to what i say you bald bitch

oh well...if you dont like smoking at bars, dont go to bars that allow smoking its that simple

and if you dont want to look at your baby's ultrasound in south carolina, dont get an abortion in south carolina

dumbasses want to change every law to fit their own standards...tough luck

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 4:06 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 4:04:30 PM

There are already regulations on heating/air condition/ventilation systems in private businesses. A smoking ban would be along the same lines. When it comes to public health, the State has the right and obligation to intervene.

3/22/2007 4:54:18 PM

i have no problems with it being banned in govt buildings or anything like that

maybe my issue is where they draw the line between public health and private businesses because not only are there plenty of bars and restaurants that already dont allow smoking, but people have the wonderful freedom to choose which bars or restaurants they go to

also i'm not sure exactly what HVAC regulations you are referring to...

3/22/2007 4:56:19 PM

Smoke eaters and such are all part of HVAC systems, also there are tonnage requirements in place for HVAC systems in places of business..

Likewise, when you open up your place of business to anyone from the outside world, it is no longer a private business. It is only private in the sense that it is not publically traded

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:00:05 PM

but opening a business and allowing customers to come in doesnt change the fact that its still your establishment...it doesnt all of a sudden become a public park or anything...you've still got rules because you still own the property

also most of the commercial buildings we have done have about 350 square feet / ton capacity iirc, but i wasnt aware of any laws pertaining to that...just something to essentially make the environment comfortable

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:02 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:01:43 PM

I've been looking at the state requirements on HVAC for about the past two weeks. The requirements all vary based upon how open the space is too.

A 2,000 sq. foot home will be amply covered by a 3 ton system.

But since it is open to the public, the rules change. No one is talking about regulating smoking in your home or car.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:05 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:04:37 PM

Quote :

"Likewise, when you open up your place of business to anyone from the outside world, it is no longer a private business. It is only private in the sense that it is not publically traded"

So are you arguing that you no longer have the opportunity to make decisions on what to do with your property, or that you're opening yourself up to being limited by the law?

Since I know you mean the latter, I'll agree . . . to an extent. The argument is where to draw the line. I'm arguing that something that is part of the atmosphere of a resteraunt, figuratively more than literally, should be left up to the discretion of the owner, not the state.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ?]

3/22/2007 5:09:57 PM

Quote :

"Since I know you mean the latter, I'll agree . . . to an extent. The argument is where to draw the line. I'm arguing that something that is part of the atmosphere of a resteraunt, figuratively more than literally, should be left up to the discretion of the owner, not the state. "

when it becomes a public health issue, then the state has every right. I could be going for the sparking electricity atmosphere and claim the state has no right to regulation my electric circuitry.

3/22/2007 5:13:40 PM

but where do you draw the line

what says a hole in the wall bar with the same 50 regulars somehow should relate to "public health"?

what if you had some huge sign like "THIS BAR/RESTAURANT ALLOWS SMOKING" to give sufficient notice to non smokers...would that be acceptable?

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:18:13 PM

It's about more than just the customers. It's also about the employees.

I forget the exact numbers, but the CDD did a study of people who work a normal shift in an establishment that allows smoking and found it was the equivalent of smoking close to 50 cigarettes.

3/22/2007 5:23:18 PM

so if i sit in a bar (according to your numbers) for 8 hours and smoke half a pack...my lungs are getting the equivalent of 3 packs? i dunno

i do have more sympathy for the employees since customers can clearly choose where to go...but i also know there are an assload of other places to work than bars

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2007 5:24:26 PM

the numbers from the CDC assumed that you did not smoke a cigarette yourself, so I would see it being the equivalent of a lot more if you were to consume half a pack.

3/22/2007 5:26:56 PM

i think smoking is bad for you (duh)

i also think the 18th and 21st amendments have shown what might happen if this goes to far

3/22/2007 5:30:30 PM

are you going to have speak easies for people to smoke in doors in public establishments? people need to read this bill before they jump on it.

no one is talking about making smoking illegal.

3/22/2007 5:31:53 PM

the Penn and Teller "Bullshit" on second hand smoke was interesting

3/22/2007 5:40:38 PM

Quote :

"when it becomes a public health issue, then the state has every right."

Is this a public health issue? It goes back to what I said about transparency earlier. It is impossible for a person to inspect every establishment he goes into for proper wiring, so we have building codes. Likewise, it is impossible for them to inspect the kitchen, so we have sanitation guidelines. In this case however, no one is being mislead or deceived and, as neither side has a legitimate claim over the other as far as rights are concerned, then the proprietor of the establishment should make the decision.

3/22/2007 5:40:48 PM

^^They have since apologized for that saying they had been deceived.

^because it is impossible for them to inspect every establish in terms of air quality, they have the right to ban smoking. When you are an establishment that is open to the public, you have different rules. We aren't talking about homes, we're talking about businesses the public frequents.

3/22/2007 5:48:58 PM

Right, but its still obvious as to whether a resteraunt allows smoking or not. I'm arguing that, when the options are clear, the state should allow individuals to decide. Period.

3/22/2007 5:52:35 PM

it's a public health issue. That's what is boils down to.

3/22/2007 6:09:18 PM

ok, heres a question, whats the difference between public safety and public health? I would argue that public safety (protection from outside forces over which they, as individuals, have no control) is well within the scope of the state while public health (the physical state of the bodies as a whole) is marginally at best.

3/22/2007 6:12:03 PM

you realize that public health and safety are always lumped together. It's the obligation of the state. I don'tunderstand why you don't think the state has a role in the health of its citizens.

3/22/2007 6:18:40 PM

It should be mentioned that this really affects the people who work in those establishments more than the people who patronize them. And plenty of folks would say, "If you can't take the smoke, then get another job." But there's a certain class of people that have to work these jobs because finding other employment is difficult and because WE NEED THEM TO BRING US OUR FOOD AND DRINK AND CLEAN OUR TABLES. So it's like we're forcing one class of people to bear the burden of secondhand smoke. And that doesn't seem right.

Similar arguments are made with regards to war. The people who fight our wars are generally lower class or from military families. War is another burden that the lower class bears on behalf of society. And before you say, "Well, why don't they get another job..." remember that we need people to fight our wars. Like we need people to clean our tables and bring us our food.

[Edited on March 22, 2007 at 6:35 PM. Reason : sss]

3/22/2007 6:34:27 PM

That is probably the best argument I've heard for it, but I'm still not convinced.

Quote :

"I don't understand why you don't think the state has a role in the health of its citizens."

I can tell, which is why we perceive the question from completely different angles.

3/22/2007 7:08:36 PM

Quote :

"I'm arguing that something that is part of the atmosphere of a resteraunt, figuratively more than literally, should be left up to the discretion of the owner, not the state"

A bar, yea, you have a point. But I typically am not going to either cigar bars or hookah bars to have some dinner.

I can't think of anyone that likes to go eat because the place is smoky.

Additionally, it must take a smoker or some sheltered person that thinks they are living life on the edge to think smoke must necessarily be part of the ambiance of a bar. I just can't imagine many people at all that are non smokers saying

"Fuck yea, I'm gonna go get smashed at the bar tonight, and I sure as hell hope its smoky as fog in there so I can damage my lungs while I am trashing my liver"

Are we really in an era where bars are "those places" where we go to be grimy, avoiding Johnny Law at our speakeasies, such that smoke is a necessity for the experience?

3/22/2007 7:09:57 PM

I would just like to post for the record that the bill in question was introduced by Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Davidson County Democrat. I imagine salt and caffeine are next on the hit list.



Be well, citizens.

3/22/2007 11:23:41 PM

No one is ever going to suffer from secondhand salt or caffine intake.

3/23/2007 5:26:22 AM

im curious as to what the discussion was when smoking was outlawed in other places, such as airplanes. the same arguements that people are using against this anti-smoking legislation could have been used then, but it obviously failed:

-private company...they should be able to do what they want.
-if a worker doesnt want to work in a smoking environment, they should get a new job
-people dont have to fly if they dont want to deal with smoke

that airplane smoking ban has been in place for long enough now that people just accept it and you dont hear much griping about it. this ban will eventually be the same way...you're just always going to have vocal opposition at the onset.







[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 8:05 AM. Reason : a]

[Edited on March 23, 2007 at 8:05 AM. Reason : d]

3/23/2007 7:59:43 AM

Now that I think about it, I'm kinda stoked about this law.

It'll make smoking naughty again. Like after a few beers, I'll just say fuck it and light up. And live like the true badass I am.

LOL

3/23/2007 8:04:11 AM