Smoking Ban Being Discussed

Quote:

---

Originally posted by travelinman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Pi?a:
Matter of fact I don't remember anything in the constitution.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A first, PINA speaks the truth.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wow. What a rejoinder! Gosh Trav, your folks must be so proud that the only thing you can manage is to misquote me. Pathetic. In keeping with what we've all come to expect of you but still, pathetic.

Pina....

"unrestricted" capitalism? Sweet Baby James let's think about this for a moment....

Say I decide to open my hypothetical bowling alley. First I have to make sure I'm located where such a business is zoned (a reasonable restriction). Then I have to make sure it's built to code, both structurally and in terms of fire prevention (again, reasonable restrictions).

I have to follow all wage and hour law restrictions for my employees.

The building must have sufficient heat and water.

It must be ADA accessible.

If I want to serve alcohol (or food, for that matter) I must be licensed in those areas.

"Unrestricted?" God almighty it takes a miracle for me to even get the place opened for business.

Besides, your example would only apply to latent dangers. Say, for example, my bowling alley uses solvents that are harmful to people. People show up, start bowling, get sick. OOOPS lawsuit time. And, rightfully so, I knew they were in danger but did nothing about it.

Smoking is different. It's dangers are well-known. Hell, every pack since the mid 1960s has carried a label that tells you use of this product gives you cancer.

And there's nothing latent about it. You walk into my alley, you smell the smoke, you do a 180 and you're outta there.

And better yet, you can go down the street and open Pina's Bowl-o-mat. SMOKE FREE!!! And then the non-smokers will have a place to bowl and life is glorious.

Pina said

Quote:

---

I'm probably one of the only patriots you've laid eyes on in a long long time.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you, Tomas. It's been a bit of a rough Monday, and that made me laugh out loud. A patriot? YOU, who advocate socialism? Ever checked the definition of the word? Ever been to a socialist country? Ever talked to people who are trying to raise families under socialism.

Thought not.

Trav's leaving tomorrow (packing, airport, blahblahblah), and I can't address your questions (again), but I shall.

But really, thanks for the laugh.

Gae

You're more than welcome.

Your response while marginally interesting still doesn't answer my question.

Again: Taking your idea of unrestricted capitalism to its logical conclusion should we then allow any and all behaviours in places of business as long as it improves the bottom line?

I'm having a hard time understanding why you seem to have such a hard time with directly answering the question as posed. It doesn't seem like a particularly tough question (though I suppose easy for some is next to impossible for others).

Lew

You too seem unable to directly address my question.

I wasn't asking about your opinion on the current state of affairs regarding governmentally enforced restrictions on business. I was asking about your ideas on what should be or should not be regulated.

You seem to be of the opinion that unrestricted capitalism is the way to go. I asked "Taking your idea of unrestricted capitalism to its logical conclusion should we then allow any and all behaviours in places of business as long as it improves the bottom line?"

It's a what should be allowed, not what is allowed kinda question.

I swear, between the three of you (you, Gae and Trav) you'd think someone would be able to answer it.

Like I said, Tomas, I'll get to it either later tonight (doubtful) or sometime tomorrow.

True patriot my ass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Pi?a:
Take a good look because I'm probably one of the only patriots you've laid eyes on in a long long time.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You know, Tommy, I've cut you slack and only played with you because as you've told us, you're mentally unstable, need medication to function, you're on diability and have to have your wife support you, but this is over the top.

This country was not founded on socialism. Everything you say and everything you do is socialist.

Why don't you go to your doctor, incrase your meds, and get a job? I'm tired of supporting your ass.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gae:
Thank you, Tomas. It's been a bit of a rough Monday, and that made me laugh out loud. A patriot? YOU, who advocate socialism? Ever checked the definition of the word?

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">pa?tri?ot Pronunciation Key (ptr-t, -t)
n.
One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.

That would be me.

When I joined the service I took an oath to defend the constitution of the Unites States. I took that oath very, very seriously. I put myself in a position where I would have given my life to defend it. When I left the military I didn't put that oath aside as it is my belief that it is my duty as a citizen of this country to fight for the principles it was founded on.

You seem to think that socialism and democracy are somehow incompatible. I don't. Matter of fact I think a system that incorporates democratic, socialist and capitalist ideals is the way to go.

I also believe that those who want to further a capitalist tyranny where anything goes and the individual be damned are the ones who have forgotten how and why this country got started and what makes it the best place to be on the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by travelinman:
You know, Tommy, I've cut you slack and only played with you because as you've told us, you're mentally unstable, need medication to function, you're on diability and have to have your wife support you, but this is over the top.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I always get a chuckle from those who when they fail to have a supportable argument take the well if I can't debate 'em I'll just try and insult 'em. Very Rush of you.

Sorry you disagree with me. Think you can actually put something together that addresses the issue, or any issue for that matter, or should we expect more simplistic personal slanders.

It is kind of cute though, that I've singlehandedly managed to get you to the point of near incoherence.

Pina-

Alright, I'll take a stab at this one since it's really a rhetorical question. That said...

OK the legal answer is that where the Feds have spoken, they rule. If they are silent, the State rules. Subject always the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court says it is.

But that doesn't help us. As for what SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be 'regulated' is inversely proportionate to where it stands on the scale of PUBLIC v. PRIVATE.

And the law more or less reflects that. You can get stinking drunk inside your house (greatest zone of privacy). You can get drunk inside a bar, but only to a point (lesser privacy). You can't even drink inside a post office (least privacy).

The greater the group affected, the more the regulation. The smoke that leaves the stack at the factory goes into the air, and can affect millions of people. Therefore, we have strict regulations of smokestacks. I burn trash on my farm, out in the country, it doesn't really affect the atmosphere to any noticeable degree, hence no regulations. Now, I can't burn trash in my crowded suburban neighborhood, because of the proximity of so many other neighbors.

It's a function of private v. public, Pina. In my bowling alley example, even if I allow smoking inside it's not without restrictions; I can't allow 17 year-olds to smoke. But otherwise, it's a building that people are free to come and go from. Therefore, I should be able to allow smoking as I please since it's still a private business.

I never once advocated 'unrestricted' anything, and I don't speak for Gae or Trav but I don't believe they do, either. Like I said, me, personally, I don't go to smoking areas often because I can't handle. But I do not advocate banning smoking altogether. Inside your home, absolutely with no restrictions. In a private business, that should be up to the business. In public places, no smoking at all. It's not rocket science here.