TN to ban smoking EVERYWHERE?

[Matt Collins]

This isn't for real, is it? :confused::confused::confused::mad::mad::mad:

http://politics.nashvillepost.com/2009/12/05/state-looks-to-ban-smoking-everywhere/

[LittleLightShining]

There is no smoking in bars or restaurants in VT. Club buildings that are open to the public are also smoke-free, as are private businesses, even if they do not serve the public directly.

[jmdrake]

That's nothing. In 2007 a California town banned smoking in your own home!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300658,00.html

For the life of me I don't know why more bars haven't started using smokeless ashtrays to take away a large part of the "secondhand smoke" argument.

[dannno]

Public and private property?

Your own house?

[jkr]

vaporizers?

[masspabri]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

[TheTyke]

It should be up to the property owners whether they allow smoking in their own establishments.

The local CFL in my county fought tooth and nail to protect property rights and stop a county government enforced smoking ban. It's been passing all over Kentucky, and we stopped it against all odds. It was a victory that encouraged us because it showed what just a handful of people can do.

I don't smoke, but what's the point of owning property if someone else controls how it's used?

[Working Poor]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!


Ahem this is a liberty minded joint we believe in property rights and freedom in here.

[phill4paul]

Welcome to the club. N.C. goes smoke free on Jan. 1st.

I plan on printing some cards and leaving them everywhere that say....

"This table would have been taken by a smoker and ex-waiter that regularly tips 15% or more. However, do to current laws I do not patronize non-smoking establishments and will be dining at home. Please give this card to your manager or owner."

[phill4paul]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

Yeah and the EPA just ruled carbon dioxide a dangerous chemical so don't breath out while I'm around you O.K.?

[Goldhunter27]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

http://images2.tobaccodocuments.org/pollay_ads/w750r0/fact01.11.png?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.tobaccodocumen ts.org%2Fcgi%2Fjpeg.pl%3Ffn%3Dn%253A%252Ffilesets% 252Fpollay_ads%252Ffact%252Ffact01.11.jpg

[coyote_sprit]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

I think you're looking for DailyKos...

[messana]

Why ban something that they tax heavly on?

[coyote_sprit]

Why ban something that they tax heavly on?

Government doesn't need justification to do anything, they are gods.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I don't think it's a big deal. Secondhand smoke IS harmful to everyone. If you guys are upset because the state is banning something, over the heads of private business, that's one thing.

[BlackTerrel]

This already exists here in CA.

I will admit as a non-smoker I kind of like it. I used to hate going out and smelling like smoke.

But as a libertarian I find the rule to be bullshit.

[Anti Federalist]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

Someone got lost on their way to Democratic Underground.

[DamianTV]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

There is no law that will ever be passed that will force you to put yourself in harms way, at least as far as smoking is concerned.

Keep in mind that if this were up to the property owners to declare whether or not they would allow smoking on their property, many would elect to continue allow smoking because the negative effects on business that it has. Its your choice, and your right to choose to give your business to establishments based on whether they allow smoking or not. But if you want to flat out tell me, as a smoker, that I dont have the right to smoke anywhere, I dont give a fat flying fuck what year it is, I'll just start attacking your right to free speech by saying you shouldnt have the right to say that. That is how we lose ALL our rights. We dont stick up for the people that we have different beliefs than we do.

Very briefly, I'll take a stab at the entire health care fraud that deals with this also. Doctors make NO MONEY on someone that is healthy. They WANT you to get sick so you will have to pay insane bills for medications that do nothing more than make you sicker than you already are. There are already multiple alternative treatments to the ailments that smoking causes, including Cancer. Cancer is curable. Effectively, and cheaply. Would you ever expect them to tell you to go ahead and smoke because its good / bad for you and it doesnt really matter because we can treat whatever condition you come up with? No, because those treatments are NOT PROFITABLE. If thats the case, why arent they making cigarettes and tobacco products totally legal so they can get as many sick people as possible? I'll copy and paste the response that I posted on the previous link about why they want to make smoking illegal, and it has nothing to do with smoking being dangerous.

The REAL intent isnt to make cigarettes illegal, its to create a black market out of tobacco products.

If the taxes on cigarettes are raised to such an extreme level or tobacco products are flat out made illegal, the government has a new war to fight and thus can get funding for said war. The intent is to continue expanding government power to the point that it wont be just cigarettes or tobacco products but ANYTHING that is deemed unhealthy for you.

Actually I should rephrase that statement. MSG has been cited as being more addictive than nicotine and is the primary driving force behind the obesity epidemic. But MSG is legal. So to rephase, ANYTHING that is deemed unhealthy for you AND is not protected by law.

The eventuality of this results in SALT being defined as a controlled substance due to the fact that in large quantities it is also bad for you. The government is there to suit its own needs and it needs to continue growing if it is to survive. It survives at our expense, and if they need more money, they pass new laws and create new criminals out of ordinary people. Like seat belt laws. Sure they save lives, but should you be able to get a ticket for not using one? Absolutely not because it is an abuse of power and there is no law that requires to pick up your body parts off of the road if a person not wearing a seat belt gets in an accident.

Big Brother that we fear is a government that has nearly unlimited access to every aspect of our personal lives. They dont want to throw us in jail, they want to take as much of our paychecks as they possibly can, be it through higher insurance premiums, or fines for putting ourselves at risk, smoking, drinking, skydiving, swimming, etc.

Every time that something is made illegal, a black market is created. Look at prohibition. If our government really wanted to win the war on drugs, they have to attack what gives drug dealers power, which is money. The price of something illegal is directly proportionate to the risk associated with the illegal thing. If underpants were made illegal because of health implications, there would still be a black market for those that prefer briefs over boxers. It creates risk. When their is risk, there is profit. Profit on both sides. Both government and drug dealers want drugs to remain illegal because of the profits associated with enforcing or ignoring those specific laws. Thus, the way to win the war on drugs is to totally legalize them. This would not come without consequences, as more people would use drugs and drive, but that is a discussion in and of itself. If marijurana was legalized, a former drug dealer wouldnt be able to charge artifically inflated prices for his drugs because if he ever got caught in possession of his drugs, the person that caught them would probably think nothing of it and just walk off. No risk = No Money. No risk to police officers and thus no power and money given to criminals. Both sides benefit from keeping drugs illegal.

Extend that idea to every aspect of your life. Even the ones that you would consider to be ridiculus. Salt, shampoo, speakers, cell phones, wall paper, underwear, socks, fine tooth combs, screwdrivers, you name it, if there is any potential risk an object poses to us, we will end up paying money in form of a tax or a health insurance company to pay for it.

This is ALL about generating the highest levels of profit for every possible company that stands to benefit from outlawing anything. And its all going to come to you under the guise of "for your own good". Remember that you are safe because Big Brother is watching you.

[Matt Collins]

I work in a lot of casinos doing concerts. And many of them now have "smoke-free" rooms where you can gamble without the smell of smoke. If you don't like the smoke you can go to those rooms. If a casino doesn't have a SF room, and you can't stand the smoke, then simply don't go!

[andrewh817]

The problem is not the health effects of tobacco. The problem is that people can't do what they want with their own property. And if the businesses are concerned they will ban smoking in their facility.

[Ninja Homer]

Every time that something is made illegal, a black market is created. Look at prohibition. If our government really wanted to win the war on drugs, they have to attack what gives drug dealers power, which is money. The price of something illegal is directly proportionate to the risk associated with the illegal thing. If underpants were made illegal because of health implications, there would still be a black market for those that prefer briefs over boxers. It creates risk. When their is risk, there is profit. Profit on both sides. Both government and drug dealers want drugs to remain illegal because of the profits associated with enforcing or ignoring those specific laws. Thus, the way to win the war on drugs is to totally legalize them. This would not come without consequences, as more people would use drugs and drive, but that is a discussion in and of itself. If marijurana was legalized, a former drug dealer wouldnt be able to charge artifically inflated prices for his drugs because if he ever got caught in possession of his drugs, the person that caught them would probably think nothing of it and just walk off. No risk = No Money. No risk to police officers and thus no power and money given to criminals. Both sides benefit from keeping drugs illegal.


QFT

They're now trying to pass a law banning delivery of tobacco products (and making internet sales very difficult). One of the reasons they cite for the bill is that terrorists are making money from black market tobacco sales... so banning/overtaxing tobacco = supporting terrorism? Of course, the real reason is that many smokers started buying online to bypass taxes, and the gov isn't getting the money they thought they were going to from the recent tax hikes, and they've already spent that money.

[james1906]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!

We're fighting an endless war and our currency is about to hit a nosedive because the banking cartels engineered it. So yes.

[TinCanToNA]

Ahem this is a liberty minded joint we believe in property rights and freedom in here.Right, but where does it logically end? Can I buy property adjacent to your property for the express purpose of burning tires 24/7, and fanning the fumes onto your property?

[NerveShocker]

Right, but where does it logically end? Can I buy property adjacent to your property for the express purpose of burning tires 24/7, and fanning the fumes onto your property?

It ends when you start polluting somebody else's property. Masspabri has every right to not allow anyone to smoke so long as it is on his property. Property rights protect smokers and non smokers.

[TinCanToNA]

It ends when you start polluting somebody else's property. Masspabri has every right to not allow anyone to smoke so long as it is on his property. Property rights protect smokers and non smokers.

Interesting. So by that token, almost no place where people freely associate should allow smoking, as all smokers violate the property rights of everyone nearby (by instilling stench into clothing, etc.).

[Guitarzan]

Interesting. So by that token, almost no place where people freely associate should allow smoking, as all smokers violate the property rights of everyone nearby (by instilling stench into clothing, etc.).

No ma'am. What it means is that the decision of whether or not to allow smoking on a certain premises is up to the property owner, not the legislatures. If smoking is allowed on a property by the property's owner, and you don't like, no one is forcing you to remain on the property, therefore, no one is violating your rights, or the owner's rights.

If and when the time comes where a business feels as though it's losing more than gaining by allowing smoking on its property, you will see business owners make that change themselves...voluntarily.

[TinCanToNA]

No ma'am. What it means is that the decision of whether or not to allow smoking on a certain premises is up to the property owner, not the legislatures. If smoking is allowed on a property by the property's owner, and you don't like, no one is forcing you to remain on the property, therefore, no one is violating your rights, or the owner's rights.

If and when the time comes where a business feels as though it's losing more than gaining by allowing smoking on its property, you will see business owners make that change themselves...voluntarily.

It's sir, but anyways...

I must disagree on the basis of individual liberty. One criterion that everyone must use is an acknowledgment of reality. Many people that start a business do so by renting property. This means that although one can own property inside someone else' property, but must submit to the landlord's will. You can contend that in a free market one could choose a landlord that suites their needs, including a smoke-free environment (more on why that's important later), but you must concede that that is not always possible, especially in a truly free market.

Given that, you have a contest between economic freedom (to operate your store, even though rented) and personal freedom (the freedom to have an aura of stench).

Take the example of the nation of Spain. There is little option but to buy clothing that smells like smoke, because smoking happens in all the malls, all the time. Same with furniture, etc. If you wanted, say, a smoke-free household because you chose not to smoke and you didn't want furniture to smell like shit, then that option is not readily available.

But as you "zoom out" to a global, or at least binational level, you should be able to see how the increase in one personal freedom limits that of economic freedom, and vice versa. A tourist traveling in, especially from a generally smoke-adverse culture, is less likely to purchase goods from a shopkeep that is forced to sell smoke-ridden products.



Now... Tennessee. I have a right to not have my property damaged by your actions. In other words, I have the right to not have permanent smell damage added by your smoking. Where are you comfortable drawing the line?

[Pepsi]

this is just an step towards making Tobacco a ban controlled substance


Two years after the General Assembly passed a bill to ban smoking from most workplaces, including restaurants, supporters say the law is working and should be extended to include places such as over-21 venues that are now exempt.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091205/NEWS0201/912050350/1009/news02/Tougher+TN+smoking+ban+may+be+on+the+way?utm_sourc e=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+StatelineorgRss-Tennessee+(Stateline.org+RSS+-+Tennessee)

[phill4paul]

I have a right to not have my property damaged by your actions. In other words, I have the right to not have permanent smell damage added by your smoking.

It is not your property until you have purchased it. It belongs to the proprietor.

[Guitarzan]

It's sir, but anyways...

I must disagree on the basis of individual liberty. One criterion that everyone must use is an acknowledgment of reality. Many people that start a business do so by renting property. This means that although one can own property inside someone else' property, but must submit to the landlord's will. You can contend that in a free market one could choose a landlord that suites their needs, including a smoke-free environment (more on why that's important later), but you must concede that that is not always possible, especially in a truly free market.

Given that, you have a contest between economic freedom (to operate your store, even though rented) and personal freedom (the freedom to have an aura of stench).

Take the example of the nation of Spain. There is little option but to buy clothing that smells like smoke, because smoking happens in all the malls, all the time. Same with furniture, etc. If you wanted, say, a smoke-free household because you chose not to smoke and you didn't want furniture to smell like shit, then that option is not readily available.

But as you "zoom out" to a global, or at least binational level, you should be able to see how the increase in one personal freedom limits that of economic freedom, and vice versa. A tourist traveling in, especially from a generally smoke-adverse culture, is less likely to purchase goods from a shopkeep that is forced to sell smoke-ridden products.



Now... Tennessee. I have a right to not have my property damaged by your actions. In other words, I have the right to not have permanent smell damage added by your smoking. Where are you comfortable drawing the line?

Sorry about the "ma'am" thing...I misread your name.

The free market is nothing more than customers placing a value on products and services, and people trying to deliver these products and services. Saying that there's no way in Spain to get clothing or furniture that isn't smoke filled may be true, but placing the blame for that on a free market or using that issue as a cornerstone of your argument against private property is misled.

The simple answer to your Spain analogy is that there isn't a large enough market for furniture or clothing sold in a smoke free environment. Sounds silly to make it that simple, but it is. If there was such an outrage from consumers to have this, some businessman or woman would've taken advantage of it.

This same argument applies to your Landlord ditty...

[TinCanToNA]

It is not your property until you have purchased it. It belongs to the proprietor.

The clothes I'm wearing are my property. What of them?


Sorry about the "ma'am" thing...I misread your name.

The free market is nothing more than customers placing a value on products and services, and people trying to deliver these products and services. Saying that there's no way in Spain to get clothing or furniture that isn't smoke filled may be true, but placing the blame for that on a free market or using that issue as a cornerstone of your argument against private property is misled.

The simple answer to your Spain analogy is that there isn't a large enough market for furniture or clothing sold in a smoke free environment. Sounds silly to make it that simple, but it is. If there was such an outrage from consumers to have this, some businessman or woman would've taken advantage of it.

This same argument applies to your Landlord ditty...
I'm not blaming the free market. As we all know, no such thing as a truly "free market" exists in reality anyways--merely some degree of freedom.

You're right, there's not a large enough market for it, and that may be fine for Spain. When rights conflict in the States though, who should arbitrate?

[phill4paul]

The clothes I'm wearing are my property. What of them?

The clothes you are wearing can remain smoke free by not entering a smoking establishment. Take responsibility for your own actions much?

[TinCanToNA]

The clothes you are wearing can remain smoke free by not entering a smoking establishment. Take responsibility for your own actions much?

Ah, excellent. You have surrendered all responsibility, giving it to me. Seems a little asinine, doesn't it?

What if, due to raw economic conditions, I am forced to work or live in said smoking establishment?

[coyote_sprit]

Ah, excellent. You have surrendered all responsibility, giving it to me. Seems a little asinine, doesn't it?

What if, due to raw economic conditions, I am forced to work or live in said smoking establishment?

Move and find a new job?

[phill4paul]

Ah, excellent. You have surrendered all responsibility, giving it to me. Seems a little asinine, doesn't it?

What if, due to raw economic conditions, I am forced to work or live in said smoking establishment?

The freedom of choice still remains yours. You simply are not willing to give the same consideration to others. For you it is better that the government enforces your personal preference on others and thereby takes away your need to make tough decisions about your life. Sad really.

[Bodhi]

Take the example of the nation of Spain. There is little option but to buy clothing that smells like smoke, because smoking happens in all the malls, all the time. Same with furniture, etc. If you wanted, say, a smoke-free household because you chose not to smoke and you didn't want furniture to smell like shit, then that option is not readily available.


I don't know when you were ever in Spain, but what you are saying is not true. I live in Spain and there is no smoking in malls or shops, maybe sometime in the past but not now. Last year or so they past a law requiring owners of bars and restaurants to choose to allow smoking or not. They left the decision up to the owner, which I think was great. There are now non-smoking bars and restaurants and ones that you can smoke in. Everybody wins, the owner gets to choose to cater to smokers or non-smokers and the people get to choose where they want to eat or drink.

I have never once seen a person in Spain smoking in a furniture or clothing store. All the furniture and clothes that I have purchased did not smell of smoke, maybe a slight hint of ham though :) I will say this though, if you happen upon a small village here, all bets are off and the locals will do what they want to do. Which is how it should be.

[Guitarzan]

Move and find a new job?

My thoughts exactly.


And I'm not too convinced of this whole "second hand smoke damages your health" issue either. The statistics are manipulated by the tiny anti-smoking tyrants.

Studies show the rate of lung cancer for non-smokers is something like this:

.000000000000001%

The rate of lung cancer for non-smokers that are subjected to second-hand smoke:

.000000000000002%


What do they tell you in their press release about the studies?

OMG - Second-hand smoke doubles cancer rates among non-smokers!!!1

[TinCanToNA]

Move and find a new job?

It's really that simple, eh?

I won't say I'm surprised by the collective lack of thought, but I will say it is disappointing. Let me be clear though, this is about individual rights, nothing more. It's not about imposing personal preference, but about the ability to protect one's property, even if it is meager. To the above poster, this isn't about the health hazards of smoking, either.

What you have said, that it is as simple as moving and finding a new job, violates reality. That is not an option for innumerable people, and you know it. All of this nonsense and unthinking "let the market decide" or "you have unlimited choices, choose another one" bunk is one of a myriad of reasons why so many people refuse to deal with "those crazies that support Ron Paul." At least make the effort to live in the real world--you know, the one where sometimes other jobs simply aren't available, movement is economically unfeasible, and all sorts of nasty, brutish reality makes itself known.

[Guitarzan]

It's really that simple, eh?

I won't say I'm surprised by the collective lack of thought, but I will say it is disappointing. Let me be clear though, this is about individual rights, nothing more. It's not about imposing personal preference, but about the ability to protect one's property, even if it is meager. To the above poster, this isn't about the health hazards of smoking, either.

What you have said, that it is as simple as moving and finding a new job, violates reality. That is not an option for innumerable people, and you know it. All of this nonsense and unthinking "let the market decide" or "you have unlimited choices, choose another one" bunk is one of a myriad of reasons why so many people refuse to deal with "those crazies that support Ron Paul." At least make the effort to live in the real world--you know, the one where sometimes other jobs simply aren't available, movement is economically unfeasible, and all sorts of nasty, brutish reality makes itself known.

No one here is claiming that free markets are perfect and will solve all ills of society. But I'm not sure that you understand the concept of individual rights. And much like others who haven't been able to grasp to concept or others who don't have the capacity to understand it, you revert to name calling. No one is refusing to deal with reality, we all know it's not perfect, but most of us understand that if you compromise 1% on policy, you just compromised 100% of the principle. You start with smoking bans on private property (for the good of all of course), and then someone else thinks (for the good of all) that humans shouldn't eat meat. What gives your argument anymore merit than their's? They're both arbitrary, and they both are against the principles of individual rights.

You say it's not about the health issues, well, then what is it about? It's about your preferences I would assume. And you're trying to subject others to what you arbitrarily decide is right.

Either you're free or you're not.

[james1906]

Ah, excellent. You have surrendered all responsibility, giving it to me. Seems a little asinine, doesn't it?

What if, due to raw economic conditions, I am forced to work or live in said smoking establishment?

Everyone has stuff about their job they hate. That's life.

If I lived in a bar, trust me, it would not be by force!

[TinCanToNA]

Either you're free or you're not.

I'll ignore the rest of your post as tripe.

The quoted part is the heart of the matter, and the point I was getting at. This quote is an incorrect statement in my view. Everyone is always not free to many degrees and always free to many degrees. Smoking presents a good example--one's freedom directly impairs another's freedom, one way or the other. This is only true if you recognize that economic power can be just as coercive as political power. If you don't see the harm in coercive economic contracts, then perhaps you are not the friend of individual rights you think you are.

However, as to the matter at hand, the actual ban being discussed in TN does seem to be a net minus to liberty. That does not negate the need for balance.



As for the Spain example, it was true for Rota, but it's been a bit.



Everyone has stuff about their job they hate. That's life.

If I lived in a bar, trust me, it would not be by force!

You're absolutely right, on both accounts. :)
However, I was more referring to a super-cheap slum complex where residents truly have few options of places to live, where the ventilation may be linked among rooms, etc. Such a situation is rare now, but if in principle you allow that, then in principle you have clearly chosen a side against some individual rights. That's all I was getting at.

[phill4paul]

What you have said, that it is as simple as moving and finding a new job, violates reality. That is not an option for innumerable people, and you know it. All of this nonsense and unthinking "let the market decide" or "you have unlimited choices, choose another one" bunk is one of a myriad of reasons why so many people refuse to deal with "those crazies that support Ron Paul." At least make the effort to live in the real world--you know, the one where sometimes other jobs simply aren't available, movement is economically unfeasible, and all sorts of nasty, brutish reality makes itself known.

Violates YOUR reality. The "victim" mentality. The way you choose to live your life is always filled with options. This is one of the reasons why I like Ron Pauls ideas. And if you consider me a "crazy" or that the idea is "bunk" then I would suggest moving on.
YOU live in a VICTIM reality where YOU think others need to conform for YOUR convenience.
I say it would be best if you simply moved along. Others have put forth excellent arguments, yet still you wish to play the lefts "victim" card.
If you do not agree with simple property rights then there is no "Hope" for you.
Make a "Change" and join the liberal forum of your choice.

[TinCanToNA]

Violates YOUR reality. The "victim" mentality. The way you choose to live your life is always filled with options. This is one of the reasons why I like Ron Pauls ideas. And if you consider me a "crazy" or that the idea is "bunk" then I would suggest moving on.
YOU live in a VICTIM reality where YOU think others need to conform for YOUR convenience.
I say it would be best if you simply moved along. Others have put forth excellent arguments, yet still you wish to play the lefts "victim" card.
If you do not agree with simple property rights then there is no "Hope" for you.
Make a "Change" and join the liberal forum of your choice.

You are transcribing attributes to me that do not exist, and your left/right paradigm is flawed. Regardless, you can call this an issue of "simple property rights," but you are wrong. All issues with the interaction of people in complex systems are, in fact, complex and involve several kinds of competing interests, including differing kinds of freedom. If you do not see a conflict, then you are an unreasonable idealist. Ron Paul has awesome ideas and a great philosophy, but he doesn't advocate the impossible or the unjust. He is not an unreasonable idealist.

[phill4paul]

It is, simply, an issue of property rights. YOU choose to be portrayed a victim of injustice when YOUR condition is a matter of YOUR own choosing.
You choose to make the situation "complex" because that would make the situation conform to your agenda. Sometimes "Black and White" are just that. Ron Paul is a reasoning idealist. I agree with him. You obviously do not. Why then are you here?

[Ninja Homer]

The clothes I'm wearing are my property. What of them?

If somebody wrecks your clothes, take them to small claims court.

You have no right to preempt the possible damage to your property by infringing on others' property rights.

I'd agree with you on a smoking ban in public buildings, but private property is another issue altogether. I know of at least 25 small, privately owned bar/restaurants that went out of business when the smoking ban went into effect in Minnesota, and I'm sure there's a lot more than that. The only places that did better after the ban were large corporate-owned chain restaurants that cater to families. All those poor waitresses, bartenders, and cooks that had to breathe all that horrible second hand smoke (although the vast majority of them were smokers anyway) are now unemployed.

When you restrict things, it prohibits trade, and it's usually the little guy that suffers, and then corporations profit from that suffering. It's not that hard to understand.

[phill4paul]

If somebody wrecks your clothes, take them to small claims court.

You have no right to preempt the possible damage to your property by infringing on others' property rights.

I'd agree with you on a smoking ban in public buildings, but private property is another issue altogether. I know of at least 25 small, privately owned bar/restaurants that went out of business when the smoking ban went into effect in Minnesota, and I'm sure there's a lot more than that. The only places that did better after the ban were large corporate-owned chain restaurants that cater to families. All those poor waitresses, bartenders, and cooks that had to breathe all that horrible second hand smoke (although the vast majority of them were smokers anyway) are now unemployed.

When you restrict things, it prohibits trade, and it's usually the little guy that suffers, and then corporations profit from that suffering. It's not that hard to understand.

I have the belief that N.C. unemployment after the Jan. 1st ban will exceed 15%. This state is nothing but service industry these days.:)

[ResistTemptation]

A ban on smoking inside on private property (read: bar, etc.) is asinine. A ban on smoking outside on private property is actually the more difficult argument. The reason is that smoke is not containable outside and thus travels onto other people's properties, including their clothes or lungs. I would imagine that a large enough property would allow smoking outside without affecting other property. Any government instituted ban does not get my vote, however, because the real solution is to sue those who trespass on your property, which includes any aggression to your senses or property. The current judicial system, overflowing with non-violent and zero-victim offenders, is not able to handle the influx of cases dealing with the free market solution. This is unfortunate but is immediately remedied by a free market approach.

So yes, a government ban is a bad idea.

[REDNECK WOMAN]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!


Um mm Excuse me, Excuse me do you fart? will you offend me with your farting ass smells in public!!!! you are using up my clean air and polluting it with your silent but deadly gas that comes out of your colon.. I would advise you to stop eating so you don't kill me with your farts. ( Carbon ) NO EXCUSE DON"T EAT AND KEEP YOUR BUTT COLON TIGHT AT ALL TIMES OR ELSE IF MY FART DETECTOR,DETECTS FARTS COMING FROM YOU THEN I AM SUING for damages to my nose and lungs and the clothes that i am wearing.

Don't you get it keep your farts to yourself no one respect anyone that can't pucker up and hold it!!!! go shit on yourself in your own home not in public. I want a fart free work place, etc.

[REDNECK WOMAN]

My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!!


Um mm Excuse me, Excuse me do you fart? will you offend me with your farting ass smells in public!!!! you are using up my clean air and polluting it with your silent but deadly gas that comes out of your colon.. I would advise you to stop eating so you don't kill me with your farts. ( Carbon ) NO EXCUSE DON"T EAT AND KEEP YOUR BUTT COLON TIGHT AT ALL TIMES OR ELSE IF MY FART DETECTOR,DETECTS FARTS COMING FROM YOU THEN I AM SUING for damages to my nose and lungs and the clothes that i am wearing.

[shapular]

The day the smoking ban gets repealed, I'm going to exercise my liberty to carry around a bag of poop and wave it in smokers' faces.

[Valene]

''''''My wife and I won't step foot in any AC Casino until they go smoke free. We were both black card members at the Borgata. How dare smokers still think they can smoke wherever they please, what year is this anyway 1970?
ALL EMPLOYEES need to be protected from the potentially harmful effects of second hand smoke. NO EXCUSES!!!
Last October when they went smoke free for 10 days it was in the midst of the worse economic downturn and even after they delayed/postponed the smoking ban the casinos still lost money almost EVERY month since. Don't want to hear crap about the smoking ban caused the decline.
AC went and pissed off ALL the non-smokers by changing the smoking ban before it even started.
Most non-smokers DON'T want to inhale your smoking habit, don't they get it??? It's your F'n habit, keep it to yourself.
As far as I'm concerned AC can kiss my smoke free a$$ until they smarten up and finally go totally smoke free. I'll even compromise and let them put walls up to isolate the smokers totally from the non-smokers. But the majority of smokers have ZERO respect for anyone around them.
Why do the casinos cater to the 20% of the smokers anyway? Maybe because they are like shooting fish in a barrel, weak and easily addict to gambling too? Why don't they market to the 80% of the non-smokers that still have money. Economics 101 and the casinos obviously FAILED.
More important are the thousands of casino employees that deserve a smoke free environment. Why are they second class workers? ALL workers in NJ should be PROTECTED. NO EXCUSES THIS TIME!!'''' QUOTE


As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD

[silverhandorder]

I'll ignore the rest of your post as tripe.

The quoted part is the heart of the matter, and the point I was getting at. This quote is an incorrect statement in my view. Everyone is always not free to many degrees and always free to many degrees. Smoking presents a good example--one's freedom directly impairs another's freedom, one way or the other. This is only true if you recognize that economic power can be just as coercive as political power. If you don't see the harm in coercive economic contracts, then perhaps you are not the friend of individual rights you think you are.

However, as to the matter at hand, the actual ban being discussed in TN does seem to be a net minus to liberty. That does not negate the need for balance.



As for the Spain example, it was true for Rota, but it's been a bit.




You're absolutely right, on both accounts. :)
However, I was more referring to a super-cheap slum complex where residents truly have few options of places to live, where the ventilation may be linked among rooms, etc. Such a situation is rare now, but if in principle you allow that, then in principle you have clearly chosen a side against some individual rights. That's all I was getting at.

I am sorry but you are wrong. Economic power used in coercive ways is not the same thing. If I use my economic power to drive people to do things they otherwise would not do it is not the same as me coming to their home and pointing a gun in their face.

First of all if you would know how economic power is acquired and maintained you would know it does not apply to workers. Economic power never applies to customers. Economic power can only in short term deter or harm competition.

[Goldhunter27]

The day the smoking ban gets repealed, I'm going to exercise my liberty to carry around a bag of poop and wave it in smokers' faces.


Lucky for me that years of smoking have destroyed my sense of smell. Enjoy your fail.

[shapular]

Lucky for me that years of smoking have destroyed my sense of smell. Enjoy your fail.

It's okay, I'll find something more effective. I'll also have you know that it's not so much the smell of smoke that bothers me, but that it severely hinders my ability to breathe and gives me headaches.

[Goldhunter27]

It's okay, I'll find something more effective. I'll also have you know that it's not so much the smell of smoke that bothers me, but that it severely hinders my ability to breathe and gives me headaches.

That's too bad. Here's an idea, when you see a smoker, walk away from them.

[Danke]

Um mm Excuse me, Excuse me do you fart? will you offend me with your farting ass smells in public!!!! you are using up my clean air and polluting it with your silent but deadly gas that comes out of your colon.. I would advise you to stop eating so you don't kill me with your farts. ( Carbon ) NO EXCUSE DON"T EAT AND KEEP YOUR BUTT COLON TIGHT AT ALL TIMES OR ELSE IF MY FART DETECTOR,DETECTS FARTS COMING FROM YOU THEN I AM SUING for damages to my nose and lungs and the clothes that i am wearing.

Don't you get it keep your farts to yourself no one respect anyone that can't pucker up and hold it!!!! go shit on yourself in your own home not in public. I want a fart free work place, etc.

^ Now there's a Redneck Woman!!

[REDNECK WOMAN]

The day the smoking ban gets repealed, I'm going to exercise my liberty to carry around a bag of poop and wave it in smokers' faces.

And I will sue because that is my right to not have to smell your bag of poop!!!! You don't realize it but the Carbon tax is going to tax all your gas out of your ass so learn to pucker up that old colon hole because you go broke farting.

[Icymudpuppy]

Gotta love Tennessee.

Home of a large number of tobacco producers set to outlaw smoking.

Definitely a fitting continuation of trends where:
the Home of Jack Daniel's whiskey production is a "Dry" county in Tennessee.

The Irony.

[shapular]

That's too bad. Here's an idea, when you see a smoker, walk away from them.

Not terribly easy to do when I'm sitting down in a restaurant.


And I will sue because that is my right to not have to smell your bag of poop!!!! You don't realize it but the Carbon tax is going to tax all your gas out of your ass so learn to pucker up that old colon hole because you go broke farting.

Then I have the right not to have to smell your smoke. Don't you dare come near me with a cigarette or I'll sue you. I actually have no idea if you're being serious because you certainly don't type like it.

[Goldhunter27]

Not terribly easy to do when I'm sitting down in a restaurant.



Then I have the right not to have to smell your smoke. Don't you dare come near me with a cigarette or I'll sue you. I actually have no idea if you're being serious because you certainly don't type like it.

Welp, you can always go to a different restaurant.

[DamianTV]

The option of choice isnt there any more. If it were, I'd support going to a different restraunt. But as it stands, there isnt really any choice to be made by the business owner, thus their patrons.

Stick up for the smokers as the next thing they will do is go after you because youre fat.