RebelKev Wrote:

blah Wrote:No one is telling anyone they can't do what ever they want in the comforts of their own home. However, once the decision has been made to turn your property into a business, there are certain laws and regulations that come into play.

It's still private property and no, you don't have a right to patronize the establishment. If someone doesn't want to patronize a bar because it allows smoking, fine. If someone doesn't because the don't? Fine. It's capitalism at work. Why is it that you want to rely on the government to solve a problem that should be handled by the market?

When it comes to items like this, no capitalism doesn't work. No one is going to put their business or themselves in financial danger for the greater good.

This is a similar situation to "public goods" or "national defense" in economics. If both of these were left to supply and demand, there would never be enough. The government has to step in to ensure that they are provided and/or the people are protected or no one will. Or were you going to buy your own nuke?

blah Wrote:When it comes to items like this, no capitalism doesn't work. No one is going to put their business or themselves in financial danger for the greater good.

I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution do you see that companies have to operate for the "greater good", comrade? Businesses are in it to make money. If they start losing revenue by you, and your fellow smoke-haters, they will change their tactics or do what it takes to garner a larger consumer base. Maybe it's that non-smokers aren't committed enough to boycott a place so they empower the gubmint to do their bidding for them. I don't like a lot of ****. I'm not going to get the government to change it though when it's not my business.

Quote:This is a similar situation to "public goods" or "national defense" in economics. If both of these were left to supply and demand, there would never be enough. The government has to step in to ensure that they are provided and/or the people are protected or no one will. Or were you going to buy your own nuke?

National defense is specifically written out in the Constitution. As for schools, hell yeah they should all be private.

RebelKev Wrote:

blah Wrote:When it comes to items like this, no capitalism doesn't work. No one is going to put their business or themselves in financial danger for the greater good.

I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution do you see that companies have to operate for the "greater good", comrade? Businesses are in it to make money. If they start losing revenue by you, and your fellow smoke-haters, they will change their tactics or do what it takes to garner a larger consumer base. Maybe it's that non-smokers aren't committed enough to boycott a place so they empower the gubmint to do their bidding for them.

So you are saying business should be allowed to do any and everything, as long as its in the name of the almighty dollar?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:So you are saying business should be allowed to do any and everything, as long as its in the name of the almighty dollar?

Did I say that? No, but smoking is legal, no?

About raising the taxes to pay for Children's health care, I am all for it. I don't smoke, but if I wanted to, I cannot see myself having a problem with the tax I am paying to purchase nasty-ass cigarettes going to childrens health care. And for the person that said - "what happens when the smokers actually quit smoking," yeah right, like people are going to ever quit. As long as they are here, they will smoke em'. I don't know very many people that have ever quit smoking because they cost too much. They just cut back on other things. I don't see any problem with the tax. I also think we should legalize marijuana and other drugs, and tax the crap out of them too. Why not? If alcohol and cigarettes are legal, why not marijuana?

And as for banning it in restaurants and bars, I agree with that somewhat. I think it should be regulated. I'm not saying to ban it. But you should have to jump through some hoops to allow it in your place of business. Not sure what, but I'm sure there are things that make sense and are somewhat fair. Smoking sections are rediculous. They would make sense if there was actually something deviding the sections properly. And there is a bar close to where I live that actually has these huge air filters along the ceiling that help a ton.

Suede27 Wrote:About raising the taxes to pay for Children's health care, I am all for it. I don't smoke, but if I wanted to, I cannot see myself having a problem with the tax I am paying to purchase nasty-ass cigarettes going to childrens health care.

Aw, as long as it's for the children, huh? What happens when that tax base starts getting smaller?

Damn people. This is how revolutions start.

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:So you are saying business should be allowed to do any and everything, as long as its in the name of the almighty dollar?

Did I say that? No, but smoking is legal, no?

Your argument makes no sense. What does being "legal" mean. You said the "gubmint" has no right to ban it yet you use their definition of legality to justify your stance.

1. Should I be allowed to perform abortions at my house? Abortions are legal, but the government says I need to be a doctor.

2. Should I be allowed to sell alcohol to 18 year olds at my bar? Alcohol is legal, but the government says that people need to be 21, but at one time said 18 was ok. If I sell to 18 years old, my customer base is bigger and I make more money. I don't think the government has the right to tell me who I can and cannot sell alcohol to. Is this ok?

3. If their was all of a sudden a law enacted to ban smoking, would you then be ok with it, because it is no longer "legal"?

blah Wrote:Your argument makes no sense. What does being "legal" mean. You said the "gubmint" has no right to ban it yet you use their definition of legality to justify your stance.

Not really the government, but the Constitution. I do not believe the government should dictate what I put into my body if it's not harming anyone else, and last I checked, we aren't having people rob banks, etc., under the influence of tobacco.

Quote:1. Should I be allowed to perform abortions at my house? Abortions are legal, but the government says I need to be a doctor.

Talk about not making sense. I don't see where this comparison comes from.

Quote:2. Should I be allowed to sell alcohol to 18 year olds at my bar? Alcohol is legal, but the government says that people need to be 21, but at one time said 18 was ok. If I sell to 18 years old, my customer base is bigger and I make more money. I don't think the government has the right to tell me who I can and cannot sell alcohol to. Is this ok?

I believe it should be 18 again. If you can serve, you should have all rights. People under 18 aren't legal adults.

Quote:3. If their was all of a sudden a law enacted to ban smoking, would you then be ok with it, because it is no longer "legal"?

Nope, because there's no constitutional basis to ban it, just a bunch of emotional people that don't respect the very document to which our government was founded.

All in all, this is an "emotional" stance you're taking. You are basing your entire argument on what "you" don't like, not logic. You also, from past observations, understand how Capitalism works, but seem to discount something I've witnessed you defending on this one occasion....all on emotion. Heaven help us if this country starts adopting more of that.

RebelKev Wrote:[quote=blah]

Quote:3. If their was all of a sudden a law enacted to ban smoking, would you then be ok with it, because it is no longer "legal"?

Nope, because there's no constitutional basis to ban it, just a bunch of emotional people that don't respect the very document to which our government was founded.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe all drugs (heroin, pot, cocaine, lsd, etc) should be legal?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Just out of curiosity, do you believe all drugs (heroin, pot, cocaine, lsd, etc) should be legal?

Pot? Yes. The others mentioned? No. Why? Because they have a history of actually interfering with someone else's rights.

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Just out of curiosity, do you believe all drugs (heroin, pot, cocaine, lsd, etc) should be legal?

Pot? Yes. The others mentioned? No. Why? Because they have a history of actually interfering with someone else's rights.

Im just having trouble grasping this. You say the government shouldnt tell people what they can and cant do with their own body..but then you say in some cases it should. Why should alcohol be legal (and heavily marketed/glamorized), which when abused is one of the most dangerous drugs on the planet, but people shouldnt be allowed to smoke opium in the privacy of their own home. Why are tobacco owners allowed to get rich, but psychadelic mushroom growers arent? What makes one drug more socially acceptable than another? How is somehow a "right" to smoke tobacco, but not other drugs that the "nanny state" has decided arent acceptable?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Im just having trouble grasping this. You say the government shouldnt tell people what they can and cant do with their own body..but then you say in some cases it should. Why should alcohol be legal, which when abused is one of the most dangerous drugs on the planet, but people shouldnt be allowed to smoke opium in the privacy of their own home. Why are tobacco owners allowed to get rich, but psychadelic mushroom growers arent? What makes one drug more socially acceptable than another? This sounds like a pretty big case of the government trampling on individuals rights.

To be honest with you? I don't even know how we came to this f'n debate. The debate was about private ownership of a business. YOU said smoking lounges were exempt. So, why can a bar owner not say he wants his bar to allow smoking? Again, you don't have the "right" to visit someone's private establishment.

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Im just having trouble grasping this. You say the government shouldnt tell people what they can and cant do with their own body..but then you say in some cases it should. Why should alcohol be legal, which when abused is one of the most dangerous drugs on the planet, but people shouldnt be allowed to smoke opium in the privacy of their own home. Why are tobacco owners allowed to get rich, but psychadelic mushroom growers arent? What makes one drug more socially acceptable than another? This sounds like a pretty big case of the government trampling on individuals rights.

To be honest with you? I don't even know how we came to this f'n debate.

Just a matter of turning the tables and making you look at the situation in a different light. You said if tobacco were outlawed, you would still support its use because it was a "right". Im saying what makes the use of one naturally ocurring substance a "right", and another illegal? I dont see how you cant take an all or nothing stance in a situation like this.

Why is everyone bringing up the constitution for guidance? The government doesnt even follow it anymore anyways...

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Just a matter of turning the tables and making you look at the situation in a different light.

It's not making me look at anything differently. You're talking about illegal drugs I'm talking about tobacco. It comes down to the fact that you don't have a right to patronize someone's private business. If they want to make it a smoking bar, that should be THEIR choice, not the government's. Your choice is whether or not you want to visit it. If they start hurting financially, Capitalism will dictate that they will change their policy. NOT the GDamn government. That, my friend, is how Capitalism works.

All of you guys arguments are based solely on emotion and what "you" don't like.

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Just a matter of turning the tables and making you look at the situation in a different light.

It's not making me look at anything differently. You're talking about illegal drugs I'm talking about tobacco.

You said if tobacco were illegal you would still support its use. So again, why is one constitutionally allowed, but the others arent?

niuhuskie84 Wrote:You said if tobacco were illegal you would still support its use.

It's not illegal so it's a moot point. Besides, what constitutional basis is there to ban it? Please, I want to hear this.

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:You said if tobacco were illegal you would still support its use.

It's not illegal so it's a moot point. Besides, what constitutional basis is there to ban it? Please, I want to hear this.

Its a theoretical argument. You seem to feel that the drugs you deem socially acceptable are a "constitutional right", whereas the ones you dont deem socially acceptable are rightly outlawed by the government. I dont understand how you can believe both at the same time.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Its a theoretical argument. You seem to feel that the drugs you deem socially acceptable are a "constitutional right", whereas the ones you dont deem socially acceptable are rightly outlawed by the government. I dont understand how you can believe both at the same time.

So, now we're basing law on "what if"?

RebelKev Wrote:

niuhuskie84 Wrote:Its a theoretical argument. You seem to feel that the drugs you deem socially acceptable are a "constitutional right", whereas the ones you dont deem socially acceptable are rightly outlawed by the government. I dont understand how you can believe both at the same time.

So, now we're basing law on "what if"?

Laws dont exist until someone makes them. Someone at some point said "what if". You still wont address the issue I keep posing to you. You seem to want the best of both worlds: the drugs you support to be a "constitutional right" granted by our forefathers, and the ones you dont support to be rightly outlawed by the government. Do you really not see the argument Im making? You're moving the goalposts to suit your beliefs.