Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

My argument they don't have to "adapt". Non-smokers can leave a smoke-filled restaurant, and go to a non-smoking restaurant.

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to.

No one says smokers can't go. Just don't smoke there.

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to.

That's fine with me.

I was thinking of backing up my car to a bar or restaurant and just piping the exhaust right into it, hey, the non-exhaust enjoying people could just leave, right?

Let me enjoy my exhaust in peace.

:Smoker:

I hate kissing a smoker...

I ain't gonna lie, I'd hit a smoker :spank:

No one says smokers can't go. Just don't smoke there.

My statement should have read, "there would be no restaurants a smoker could go to and smoke."

Non-smokers don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking.

My position is two-fold: the government should not be able to dictate that a private restauranteur cannot allow smoking, or loud music, or serve fatty foods, when no one is forced to go there. Secondly, one class of citizens should not be able to petition the government to outlaw the actions of another class of citizens when everyone has the choice to disassociate themselves from them or leave the premises.

That's fine with me.

I was thinking of backing up my car to a bar or restaurant and just piping the exhaust right into it, hey, the non-exhaust enjoying people could just leave, right?

Let me enjoy my exhaust in peace.

:Smoker:

Though your statement was in jest, (or maybe it wasn't) you cannot take that action upon someone else's property without their consent. You can certainly do it if the property belongs to you, though.

My statement should have read, "there would be no restaurants a smoker could go to and smoke."

Non-smokers don't have to go to a restaurant that allows smoking.

My position is two-fold: the government should not be able to dictate that a private restauranteur cannot allow smoking, or loud music, or serve fatty foods, when no one is forced to go there. Secondly, one class of citizens should not be able to petition the government to outlaw the actions of another class of citizens when everyone has the choice to disassociate themselves from them or leave the premises.Very insightful, i never thought of it that way.

Right. You cannot interfere with the rights of someone else. Apart from that, it's a free country -- at least, that's what it's supposedto be.



The short answer to your question is, why give the government one more reason to intrude into the lives of private property owners?

Now, here’s the long answer. As an example to your point Malcom, let’s use the Department of Health argument -- What's the difference between the government instituting food safety standards and doing the same with smoking?

The difference is that you can protect yourself from second hand smoke (if you're a non-smoker) and first-hand smoke (if you are a smoker): you can leave the restaurant, or you can quit. However, the same is not true of food-borne illnesses. In the latter case, the government is adhering to its legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of life, liberty and property of individuals through force or fraud. Since no one can protect themselves from the hazards of food-borne illnesses, short of not eating out, the government has the responsibility to guard against a threat that an individual otherwise cannot guard him or herself against.

Bottom line, government has the power and the obligation to protect your rights from others. It doesn’t have the power, nor the resources to protect you from yourself.

When it comes to public establishments that conduct business there is no such thing as property rights. Specifically, the welfare and rights of the public trumps property rights and that is in fact constitutional.

When it comes to public establishments that conduct business there is no such thing as property rights. Specifically, the welfare and rights of the public trumps property rights and that is in fact constitutional.

For public establishments such as schools, post offices, court buildings -- in most cases, you're correct.

But for private businesses, there most certainly are property rights. The government cannot take over a business, instruct it as to what it can sell, or the fashion in which it sells it. The only exception for government intervention is when someone interferes with individual's rights to life, liberty, or property through force or fraud.

Now, certainly, an argument could be made that this country is gradually getting away from this particular free market philosophy with minimum wage laws, handicap access requirements, and civil rights legislation. Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kelo v. New London, Connecticut decision, there's yet another attack on private property rights that clearly marks this country's movement towards the Socialistic philosophy.

Well, the government decides a lot of things you can do on business property, so why should smoking not be one of them?Ok, thats fine with me so from now on restaurants and bars have a one drink ( 1 beer, or 1 glass of wine,or 1oz of alch) per hour restriction. DUI's kill alot of people every year and alot are from people driving home from bars so now the goverment will regulate this too. People are dying from high blood presure and colesteral and red meat and fried food is to blame so its now against the law to sell red meats and fried foods. My point is that our goverment is taking more and more of our rights every day and if I own a bar and want smokers than thats my right. If I want a bar that is non smoking than that is my right. If the public demand is for non smoking smoking bars than there will be non smking bars. I see more and more non smoking bars everyday.

When it comes to public establishments that conduct business there is no such thing as property rights. Specifically, the welfare and rights of the public trumps property rights and that is in fact constitutional.Could you please give the part of the constitution which makes this ok.