[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenf Thanks to you all for keeping it civil - and unlocked/not deleted.

Yup, it just goes to prove that we "can" have differing opinions without resorting to nastiness. People taking jokes on the chin and giving back as good as they get, fantastic stuff, this is the way it should be.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by max-9 and it should be up to the owner of the pub/bar as to smoking or non smoking....its a private buissness , if he choses to serve smokers and a non smoker enters he can choose to stay or go , the door swings both ways.

With respect to the "private business" argument, I'd like to know whether you think it should it be up to the owner of the bar as to whether he can discriminate, and if not, what is the basis of the distinction? Or how about this one. Should it be totally up to the owner of the bar (the "private business") to decide whether he wants to allow "adult entertainment" in his bar?

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS With respect to the "private business" argument, I'd like to know whether you think it should it be up to the owner of the bar as to whether he can discriminate, and if not, what is the basis of the distinction? Or how about this one. Should it be totally up to the owner of the bar (the "private business") to decide whether he wants to allow "adult entertainment" in his bar?

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm probably repeating something someone already said.

Those things are illegal all the time or without the special permits required. Surely you see the difference between allowing illegal and legal behaviour in bars.

Here's the private business arguement and freedom of choice connection: The bar owner should be allowed to have people smoke if he wants to. You always have the choice to go to another bar that doesn't allow smoking. It's just like any other product feature, you can buy into it or take your business elsewhere.

I always laugh about the "smokers are killing me" arguement, because it ignores a FAR greater intrusion into our lives that is killing us...cars! Have you ever been out of a city and seen the ring of pollution covering it? Whether it's economically viable or not, why do we have to suffer the pollution that cars are spewing into the environment? Think about it.

I'm more on the conservative side, so I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of cars. But it's a huge inconsistency to ignore their harmful pollutive effect while hand wringing over someone smoking in a bar. I'd bet car pollution has killed many more people than second hand smoke in bars, even when it was allowed.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Those things are illegal all the time or without the special permits required. Surely you see the difference between allowing illegal and legal behaviour in bars.

LOL. That merely begs the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula Here's the private business arguement and freedom of choice connection: The bar owner should be allowed to have people smoke if he wants to. You always have the choice to go to another bar that doesn't allow smoking. It's just like any other product feature, you can buy into it or take your business elsewhere.

Right. And the argument by another could be that topless dancing should be legal in bars, and it should be up to the owner of the bar to decide if he wants it, and if people don't want to see it, they can always go to another bar. It's just a "product feature." What's the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula I'm more on the conservative side, so I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of cars. But it's a huge inconsistency to ignore their harmful pollutive effect while hand wringing over someone smoking in a bar. I'd bet car pollution has killed many more people than second hand smoke in bars, even when it was allowed.

We have dealt with this earlier and obliterated this illogical argument.

Smoke from cars and smoke from smoking are entirely different.

 

[mjg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PinkFloyd

so that's what happened to the karate kid.

 

[Nisbeth]

Heck no!


/U.

 

[SennFan]

IMHO, no. However, I think that constitutionally business owners should have the autonomy to decide for themselves. For example, some establishments like bars, where it's proven that there's a direct correlation between people who smoke also drinking, it's beneficial to the owners/operators to allow smoking because it brings more people in and is part of that culture. I think the way it is now is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. By this I mean I think it was a bit extreme to completely ostracize smokers and make them go outside especially if you're here in Upstate NY where its f'ing freezing most of the time (props to my guys in Canada where its even colder). Instead, an area (doesn't have to be large should be set aside indoors for those who want to smoke in between drinks. Also to dry clean clothes because they reek of smoke is not only costly but a pain. Also, chicks hate it--unless they're chain smokers and in that case not interested anyway.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SennFan IMHO, no. However, I think that constitutionally business owners should have the autonomy to decide for themselves.

We have the constitutional right to bear arms, but not the right to shoot people anytime we want to.

-Ed

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood We have the constitutional right to bear arms, but not the right to shoot people anytime we want to. -Ed

Yes, it is pretty much settled there is no constitutional right implicated here. Maybe there should be, but for good or bad, we are probably about 150 years past any legitimate constitutional issue (at least as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned).

 

[PinkFloyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjg so that's what happened to the karate kid.

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood We have the constitutional right to bear arms, but not the right to shoot people anytime we want to. -Ed

We don't???
I may be in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Yes, it is pretty much settled there is no constitutional right implicated here. Maybe there should be, but for good or bad, we are probably about 150 years past any legitimate constitutional issue (at least as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned).

Liberty and the pursuit of happiness???????

I think it's high time we understand that a change in our culture is upon us. It all started with the "second hand smoke" study. That study really set the wheels in motion, much to chagrin of smokers and the delight of those that were truly adversely affected by smokers.
Us smokers are going down kicking and screaming. Eventually, there will be none of us left. I suppose the world will be a better place then.
But until then we should try to get along and make some compromises. We gave up the restaurants in most states. (smoking sections were a bad joke)
We gave up office buildings, and stores. Just about everywhere there could be another person around, we aren't allowed to smoke. I blame inconsiderate smokers as much as I do anti-smokers for this.
But, for craps sake let us keep the bars, or at least half of them.

 

[max-9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS With respect to the "private business" argument, I'd like to know whether you think it should it be up to the owner of the bar as to whether he can discriminate, and if not, what is the basis of the distinction? Or how about this one. Should it be totally up to the owner of the bar (the "private business") to decide whether he wants to allow "adult entertainment" in his bar?

Well yes , its not discrimination . If the proprietor opens his doors to people expecting strippers then strippers there will be. If the bar is a smoking bar ....then expect some smoke. The employees and patrons should be prepared either way.
Here in the planet of New York there is no smoking in any establishment , regardless of what the buissness is , even smoke shops are not allowed to have smokers lighting up. However , it is legal to have strippers in clubs preforming extremely lewd acts and you can even get a lap dance up close ....just dont light a cigarette afterward . ITS ODDWORLD!

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by max-9 Well yes , its not discrimination . If the proprietor opens his doors to people expecting strippers then strippers there will be. If the bar is a smoking bar ....then expect some smoke. The employees and patrons should be prepared either way. Here in the planet of New York there is no smoking in any establishment , regardless of what the buissness is , even smoke shops are not allowed to have smokers lighting up. However , it is legal to have strippers in clubs preforming extremely lewd acts and you can even get a lap dance up close ....just dont light a cigarette afterward . ITS ODDWORLD!

I'm not sure you understood my point, or answered my question. They don't allow just any bar to have exotic dancers. It is typically controlled tightly by the government as to how many bars can have this form of entertainment, where they can be located,, etc. So my question is whether you object to this also, based on your assertion (as I understand it) that any bar owner should have the freedom to decide what kind of activities he is going to allow in his bar. Or do you distinguish the right of a bar owner to have exotic dancing from the right of a bar owner to allow smoking? It may be that it is unfair in some sense to not allow any bars to have smoking, but let's just deal with the issue at hand, which is whether a private business should have the unfettered right to decide this issue, or whether it is appropriate for the state to exercise some sort of control over activities that bother a substantial portion, perhaps a substantial majority, of the population.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD Liberty and the pursuit of happiness???????

Maybe it should be a liberty and pursuit of happiness issue, but that argument would never get anywhere with a court of law. Many of our constitutional rights were curtailed a long time ago in the name of allowing the government a certain amount of control. I'm not opining whether that is a good thing or bad thing, but the fact is that there aren't a whole lot of constitutional limitations on what government can force businesses to do or not do nowadays, relatively speaking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD I think it's high time we understand that a change in our culture is upon us.

There are many such changes being forced upon us. Some are much more serious for the long term stability and survival of our culture than the one we are talking about, but we can't discuss them here. But yes, the times they are a changin'.

 

[max-9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS I'm not sure you understood my point, or answered my question. They don't allow just any bar to have exotic dancers. It is typically controlled tightly by the government as to how many bars can have this form of entertainment, where they can be located,, etc. So my question is whether you object to this also, based on your assertion (as I understand it) that any bar owner should have the freedom to decide what kind of activities he is going to allow in his bar. Or do you distinguish the right of a bar owner to have exotic dancing from the right of a bar owner to allow smoking? It may be that it is unfair in some sense to not allow any bars to have smoking, but let's just deal with the issue at hand, which is whether a private business should have the unfettered right to decide this issue, or whether it is appropriate for the state to exercise some sort of control over activities that bother a substantial portion, perhaps a substantial majority, of the population.

As long as it is legal , any privately owned establishment should be allowed to chose the activities in their establishment . If a substantial portion of the populaton doesnt like that activity then they should go elsewhwere .
Remember its not a choice in NY , no buissness is allowed to have smoking on the premises.