[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by max-9 As long as it is legal , any privately owned establishment should be allowed to chose the activities in their establishment .

So you wouldn't have any problem with a bar owner in your neighborhood converting his establishment to one that offers exotic dancing? How about a bar down the street from where kids go to school?

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD We don't??? I may be in trouble. 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.

LOL, I suppose I could mix all the constitutional rights together, I have the constitutional right to bear arms, and the pursuit of happiness. So I should be able to shoot anyone that smokes near me.

And I suppose it could work the other way too.

-Ed

 

[Elec]

Penn & Teller actually did a show on second-hand smoke. If you know what their show is called, you probably know their conclusion on the subject. They made a pretty convincing case, which surprised me. Here's basically a page for that particular episode with a little clip: http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs

Although cigarette smoke stinks and can be unpleasant to breathe or sit around in, it may not really have negative health effects unless you're actually smoking the tobacco yourself. But it's been repeated SO many times, that "second hand smoke is unhealthy" is just one of those things we all KNOW, even though it may not be true. Similar to the way we KNOW that eating fat makes you fat and that a low-fat diet is healthier, even though a recent long-term study showed it ain't so (and yet the doctors wouldn't admit they've been wrong all this time). Anyway, after seeing that, I'm just not sure there really is strong evidence that second hand smoke is bad for you. If it's only annoying and not dangerous, it becomes a lot harder to ban in public places.

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood LOL, I suppose I could mix all the constitutional rights together, I have the constitutional right to bear arms, and the pursuit of happiness. So I should be able to shoot anyone that smokes near me. And I suppose it could work the other way too. -Ed

Just remember that you can pursue happiness. No guarantee that you will catch it.

Yeah Phil, there are a lot changes being shoved at us. I guess it's all part of growning up.

And you are correct about the happines issue and court. The court wouldn't even let a "right to smoke" suit in to the building.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elec Penn & Teller actually did a show on second-hand smoke. If you know what their show is called, you probably know their conclusion on the subject. They made a pretty convincing case, which surprised me. Here's basically a page for that particular episode with a little clip: http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs

Question 1: Does Penn and/or Teller smoke? In other words, one needs to know if they have a bias. The tobacco industry would have probably told you a few years ago that second hand smoke is good for you.

Question 2: They empahsize that the EPA study re the harmful effects of secondhand smoke was thrown out by Judge Osteen, but don't point out that Judge Osteen's decision was later vacated upon review by an appellate court. That seems like an important fact to consider. In any event, if you stack the studies regarding the harmful effects of second hand smoke on one side, including one by the AMA, and the opinions of Penn and Teller on the other side, I think I'd tend to favor the former . . . . and it wouldn't be a close call.

 

[terrymx]

whats with all the (moot) polls?

 

[darkisz]

Thank you Elec.

I've been wondering if anyone else had seen that episode.

Lets ban some video games and burn some books, too!

 

[max-9]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS So you wouldn't have any problem with a bar owner in your neighborhood converting his establishment to one that offers exotic dancing? How about a bar down the street from where kids go to school?

That would be a zoning violation. Its also an entirely different subject , although a strip club closer to my house might be a positive thing ...Im not sure my wife would like it.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by max-9 That would be a zoning violation. Its also an entirely different subject , although a strip club closer to my house might be a positive thing ...Im not sure my wife would like it.

Nice dodge.

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS Nice dodge.

It's true though...people keep trying to mix in zoning issues with people smoking. They're not the same thing.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitzula It's true though...people keep trying to mix in zoning issues with people smoking. They're not the same thing.

The zoning issue has nothing to do with the hypothetical, and it begs the question to keep saying that some other use is illegal or not permitted already for other reasons. Assume there is no zoning and all uses are legal at the outset. The question posed still remains.

EDIT: Or I could phrase the question differently, if that would help people answer it. Do you have any problem with government zoning certain uses (such as exotic dancing) and only permitting them in certain areas of the City, and also (pursuant to zoning) restricting the number of such establishements? Isn't the government in that instance restricting the "right" of a "private establishment" to offer a type of environment or certain acitivities that it's customers want?

 

[Elec]

One thing I thought was kinda funny when I was in San Luis Obispo was that when you went to bars, people could smoke "outside". "Outside" was the area you found yourself in when you walked through a doorway and onto a wood or stone patio that was completely covered by a roof or awning, had a 4 foot railing or wall all around but no windows, and also had heaters and a wet bar. "Outside" really wasn't a whole lot different from inside except for the smoking and occasional breeze

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.PD Just remember that you can pursue happiness. No guarantee that you will catch it.

Yeah. I'm going to have to work on my aim.

-Ed

 

[Blitzula]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS The zoning issue has nothing to do with the hypothetical, and it begs the question to keep saying that some other use is illegal or not permitted already for other reasons. Assume there is no zoning and all uses are legal at the outset. The question posed still remains. EDIT: Or I could phrase the question differently, if that would help people answer it. Do you have any problem with government zoning certain uses (such as exotic dancing) and only permitting them in certain areas of the City, and also (pursuant to zoning) restricting the number of such establishements? Isn't the government in that instance restricting the "right" of a "private establishment" to offer a type of environment or certain acitivities that it's customers want?

I like the rephrase.

The difference between those scenarios is in one case, the government is regulating the type of product available for sale/what the employees are doing to promote sales (exotic dancing). In the other, the government is telling people what they can't do when they GO to a business (smoke). I don't think the government should be doing the latter in this case, I don't have an issue with the former.

 

[PinkFloyd]

Well folks I'm off to see Jethro Tull live in concert this evening and I will be puffing away all through the show, it's a non smoking venue and will be interesting to see just how many other people are having a puff during the show.... I have NEVER been to a gig where "nobody" smokes, the venues are normally thick with tobacco and "other" smoke.... will report back on the smoking situation at the concert when I get home tomorrow morning..... heh, it says "no photography allowed" and here's me getting 3 cameras ready

Rock and roll baby!!