Is John Dibble correct?

[Nym90]

As bad as smoking is, John is right on this one.

[John Dibble]

I'll just post so people know what you're talking about if they don't already.

[specific_name]

Smoking is a personal choice, where as fascism is clearly more sinister. John is right.. I agree with him fairly often actually.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Of course smoking is healthier than fascism. The governments wholesale attack on the tobacco industry is disgusting and putrid. I live in Virginia where tobacco is a major industry. While I have never smoked and never will, I am appalled by the way the government slams on the business.

[John Dibble]

More explanation: My main reason for having this in my signature is because I oppose smoking bans in privately owned restaraunts and bars, as I think it violates private property rights. And, as Liberty points out, smoking is a choice, as is choosing whether to go to a restaraunt that allows smoking.

[Posterity]

I'm sure there are untold millions of people who would have opted to take up smoking rather than die at the hands of a fascist.

[nclib]

Smoking is healthier than fascism, though I don't consider smoking bans equivalent to fascism--just a protection of public health.

It is interesting that the only times that conservatives defend social freedom are when public health or safety (i.e. tobacco and guns) are involved.

At least John Dibble, a Libertarian, is consistent in his defense of individual rights. Many conservatives make the argument that John just did about smoking:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yet want to ban content on the TV and internet (why can't someone choose not to watch/look at it?)

[John Dibble]

Many conservatives make the argument that John just did about smoking:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yet want to ban content on the TV and internet (why can't someone choose not to watch/look at it?)

I agree - let broadcasting companies decide whether their own content is fit or not. Many would self-censor just to please the audience. When something on tv or the radio goes against my liking, I change the channel to something more pleasant and get over it.

[David S]

John is right again. Smoking can take 50 years or more to kill you. Fascism can do it much quicker.

[Jake]

I think I have the right to go to a resturant and not inhale poisonous, unfiltered smoke.

[John Dibble]

I think I have the right to go to a resturant and not inhale poisonous, unfiltered smoke.

I doubt John Dibble would argue with that. If the owner of the restaurant figured he would maximize his profit by offering a non smoking section he would. Otherwise you would patronize another establishment that met your needs. Why should government tell private property owners what they MUST do with their property? If government can do that WHO really owns the property?

Exactly. Dubya - you have every right not to go to a restaraunt that allows smoking, but I don't feel you have the right to tell a restaraunt owner he can't allow smoking.

I see little difference between the government forbidding restaraunt owners from allowing smoking for their patrons and someone coming into my house telling me I can't allow my guests to smoke even if I am willing to let them.

[© tweed]

Depends.

Home-rolled tobacco isn't that bad for you.

[Redefeatbush04]

Bump to discuss the NJ ban on smoking in bars/casinos/restaurants

[Blue Rectangle]

The newly-Democratic Colorado legislature is pushing for a smoking ban in all "public" accomodations.  The scary part is that "public" accomodations really means private businesses (bars and resturants).  If private buildings are to be called "public", what do we call government buildings?  "Ultra-public"?

We have already slid to the bottom of this slippery slope, where private property has become public property.

[WalterMitty]

i dont equate smoking restrictions with fascism.  that word is thrown around way too often these days.

[Trilobyte]

Exactly. Dubya - you have every right not to go to a restaraunt that allows smoking, but I don't feel you have the right to tell a restaraunt owner he can't allow smoking.

I see little difference between the government forbidding restaraunt owners from allowing smoking for their patrons and someone coming into my house telling me I can't allow my guests to smoke even if I am willing to let them.

First of all smoking is not just some harmless personal choice. It is a direct attack on everyone else's health.

Would you allow someone to walk into a resturant with a gun and fire at a several innocent people? Would it be okay if the resturant owner allowed it?

Are you saying people have the right to do anything as long as they're on private property?

[Joe Kakistocracy]

My view on this tilts toward's John Dibble's, even though I have a personal loathing for smoking.

My only beef is this.  Let's say you live in a town where all the non-smoking bars and restaurants are overpriced and have a terrible atmosphere.  Meanwhile, the smoking bars are all friendly, reasonably priced, and can usually be counted on for a good night out.  This happens to be the case in my town, which means my evenings out are usually to the smoking bars.  I get home and my clothes and hair stink from the secondary smoke, my eyes sting, and heaven knows what I've inhaled.  I realize that my choice to go to those bars instead of the others is exactly that - my choice - but do you think it is fair that my concern for my health and well-being means I have to sacrifice my enjoyment of an evening out?

Oh, and by the way, non-smoking areas are stupid.  Smoke is a gas - it spreads throughout the whole room.

(P.S. - yes, smoking is far better than fascism, but then that's like comparing jay-walking with child rape)

[Nym90]

I personally hate smoking, and I think it's an infringement on personal rights to not have non-smoking sections in restauraunts that have seperate ventilation systems as well as a good physical barrier.

I guess I view bars differently, I realize legally they aren't, but it just seems more natural and logical that a business that focuses on drinking rather than on serving food is less of a family environment and more natural for smoking. Maybe that doesn't make sense, but that's just how I see it.

In any event, the Supreme Court has ruled that restauraunts and hotels, as well as bars, since they are directly involved in interstate commerce, can be regulated as public places and not as private places under the Constitution, regarding discrimination, smoking regulations, etc. One may choose to disagree with that Consitutional interpretation, but it's the law of the land, and I think it makes sense. Owners of these type of businesses should feel at least some obligation to provide a safe and secure environment to their patrons, given their key role in the nation's economy, seperate and distinct from most businesses.

[A18]

Clearly that ruling is laughably absurd, and only came about as part of FDR's larger court packing scheme, but it's irrelevant, because we're talking about state bans, and they can do what they want.

[Nym90]

Clearly that ruling is laughably absurd, and only came about as part of FDR's larger court packing scheme, but it's irrelevant, because we're talking about state bans, and they can do what they want.

The case I'm referring to was in Georgia, after the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. I don't remember the case name, but I know that a hotel owner argued that the federal government had no authority to tell him who he could or couldn't rent his rooms to, but the Court argued that hotels are involved in interstate commerce (it would be highly impractical to ever travel or otherwise engage in business trips across state lines for work or the like if you were black and every hotel refused to rent you a room, for example), thus the federal government can regulate their activity. I don't see how that had anything to do with a failed attempt at court-packing that occured nearly 30 years before.

In the example I cited, it infringes on the right of other business owners to conduct their commerce as they see fit. Suppose I must travel as part of my job, and stay in hotels. They might be forced to fire me, if I'm black, and hire someone who is less qualfied for the job, simply because I can't rent a hotel room. So it doesn't just affect my personal rights, it affects the rights of other businesses to engage in commerce and to hire the best possible employees for the job.

[A18]

That case was just a continuance of the laughable broad 'construction' of the power to regulate commerce among the states (not interstate commerce, as often misquoted because it would imply a far more broad power). The Supreme Court even ruled that growing your own wheat was interstate commerce, because if you didn't grow it, you'd have to buy it.

You don't have the right to engage in commerce by means of property you don't own.

[John Dibble]

Exactly. Dubya - you have every right not to go to a restaraunt that allows smoking, but I don't feel you have the right to tell a restaraunt owner he can't allow smoking.

I see little difference between the government forbidding restaraunt owners from allowing smoking for their patrons and someone coming into my house telling me I can't allow my guests to smoke even if I am willing to let them.

First of all smoking is not just some harmless personal choice. It is a direct attack on everyone else's health.

Would you allow someone to walk into a resturant with a gun and fire at a several innocent people? Would it be okay if the resturant owner allowed it?

Are you saying people have the right to do anything as long as they're on private property?

Your questions are ridiculous, and have very little to do with the topic. It's never legal to murder someone, under any consequences. I find it silly to equate the negative health effects of smoking to a bullet in the head.

Let me pose a question to you - would you walk into the middle of a shooting range where people are constantly shooting and then blame the gunmen when you get shot? If you walk into a restaraunt that you know allows smoking, you are doing just that - you are taking a risk of your own free will. And furthering your logic that smoking is like shooting people, it would be just to forbid people to smoke in their own homes, at least when they have company. Are you fine with people having their habits regulated in their own homes?

[Nym90]

That case was just a continuance of the laughable broad 'construction' of the power to regulate commerce among the states (not interstate commerce, as often misquoted because it would imply a far more broad power). The Supreme Court even ruled that growing your own wheat was interstate commerce, because if you didn't grow it, you'd have to buy it.

You don't have the right to engage in commerce by means of property you don't own.

I agree that the idea of interstate commerce and the power to regulate it can be abused in some cases, but I think it's legitimate in the example I cited. If a person is black, they can't get a job that requires travel that'll stay in a hotel, if all of the hotels in an area don't allow blacks to rent a room (and remember, in the Deep South, prior to 1964, it was indeed pretty much imposslbe to rent a hotel room if you were black). So if a black applicant is the best worker for a job, a company can't hire him, even if the company is located in, say, Michigan, if the company requires occasional travel to Georgia as part of the job. So it affects businesses all over the country if a particular state allows its hotels and restauraunts to discriminate against patrons, because hotels and restauraunts, as opposed to most businesses, are pretty nearly absolutely necessary for some people to use as part of their jobs.

It can be debated whether the particular case was right or wrong based on the merits of the law, but I certainly feel it was the right decision not only from a moral perspective, but for the economy of the country as a whole.

[A18]

The point is it's the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. As in, settling disputes, ensuring free trade, etc. etc.

It's not moral to tell people what to do with their private property.

If Congress could pass any law substantially impacting interstate commerce, there would be no need for the clauses in the Constitution authorizing Congress to coin money and enact uniform bankruptcy laws. Clearly the intent was narrow.

EDIT: Also, the Civil Rights Act of 1964  is the most misnamed piece of legislation ever!

[Nym90]

The point is it's the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states. As in, settling disputes, ensuring free trade, etc. etc.

It's not moral to tell people what to do with their private property.

If Congress could pass any law substantially impacting interstate commerce, there would be no need for the clauses in the Constitution authorizing Congress to coin money and enact uniform bankruptcy laws. Clearly the intent was narrow.

EDIT: Also, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the most misnamed piece of legislation ever!

Ah, ok, I see your point now, about commerce between the states themselves, as opposed to businesses that do business across state lines.

I interpret it differently, and insert the standard rant about the Constitution being a living document (interstate commerce of the type I described wasn't too common in 1789) and the courts having the power to interpret it for the best interests of the nation here. It's just a philosophically different way of looking at it, I think, seeing the big picture and not getting so bogged down in details. I think it's important to remember why the laws exist the way they do, and debate the merits of those reasons, personally.