Smoking Bans (In New Albany and and the great beyond)

And to take your own argument to a couple of logical conclusions, you might just as well suggest we have to allow folks to have sex in public places as well. After all, people have sex in their own homes, and so clearly it's infringing on our rights if we can't have sex wherever the heck we want. I hear tell many folks even allow their *guests* to have sex in their homes. And clearly it's infringing on people's civil liberties if we're not able to walk out on a restaurant patio or porch and pee in the bushes. Surely it should be our right to be able to pee anywhere we want, yeah? I mean it's perfectly legal to do it on your own property. Whose right is it to stop you from peeing in your own rose bushes, right? So why in the world should my civil liberties be restricted from peeing or whatever in a public place or outside a restaurant? After all, it's natural.

Well Im glad you stopped short of having sex in the rose bushes. Just the thought of all those thorns....

And to take your own argument to a couple of logical conclusions, you might just as well suggest we have to allow folks to have sex in public places as well. After all, people have sex in their own homes, and so clearly it's infringing on our rights if we can't have sex wherever the heck we want. I hear tell many folks even allow their *guests* to have sex in their homes. And clearly it's infringing on people's civil liberties if we're not able to walk out on a restaurant patio or porch and pee in the bushes. Surely it should be our right to be able to pee anywhere we want, yeah? I mean it's perfectly legal to do it on your own property. Whose right is it to stop you from peeing in your own rose bushes, right? So why in the world should my civil liberties be restricted from peeing or whatever in a public place or outside a restaurant? After all, it's natural. We all do it, right?

I'm not saying that we should be able to do what we want to wherever we want to. Implying that I suggested we should be able to have sex wherever we choose is not taking my argument to its logical conclusion. I was obviously arguing that its the business owner's right to decide what goes on in his business. If someone wants to run a business that caters to the sexual needs of its clients, then why shouldn't he or she be able to do so? However, if they don't want their clients rutting underneath the tables, then they should prohibit such behavior. As for sidewalks, roads, and government buildings (all technically government property), its well within the government's rights to ban mating.

In regards to your point about the workers and the possible harm of smoking, in the end no one is forcing them to work there. My roommate is a vegetarian, and finds meat (especially raw meat) to be disgusting. Ergo, she doesn't work in a butcher shop. Simple problem, simple solution.

Please read up on the Commerce Clause. The argument you're making seems awfully close to the argument made by the Heart of Atlanta Motel in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States.
Additionally, the "tyranny of the majority" doesn't really apply to smokers. Civil rights exist to protect legitimate minority groups, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., not based on a consumer preference.

Your first point about the interstate commerce clause is a very good one. I traditionally break a bit from libertarian dogma when it comes to questions like these.

First of all, in my ideal world, the government wouldn't have to desegregate any business. Take, for example, the Montgomery Bus Boycott of the '50s. In this case, the government and not private business was the problem. When people became incensed over the segregated state of the buses, they boycotted them and demanded change. The greatest part about the reaction was that not only African Americans became involved, but whites chipped in to help as well. My point is that citizens need to step up and tell business owners when they've crossed the line instead of expecting the government to do it for them.

Nevertheless, I do realize that civil apathy occasionally causes this to be an untenable, if optimistic, position. There are worse things for the government to do than prevent discrimination and segregation over differences in race, gender, and sexual orientation. You can extend that to my counterargument about the ADA above, which was argued from my idealistic position instead of my realistic position.

However, and this is the most relevant part of this post, I do make a distinction between legislating against racial discrimination and legislating in favor of smoking bans. The difference lies in the mutability of the issue. If an African American wants to eat a restaurant that prohibits black patrons, then said person cannot change their skin color to gain acceptance. If a smoker wants to eat a non-smoking restaurant (or vice-versa) then they can choose not to smoke (or to deal with the smoke in the mirrored case). In the one case, the government is protecting people from discrimination, in the other it is the party that is discriminating. I give the government more leeway in decisions that open doors than decisions that close them.

What if an entrepreneur wanted to open a cigar lounge? Its obvious that the sole purpose of visiting such an establishment would be to enjoy cigars, and any person who doesn't want to be around cigar smoke could very easily not enter the business. Why then must the city of Louisville prohibit the proprietor from creating such an establishment? Now imagine that the lounge also served excellent food and drink. Does that mean that they should have to abandon their core business model of catering to cigar lovers just so the non-smoking masses could enjoy the food in a non-smoking environment? I think not.

Finally, your assertion that smokers aren't a 'real minority' doesn't hold any water. I feel as if I'm stating the obvious when I say that minority is a group of people that don't possess sufficient numbers to constitute over 50% of a given population. Whether or not it is a choice has no bearing upon the simple numbers. Utilizing your arguments, the neo-cons who insist that homosexuality is a choice could very easily pass any legislation they want to against the non-heteronormative minority. Technically, there is no definitive proof that it isn't, although there is evidence that points in that direction. (personally I tend to believe its a combination of genetics and conditioning, because that's how most inheritable traits work)

If a smoker wants to eat a non-smoking restaurant (or vice-versa) then they can choose not to smoke (or to deal with the smoke in the mirrored case). )

I will suggest that ones ability to eat an entire restaurant depends entirely on how much of what was smoked.

If a smoker wants to eat a non-smoking restaurant (or vice-versa) then they can choose not to smoke (or to deal with the smoke in the mirrored case). )

I will suggest that ones ability to eat an entire restaurant depends entirely on how much of what was smoked.

Hah! Touche! Normally I would go back and fix that, but your response definitely merits leaving it for posterity.

And this is why I never get into conversations about the "rights" of smokers. Smokers will argue any point in any way they can just to appear as if they are absolutely right. It's a weird sort of fanaticism that is scarily akin to fundamentalist religious zealotry.

You'll talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and never say anything that doesn't lead yourself right back to your demand that everybody accommodate you and admit that your schtick is righter than anybody else's.

Thankfully, the rest of the world often has a say in how these things go as well. Which is why the smoking ban is making such inroads in this country.

This thread makes me hungry and horny and jonesing for a cigarette.

And this is why I never get into conversations about the "rights" of smokers. Smokers will argue any point in any way they can just to appear as if they are absolutely right. It's a weird sort of fanaticism that is scarily akin to fundamentalist religious zealotry.

You'll talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and never say anything that doesn't lead yourself right back to your demand that everybody accommodate you and admit that your schtick is righter than anybody else's.

Thankfully, the rest of the world often has a say in how these things go as well. Which is why the smoking ban is making such inroads in this country.

Hate to tell you this C., but I'm not a smoker. I very occasionally smoke a hookah with some of my friends, but cigarettes and cigars are a no go, and I'm not in any way addicted to nicotine. I argue these points based upon principle and not upon need.

Frankly, the next to last sentence you wrote terrifies me. How many despots have claimed that people should be 'thankful' that they're there to keep at bay the horrible evils of the Jews, the Sunnis, the gypsies, religion, alcohol, and of course anyone who politically disagrees with them.

I believe in a person's right to life, liberty, and the protection of their property, and therefore I argue against injustice and discrimination whenever it rears its ugly head. If you don't believe in liberty as embodied by a person's right to make decisions about his or her own property or body, then you have a right to hold that belief. Nevertheless, I'll still be there to defend you if whatever minorities you belong to ever fall out of favor and come under attack.

This thread makes me hungry and horny and jonesing for a cigarette.

And ain't nobody stopping you from doing any of them either. Thank goodness.

What I wanted to add to my last comment above.... Behavior in public places (that includes restaurants, which aren't entirely private places according to law) is always subject to regulation in some way. If you don't like it, then you can try to change it. Thankfully, enough people got fed up enough with smoke-infested public and work places that they worked to enact legislation. That's how our country works. If you think can get enough folks behind you to do the same, then you've got every right to try.

That wasn't directed at Marsha, just generally to the "I'm a smoker and I've got rights" stuff. Sure. I'm not a smoker and I have rights too. We all have rights.

That wasn't directed at Marsha, just generally to the "I'm a smoker and I've got rights" stuff. Sure. I'm not a smoker and I have rights too. We all have rights.

As I said above, I'm not a smoker either. And as to the contention that we all have rights, that's one point on which I couldn't agree with you more.

Frankly, the next to last sentence you wrote terrifies me. How many despots have claimed that people should be 'thankful' that they're there to keep at bay the horrible evils of the Jews, the Sunnis, the gypsies, religion, alcohol, and of course anyone who politically disagrees with them.

I believe in a person's right to life, liberty, and the protection of their property, and therefore I argue against injustice and discrimination whenever it rears its ugly head. If you don't believe in liberty as embodied by a person's right to make decisions about his or her own property or body, then you have a right to hold that belief. Nevertheless, I'll still be there to defend you if whatever minorities you belong to ever fall out of favor and come under attack.

Oh come now. Thank you, but I'm not really interested in the sort of mentality that jumps on every "rights" bandwagon just for the sake of "rights."

You're going to fight against the "injustices" that would ban people from smoking in a restaurant? You're convinced that that's some "inalienable right? Well, more power to you. I have better things to do with my time. To lump cigarette smokers into some overarching issue of liberty and "rights" is laughably goofy. And to use language such as "minorities" and "attack" and "liberty" in the same breath as arguing for smoker's "rights" is, well, laughably goofy.

This is also why I stopped attending some of the student political organizations in college. That so many people could sit around earnestly talking about the "rights" and "liberties" of smokers was too inane for words. If you're really that concerned about the rights and liberties of people, there are actual, suffering people in the world who could use your help.

Hey, on Valentine's Day I'm going to be (cigarette) smoke-free for 4 years, and I quit cold turkey and never cheated once.

That being said, I still want one EVERY DAY.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate/harangue/enlightenment session. I used to love smoking, until I stopped. Now I'm wistful for smoking, but realistic.

I will say, the "majority speaks" is not always the way to go - just ask Rosa Parks. But yes, it's different.

I think I'm an "oh no, that slope is slippery as an eel" person.

Oh come now. Thank you, but I'm not really interested in the sort of mentality that jumps on every "rights" bandwagon just for the sake of "rights."

You're going to fight against the "injustices" that would ban people from smoking in a restaurant? You're convinced that that's some "inalienable right? Well, more power to you. I have better things to do with my time. To lump cigarette smokers into some overarching issue of liberty and "rights" is laughably goofy. And to use language such as "minorities" and "attack" and "liberty" in the same breath as arguing for smoker's "rights" is, well, laughably goofy.

This is also why I stopped attending some of the student political organizations in college. That so many people could sit around earnestly talking about the "rights" and "liberties" of smokers was too inane for words. If you're really that concerned about the rights and liberties of people, there are actual, suffering people in the world who could use your help.

As for your assertion that my arguments are goofy, lets have a history lesson. During colonialism, you would have been called 'goofy' if you talked about the rights of natives. Everyone knew that they didn't have rights. If you'd talked about the rights of blacks in America around 1800, you would have been mocked because everyone knew that blacks didn't have any rights. If you would have talked about the rights of Jews during the middle ages, and even up into the early 20th century, people would have written you off because everyone knew that Jews didn't have the same rights as everyone else. The list goes on and on. What one person considers to be laughable today is liable to be incontrovertible tomorrow.

Mock me all you will, but I'm not arguing for smokers rights. I'm arguing for business owner's rights to do what they choose to with their property, and I'm arguing for a person's right to do what they want to with their own body. Those are the inalienable rights, and if you can't see that in my arguments then you've entirely missed the point.

Finally, the fact that you're so willing say that any discussion about 'rights' and 'liberties' is inane speaks of a profound jadedness that saddens me to my very core. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the protection of their property. If you don't believe in those basic tenets, then there's absolutely no way that you can understand where I'm coming from. Society and the government shouldn't be able to dictate what we do, provided we don't cause harm to others against their will.

(As something of an aside on that last statement, are you likewise opposed to boxing, wrestling, and some aspects of BDSM? These all cause harm to people, but they've decided that the benefits outweigh the risks. Likewise, a non-smoker who enters a smoking restaurant has made a conscious decision and therefore is not being harmed against their will.)

Hey, on Valentine's Day I'm going to be (cigarette) smoke-free for 4 years, and I quit cold turkey and never cheated once.

Good for you, and congratulations Marsha! My mom did the same thing about 4 or 5 years ago now, and I've seen how hard its been for her. Your dedication implies a great deal of willpower, and I applaud you for it.

I'm with Marsha with regard to the power of suggestion.

That said, the smoking ban "debate" in New Albany was laughable at best with both sides insisting that their evidence and its sources were unimpeachable while no one actually questioned the validity of any of it coming from anyone. It finally stopped with the mayor vetoing the legislation, asking for more exemptions. City council members who'd voted for the legislation found themselves in the logically impossible position of eschewing the mayor's stance on the basis of those exemptions even though they'd already supported exemptions in the original ordinance. In the end, nothing was accomplished, people skulked away embarrassed and/or angry, and issues of far more impact were ignored for months.

And just to add another wrinkle on the Hoosier side: Our state government, led oddly enough by a Republican administration, has pretty much declared jihad on local governments under the banner of reform, spending the past few years attempting to usurp power from them and centralize it at the state level while doing little to nothing to reform themselves.

The point is that it's not always about smokers vs. non-smokers or governments vs. private interests. The battle between state and municipal governments over local control is much larger than smoking.