Gov. Bredesen assaults freedom, liberty - wants to ban smoking in public

#26
#26
TennTradition said:
I think that the basis for prior legislation has been "when public health is a concern." For example, the state board of health can inspect restaurants to ensure that they are following proper sanitation procedures - they tell them how to prepare food, how to store it, etc. They are telling them how to run their business because it is a matter of public health. I think that is the same rationale that is used to prevent businesses with public dealings from allowing customers to smoke cigarettes.

I know that anytime the government steps in and tells a business owner how to run their business that a lot of people get very upset and that rights are infringed upon. But, it seems that the courts will allow it when public health is the concern.

I'm sensitive to the debate - I hear it all the time in Boston from businees owners who don't like the idea, but have to do it anyway.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The concepts are entirely different. They bear no resemblance.

Restaurant patrons typically do not have access to food preparation areas of restaurant establishments and do not know whether or not the food is safe to eat. That's why government needs to inspect the food preparation areas of restaurants.

Contrastingly restaurant patrons obviously do have access to, and can see if smoking is being conducted in, customer areas and have (or should have unless Bredesen has his way) the freedom of choice to stay or leave the establishment.

Lest we forget that Phil Bredesen is from Haavaard University which I think is located in Massachusetts. I hope not but this recent cockeyed idea may be the New England socialist yankee coming out in him.
 
#27
#27
I love going to the PM office in Manhattan. Great people who always shower me with gifts of various PM products. And talk about security. I was screened about 5 times just to get into the building.
 
#28
#28
You people totally miss the distinction between a privately owned business that is open to the public (a public accomodation where the government has wide latitude to regulate) and a truly "private establishment" that is only open to members and guests. Fortunately, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court do see the distinction. Otherwise, we'd still have segregation. If you want to serve the public then you have to open yourself up to goverment regualtion.
 
#29
#29
Volitics said:
I disagree. The concepts are entirely different. They bear no resemblance.

Restaurant patrons typically do not have access to food preparation areas of restaurant establishments and do not know whether or not the food is safe to eat. That's why government needs to inspect the food preparation areas of restaurants.

Contrastingly restaurant patrons obviously do have access to, and can see if smoking is being conducted in, customer areas and have (or should have unless Bredesen has his way) the freedom of choice to stay or leave the establishment.

Lest we forget that Phil Bredesen is from Haavaard University which I think is located in Massachusetts. I hope not but this recent cockeyed idea may be the New England socialist yankee coming out in him.
Click to expand...

I never said that these issues were the same. There is obviously a difference. That is why more people are upset about smoking bans than food preparation laws. BUT...my point is that "public health" is an issue in both and is therefore justification for the government to intervene without the courts stopping them.

And...as for Bredesen and his Harvard connection, I have no idea. But, I do know that he has been a pretty darn effective governor...so wherever he got it from, I hope we can get more like him.
 
#30
#30
TennTradition said:
I never said that these issues were the same. There is obviously a difference. That is why more people are upset about smoking bans than food preparation laws. BUT...my point is that "public health" is an issue in both and is therefore justification for the government to intervene without the courts stopping them.

And...as for Bredesen and his Harvard connection, I have no idea. But, I do know that he has been a pretty darn effective governor...so wherever he got it from, I hope we can get more like him.
Click to expand...

Here's a direct quote from your above post:
I think that is the same rationale that is used to prevent businesses with public dealings from allowing customers to smoke cigarettes.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you think that the government has the right to run everybody's business.

Didn't the Bolshevik communists say something like the "public safety" was a concern when the collected everybody's guns. After they had disarmed the citizenry they then cut off transportation roads to areas where farmers were resisting collectivization, which were vast regions of Ukraine and Russia, which resulted in starvation deaths of tens of millions of innocent citizens.

I see that you're from Massachusetts. You don't wear a red badge do you?
 
#32
#32
Volitics said:
Here's a direct quote from your above post:


It sounds like you think that the government has the right to run everybody's business.

Didn't the Bolshevik communists say something like the "public safety" was a concern when the collected everybody's guns. After they had disarmed the citizenry they then cut off transportation roads to areas where farmers were resisting collectivization, which were vast regions of Ukraine and Russia, which resulted in starvation deaths of tens of millions of innocent citizens.

I see that you're from Massachusetts. You don't wear a red badge do you?
Click to expand...

Your quote proves my point. I never said that the issues were the same. I said that the same rationale was used..."public health." My point has only been that if state's decide to do this, the courts don't intervene, saying that it is taking away rights, because of the public health aspects and the public dealings of these businesses. That has been my point all along.

I also like the result - that I don't have to worry about over-exposure to other people's smoke. The result is good and I don't think that it is too much of a stretch to say that the regulation is a matter of overall public health. People are told that they can't do things in public all the time...this is becoming one of those things.

As for the Massachusetts aspect....I live here only temporarily (while I get my PhD)...I'm from Tennessee and will be back there or close to there in about 4 years.
 
#33
#33
Rights are a tricky thing. It is wrong to say that this ban doesn't remove rights - it most certainly does. In the majority of cases these type of rights (to do what you please) are a matter of balancing one group's rights vs. another.

As to the private business but open to the public argument linked to segregation - the analogy is flawed. Segration policies banned certain PEOPLE from entering public businesses. Obviously, this has Constitutional repurcussions and thus is much more of an appropriate issue for Federal laws prohibiting such segregation. This issue of smoking is not a Constitutional issue. No one is being excluded from a business that is open to the public. People may not WANT to go into the establishment because there are smokers there. Likewise people may not WANT to go into an establishment where people talk too loud or the establishment plays BeeGee's music constantly.

The laws can be made but they certainly favor the rights of one group (non-smokers) over another (smokers).

FWIW - I don't smoke and never have.
 
#34
#34
volinbham said:
Rights are a tricky thing. It is wrong to say that this ban doesn't remove rights - it most certainly does. In the majority of cases these type of rights (to do what you please) are a matter of balancing one group's rights vs. another.

As to the private business but open to the public argument linked to segregation - the analogy is flawed. Segration policies banned certain PEOPLE from entering public businesses. Obviously, this has Constitutional repurcussions and thus is much more of an appropriate issue for Federal laws prohibiting such segregation. This issue of smoking is not a Constitutional issue. No one is being excluded from a business that is open to the public. People may not WANT to go into the establishment because there are smokers there. Likewise people may not WANT to go into an establishment where people talk too loud or the establishment plays BeeGee's music constantly.

The laws can be made but they certainly favor the rights of one group (non-smokers) over another (smokers).

FWIW - I don't smoke and never have.
Click to expand...

I agree with your points. I think the question is more does the constitution prevent such laws (as bans on smoking in public areas) from being made (not that it is a constitutional issue to allow smokers to continue smoking in public areas or place of public business). The point that I've been making is that I think the courts will uphold such laws because of the absence of any constitutional mandate to overshadow the public health benefits.

But...I'm no lawyer...just an engineer...so I make these points more as an observation than as someone who has a legal background to back them up
 
#35
#35
TennTradition said:
I agree with your points. I think the question is more does the constitution prevent such laws (as bans on smoking in public areas) from being made (not that it is a constitutional issue to allow smokers to continue smoking in public areas or place of public business). The point that I've been making is that I think the courts will uphold such laws because the absence of any constitutional mandate to overshadow the public health benefits.

But...I'm no lawyer...just an engineer...so I make these points more as an observation than as someone who has a legal background to back them up
Click to expand...

I agree - these laws are Constitutional in general. Whether they are good laws is another matter altogether.
 
#36
#36
if the government of our great state wants to steal more money from hard working tax paying citizens why not just implement a wheel tax and be done with it. if we are to be forced everyday to pour more of our tax dollars into a bottomless pit, and im sorry but that is what the education system in this country has become, make everyone pay for it, not just people who smoke. start putting a 60 cent tax on all these attention deficit disorder drugs that the government wants all our kids to take. the entire education debate in this state and our country makes me want to puke. the system was not broke 30yrs. ago. we got a paddling when we misbehaved. kids that constently got in trouble were sent to reform school so that the kids who wanted to learn were allowed to do so in an enviroment that they didnt have to worry about being shot at while they toke a math test. these same politicians who are taxing us to death are the same one's who broke the system in the first place. im tired of being taxed to death for a failed system. they bitch about how much the war is costing the American tax payer!!! check out how much money we spend everyday on a failed education system. put these damn politicians in a room with some of these juvinal deleiquents and let them teach them for a day or two.
 
#37
#37
melissa hyberger said:
if the government of our great state wants to steal more money from hard working tax paying citizens why not just implement a wheel tax and be done with it. if we are to be forced everyday to pour more of our tax dollars into a bottomless pit, and im sorry but that is what the education system in this country has become, make everyone pay for it, not just people who smoke. start putting a 60 cent tax on all these attention deficit disorder drugs that the government wants all our kids to take. the entire education debate in this state and our country makes me want to puke. the system was not broke 30yrs. ago. we got a paddling when we misbehaved. kids that constently got in trouble were sent to reform school so that the kids who wanted to learn were allowed to do so in an enviroment that they didnt have to worry about being shot at while they toke a math test. these same politicians who are taxing us to death are the same one's who broke the system in the first place. im tired of being taxed to death for a failed system. they bitch about how much the war is costing the American tax payer!!! check out how much money we spend everyday on a failed education system. put these damn politicians in a room with some of these juvinal deleiquents and let them teach them for a day or two.
Click to expand...
First, we already have a wheel tax in Tennessee. You pay it every year when you register your car. Part of the wheel tax is a set amount that goes to the state and part is set by the counties. Hence, the wheel tax in some counties is fairly high and in others is is very low. Secondly, I find it ironic that someone would complain about being taxed "to death" over a product that is going to kill them anyway.
 
#38
#38
melissa hyberger said:
if the government of our great state wants to steal more money from hard working tax paying citizens why not just implement a wheel tax and be done with it. if we are to be forced everyday to pour more of our tax dollars into a bottomless pit, and im sorry but that is what the education system in this country has become, make everyone pay for it, not just people who smoke. start putting a 60 cent tax on all these attention deficit disorder drugs that the government wants all our kids to take. the entire education debate in this state and our country makes me want to puke. the system was not broke 30yrs. ago. we got a paddling when we misbehaved. kids that constently got in trouble were sent to reform school so that the kids who wanted to learn were allowed to do so in an enviroment that they didnt have to worry about being shot at while they toke a math test. these same politicians who are taxing us to death are the same one's who broke the system in the first place. im tired of being taxed to death for a failed system. they bitch about how much the war is costing the American tax payer!!! check out how much money we spend everyday on a failed education system. put these damn politicians in a room with some of these juvinal deleiquents and let them teach them for a day or two.
Click to expand...

wrong thread??
 
#39
#39
we all got to die of something. but always taxing the same thing whether it be a smoking tax, property tax, etc..., is getting old. they are trying to get people to quit smoking by making it to expensive to smoke. they tried this with alcohol in th 20's and i didnt work then. hell driving down the road with your window open is bad for your health. you want to tax that to? this gov of ours keeps supporting tva and their nuclear program. you want to get real and talk about a health hazard lets talk about nuclear waste. all these politicians are a bunch of liers and you keep swallowing all their bull****. get ready cause they will keep chipping away at more and more individual rights, what little we have left. it will come to your house sooner or later.....
 
#40
#40
I love seeing smokers squirm over this.

If nothing else, it's a good bill for that matter alone.
 
#41
#41
VolunteerHillbilly said:
If you want to serve the public then you have to open yourself up to goverment regualtion.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked private businesses all serve the public. They all offer goods and services to the public. Many citizens enter the property to seek services or make payment of services and goods. The only difference is that the goods and services of some are actually distributed on premises.

Again, where does the government have the power to end the ability to do something that is still legal?

I love how you stretch your comparisons for smoking to racist diners and child molester halfway houses. Last I checked discrimination on race was illegal but smoking was legal. It might help to use a better example. If the government wishes to defend its actions with the comparisons you have used, the government has lost complete control.
 
#43
#43
Boortz hates cigarettes and goes out of his way to paint smokers as self-hating losers.

I agree with Cspin that the government should just make tobacco illegal. That way it can waste billions more in the "war on drugs" while not reaping any of the tax revenue tobacco sales generate for the federal coffers.

There are some issues either side just wants to keep around without solving the issue. Tobacco is one of them.
 
#44
#44
I was joking about making it illegal. Last time the government got high and mighty on regulating health and welfare on this level we had gangsters running bootleg and got the Kennedy's as a result.

If smokers are losers then you might as well paint the obese this also. Paint customers of every greasy establishment as self-hating losers as well. What about skydivers? Alpine skiers?
 
#45
#45
take a deep breath cspin. again you react to something I say without actually reading the post. Neal Boortz sees smokers that way, I didn't say I agreed with him.

I share the joke about making tobacco illegal, it isn't going to happen because politicians would rather speak out of both sides of their mouths while keeping their hands in our pockets and their noses in our private lives.
 
#46
#46
LOL...did anywhere in my post I accuse you of saying this? Try reading my post and realizing I am not directing anything solely at you....self-inflicted stress is as bad as smoking there guy.
 
#47
#47
CSpindizzy said:
If smokers are losers then you might as well paint the obese this also. Paint customers of every greasy establishment as self-hating losers as well. What about skydivers? Alpine skiers?
Click to expand...

maybe it's your choice of pronoun when replying to my post.
 
#48
#48
Having explained myself to you before, I'd figured a lesson was learned and I wouldn't have to retread the same path. Seeing that is the case, I will go basic to avoid this in the future.

Smoke break....
 
#49
#49
CSpindizzy said:
Having explained myself to you before, I'd figured a lesson was learned and I wouldn't have to retread the same path. Seeing that is the case, I will go basic to avoid this in the future.

Smoke break....
Click to expand...
Better start growing your own, or plan on a move to China. Once the master settlement funds are fully dispersed states will start banning tobacco one after another. The money made from taxing it just doesn't cover the health care costs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top