Pawlenty signs state smoking ban

[CIVPhilzilla]

I personally don't smoke, and find smoking rather disgusting, but I think legislation like this is ridiculous. This is the state stripping away the rights of business owners, and gets us onto the slippery slope where the government starts regulating other aspects of our lives "for our own good."

 

[JollyRoger]

I personally don't smoke, and find smoking rather disgusting, but I think legislation like this is ridiculous. This is the state stripping away the rights of business owners, and gets us onto the slippery slope where the government starts regulating other aspects of our lives "for our own good."

At least you can still smoke a cigarette. The slipperly slope started with outright banning of marijuana.

 

[History_Buff]

I really don't know why you guys all see this as the government stripping away the rights of business owners. The government has always regulated what businesses can do, as far back as the earliest business licenses.

Just as the government can tell businesses what kind of hours employees can work, how much you have to pay them, require safety levels, and restrict sales of items, so can they tell businesses that customers cannot smoke while on premises. Nobody is telling you you can't smoke on your own residential property (yet).

 

[Red Door]

I personally don't smoke, and find smoking rather disgusting, but I think legislation like this is ridiculous. This is the state stripping away the rights of business owners, and gets us onto the slippery slope where the government starts regulating other aspects of our lives "for our own good."

Exactly my feelings. If a business wants to ban smoking from its own establishment, be my guest, but a government should never interfere with someone's personal choice to smoke a cigarette.

 

[Gogf]

Exactly my feelings. If a business wants to ban smoking from its own establishment, be my guest, but a government should never interfere with someone's personal choice to smoke a cigarette.

Even if that personal choice is harmful to someone else?

 

[History_Buff]

Exactly my feelings. If a business wants to ban smoking from its own establishment, be my guest, but a government should never interfere with someone's personal choice to smoke a cigarette.

Should the government interfere with my personal choice to set things on fire? Why can't I put bombs in people's mailboxes? Why can't my company just pour it's chemical by products into the river?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

My opinions...

Should the government interfere with my personal choice to set things on fire?

No. As long as it is your things that you are setting on fire.

Why can't I put bombs in people's mailboxes?

Because you don't own those mailboxes.

Why can't my company just pour it's chemical by products into the river?

Because your company doesn't own the river.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No. As long as it is your things that you are setting on fire.

Sweet. So I'm aloud to set off a five alarm fire on my property in a crowded residential neighborhood right?
Oooh, how about I burn some papers I have in a dry wooded area?

 

[Adamb0mb]

Because your company doesn't own the river.

Who owns the air?

 

[MobBoss]

No. As long as it is your things that you are setting on fire.

If I set my own house on fire it is still arson. Just so you know.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Tax smoking in bars. Let the owner decide if they want to pay the tax or convert to a non-smoking bar. This way there will be many non-smoking alternatives as well as a place where smokers can have their beer and ciggy.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[CurtSibling]

I think the government should indeed step in to stop addicts spreading death
in public places, as the government has responsibility to protect the public.

I simply do not care about some shivering drug fiend, or a person who is
made mentally unstable if he does not get his deadly tobacco fix. I say to
these types, go and enter some air tight booth, or smoke in your home.

You have NO right to breathe your fetid plumes of cancer over others!

Your rights end with my fist in the face.

...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the government should indeed step in to stop addicts spreading death
in public places, as the government has responsibility to protect the public.

Define public place.

I simply do not care about some shivering drug fiend, or a person who is
made mentally unstable if he does not get his deadly tobacco fix. I say to
these types, go and enter some air tight booth, or smoke in your home.

Why do you figure I care about what you care about?

You have NO right to breathe your fetid plumes of cancer over others!

Your rights end with my fist in the face.

...

It's not about rights tough guy

 

[CurtSibling]

Define public place.

Pub, Diner, Bus Stop, Train Station...The list goes on.

Do I really have to point out the blatantly obvious?

Why do you figure I care about what you care about?

I never enquired as to what you care about...Why do you bring it up?

I merely stated that smokers who whine about not being about to poison
everyone around them really have no argument. What makes them so
special that we all have to suffer their clouds of cancer?

It's not about rights tough guy

I am not coming across as tough.

I am just citing my reaction to any tobacco-Stalinists.

...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Pub, Diner, Bus Stop, Train Station...The list goes on.

Do I really have to point out the blatantly obvious?

Well, some people do not regard pubs, bars, discoes, concert halls, etc as public places since they aren't. Since not anyone can enter.

I don't think you are able to point out the blatantly obvious.

I never enquired as to what you care about...Why do you bring it up?

Don't know, why did you?

I merely stated that smokers who whine about not being about to poison
everyone around them really have no argument. What makes them so
special that we all have to suffer their clouds of cancer?

They aren't special, they're the same as people driving cars.

I am not coming across as tough

Indeed you aren't.

I am just citing my reaction to any tobacco-Stalinists.

...

A fist in the face.

 

[VX250]

This is a violation of property rights, business ownes should be free to run their business how they want.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Who owns the air?

In your place, you do. In public places, the public does. Yes, smoke spreads through the air and isn't bounded by property lines but this same phenomena ensures that smoke dissipates at a distance from its source.

 

[VX250]

In your place, you do. In public places, the public does. Yes, smoke spreads through the air and isn't bounded by property lines but this same phenomena ensures that smoke dissipates at a distance from its source.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The public does NOT own the air in public places. If the 'public place' happens to a bar, a church, a brothel, or a casino, the property owner is the one who owns the air, and NOT the 'public'.

In 'public places' such as libraries, schools, hospitals etc THE GOVERNMENT owns the air.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The public does NOT own the air in public places. If the 'public place' happens to a bar, a church, a brothel, or a casino, the property owner is the one who owns the air, and NOT the 'public'.

Umm. A bar, church, brothel, or a casino isn't a public place. I am talking about private and public in terms of who owns a place not how many people go there.

In 'public places' such as libraries, schools, hospitals etc THE GOVERNMENT owns the air.

And supposedly the government is controlled by the people (i.e. the public). I still like to the idea that the people control the government and not the other way around.

 

[History_Buff]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The public does NOT own the air in public places. If the 'public place' happens to a bar, a church, a brothel, or a casino, the property owner is the one who owns the air, and NOT the 'public'.

In 'public places' such as libraries, schools, hospitals etc THE GOVERNMENT owns the air.

Actually, you're both wrong The average Land Title gives you ownership of the surface area it covers, excluding mining and minerals rights. It also makes no claim as to you owning the air above it. You're free to build on the land, but you don't necessarily own what's above your land.


And it's seeming like the real problem is defining just what is a public space.