(03-01-2019, 03:00 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 02:43 PM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 02:36 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 02:27 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: None of that means smoking can't be regulated in bars.

Sure.. anything can be regulated in bars.

Again... you're ok with the government telling businesses that they can't allow smoking inside their business, but you're not ok with the government telling businesses that they can't discriminate.

And, as I pointed out multiple times, regarding citizens united, the exception proves the rule.

How would you feel if the government forced hobby lobby to provide birth control.

Citizens United was a USSC decision that determined businesses and corporations have constitutional rights. 

In one specific situation; not across the board constitutional protection.

Sorry you cannot accept that. 

I fully accept what I state above, which is reality.

Banning smoking in bars isn't forcing a business to do anything. 

Except alienate a customer base - smokers - that some businesses may WANT to cater to.  Again, supply and demand should be the determiner of how a business chooses to operate.  Nobody has to force businesses to add wifi.  

It does provide a safe environment for patrons just like my other example of not being able to fire your gun in a bar or restaurant even with the owner's permission.

A safe environment in a location where nobody HAS to go if they don't want to.  Had free market been allowed to operate, and government didn't overreach as it always does, businesses would have a) moved smoking to outdoors only, b) new non-smoking bars would have opened c) continued to allow smoking as people left bars that stopped allowing smoking.

You could not be more wrong if you actually believe Citizens United just applies to that one entity.  That is lunacy.  Once again, business in bars has increased where smoking has been banned.  The rest is just burfle.  Just because a bar is someplace you don't have to go, doesn't mean it should not have a safe environment for whoever chooses to go there.

(03-01-2019, 03:06 PM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 03:00 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 02:43 PM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 02:36 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 02:27 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: None of that means smoking can't be regulated in bars.

Sure.. anything can be regulated in bars.

Again... you're ok with the government telling businesses that they can't allow smoking inside their business, but you're not ok with the government telling businesses that they can't discriminate.

And, as I pointed out multiple times, regarding citizens united, the exception proves the rule.

How would you feel if the government forced hobby lobby to provide birth control.

Citizens United was a USSC decision that determined businesses and corporations have constitutional rights. 

In one specific situation; not across the board constitutional protection.

Sorry you cannot accept that. 

I fully accept what I state above, which is reality.

Banning smoking in bars isn't forcing a business to do anything. 

Except alienate a customer base - smokers - that some businesses may WANT to cater to.  Again, supply and demand should be the determiner of how a business chooses to operate.  Nobody has to force businesses to add wifi.  

It does provide a safe environment for patrons just like my other example of not being able to fire your gun in a bar or restaurant even with the owner's permission.

A safe environment in a location where nobody HAS to go if they don't want to.  Had free market been allowed to operate, and government didn't overreach as it always does, businesses would have a) moved smoking to outdoors only, b) new non-smoking bars would have opened c) continued to allow smoking as people left bars that stopped allowing smoking.

You could not be more wrong if you actually believe Citizens United just applies to that one entity.  That is lunacy. 

It was a specific ruling not even about ALL first amendment protections, only one specific area - political spending.

Once again, business in bars has increased where smoking has been banned. 

That is completely irrelevant to the discussion about what power should have over business.  It's business owners job to meet the demand of it's customers to stay in business and be profitable.

The rest is just burfle.  Just because a bar is someplace you don't have to go, doesn't mean it should not have a safe environment for whoever chooses to go there.

And, as the dangers of smoking and the societal opinions changed people's behavior, bars would change how they do business.  Should the government tell Burger King that they can't sell double Whoppers any more because they're unhealthy?

Pitch and HT should have an actual pissing contest, instead of a metaphorical one.

(02-28-2019, 10:42 PM)unc4corners Wrote: When I was in high school there was a designated smoking area for students...

Our  School to Out behind school for Cigs.

The Baseball drug outs for weed . 

(03-01-2019, 03:29 PM)Brutus Buckeye Wrote: Pitch and HT should have an actual pissing contest, instead of a metaphorical one.

Nah. There's nothing personal. I might give him a hard time about is view of blacks, but our debates are strictly philosophical. We both just happened to have strong beliefs and are stubborn.

(03-01-2019, 01:45 PM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 01:36 PM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 01:22 PM)Hightop77 Wrote: I don't get why people are upset about the smoking ban.  I can't go into a bar and start shooting targets on the wall even if the owner says its ok.  There are lots of things you can't do in a private business related to public safety.  Smoking is now one of them and it makes good sense.

actually, you DO understand.  Remember how unhappy you were with businesses being forced to not discriminate?

Except there is a major difference.  Smoking bans are generally done at the local level with now a few at the state level.  They are not taking away any foundational right.  Like I said, this is hardly the only thing that is banned for public safety reasons in a public setting.  And you know it too.

Local, state or federal.   This is a naked assault on private property rights.  It's epic/classic creep.  The free market could have easily solved this problem.  Right now you could have smoking bars and non smoking bars, but no, gubmint says only non smoking is permitted.  What country is this?

(03-01-2019, 12:20 PM)zigbee Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:42 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:19 AM)zigbee Wrote: Ohio's Statewide Smoking Ban. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places. Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it.


There you have it.   If you wanted to ban you voted yes....if you wanted to keep smokey bars etc you voted no.  Makes sense

Yes, and I mentioned I disagreed with this ("mob rule"). Pretty soon there might be a vote regarding something on your or my property.  PRIVATE property.  Just like the bars and restaurants.  Oh I forgot, they "serve the public."  Well so do I.  People come in and out of my house all the time.  What's next, a smoking ban at my house?  Seemed crazy 20 years ago.  Not so much now.

If there was in place a smoking ban on homes and all private property then you'd have tobacco being illegal.  I doubt we'd ever see this.

No, you could have people go outside to smoke, just like they do at some businesses.

Everybody claims they support freedom... Until it inconveniences them.

(03-01-2019, 04:42 PM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 12:20 PM)zigbee Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:42 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:19 AM)zigbee Wrote: Ohio's Statewide Smoking Ban. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places. Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it.


There you have it.   If you wanted to ban you voted yes....if you wanted to keep smokey bars etc you voted no.  Makes sense

Yes, and I mentioned I disagreed with this ("mob rule"). Pretty soon there might be a vote regarding something on your or my property.  PRIVATE property.  Just like the bars and restaurants.  Oh I forgot, they "serve the public."  Well so do I.  People come in and out of my house all the time.  What's next, a smoking ban at my house?  Seemed crazy 20 years ago.  Not so much now.

If there was in place a smoking ban on homes and all private property then you'd have tobacco being illegal.  I doubt we'd ever see this.

No, you could have people go outside to smoke, just like they do at some businesses.

How could you enforce knowing if someone is smoking in their house?  People smoke weed in their homes today with impunity.

(03-01-2019, 12:20 PM)zigbee Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:42 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:19 AM)zigbee Wrote: Ohio's Statewide Smoking Ban. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places. Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it.


There you have it.   If you wanted to ban you voted yes....if you wanted to keep smokey bars etc you voted no.  Makes sense

Yes, and I mentioned I disagreed with this ("mob rule"). Pretty soon there might be a vote regarding something on your or my property.  PRIVATE property.  Just like the bars and restaurants.  Oh I forgot, they "serve the public."  Well so do I.  People come in and out of my house all the time.  What's next, a smoking ban at my house?  Seemed crazy 20 years ago.  Not so much now.

If there was in place a smoking ban on homes and all private property then you'd have tobacco being illegal.  I doubt we'd ever see this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0...92719.html

(03-01-2019, 08:01 PM)maizegoblue Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 12:20 PM)zigbee Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:42 AM)ScarletHayes Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:19 AM)zigbee Wrote: Ohio's Statewide Smoking Ban. On November 7, 2006, Ohio voters overwhelmingly endorsed State Issue 5, which banned smoking inside of all public places in Ohio, including all restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, and work places. Almost sixty percent of Ohio voters supported the measure, while forty percent opposed it.


There you have it.   If you wanted to ban you voted yes....if you wanted to keep smokey bars etc you voted no.  Makes sense

Yes, and I mentioned I disagreed with this ("mob rule"). Pretty soon there might be a vote regarding something on your or my property.  PRIVATE property.  Just like the bars and restaurants.  Oh I forgot, they "serve the public."  Well so do I.  People come in and out of my house all the time.  What's next, a smoking ban at my house?  Seemed crazy 20 years ago.  Not so much now.

If there was in place a smoking ban on homes and all private property then you'd have tobacco being illegal.  I doubt we'd ever see this.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/0...92719.html

That's a six year old story...I'm guessing it did NOT become law.  Ain't going to happen.  Ever.  Which to me is fine.   Public places should prohibit smoking aside from designated areas. Private? Your business not anyone else's.

(03-01-2019, 06:46 PM)zigbee Wrote: How could you enforce knowing if someone is smoking in their house?  People smoke weed in their homes today with impunity.

Pay em a visit.  If someone smokes in their house, you will know it pretty damn quick.  

Look, this is just a hypothetical.  How far these little statists would be willing to go?  That far wouldn't surprise me.  

In my view it's the principle of the matter.  I don't like this, and I don't even smoke.  I mean we've heard the horror stories where a guy gets a puddle out behind his house and some little environmentalist dweeb says he can't build a shed there because of the twin-billed knob gobbler that drinks out of it.  

This is more govt creep, and I don't like it.  Fed, state or local.  What difference does it make?

You guys remember when the govt forced restaurants to have air filtration systems installed?  Then like 2 years later the smoking ban comes into place.  All I know is if I invested in a new air filtration system and then smoking was banned?  The state govt would have received a bill in the mail for a brand new air filtration system.  Yeah I know I could write it off too, but I still would've sent them the bill.  

The smell of smoke doesn't bother me unless it gets ridiculous. I do like the occasional cigar. Hookah bars are cool too although I probably haven't done that in 5 or so years.

Peeps complaining about e cigs/cigars are even worse. They have almost no smell at all. It's water vapor combined with nicotine and flavor. If you are complaining about that, you should also be complaining about cologne and perfume... both have more smell.

(03-01-2019, 10:35 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:33 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:29 AM)Hightop77 Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:23 AM)P1tchblack Wrote:

(03-01-2019, 10:14 AM)Hightop77 Wrote: I doubt it.

No reason to doubt.  It would have - 100% certainty.  Gilbert AZ, because they're mostly Mormon, was basically a "dry" city for decades - not ONE bar in the town.  Then nearby cities started re-doing their downtown areas with nice bars and breweries.  Gilbert has now redone it's entire downtown/surrounding area which includes at least 3 micro breweries and over a dozen bars/restaurants.

Yeah maybe 100 years from now but even that is not certain.  The reality is the people have spoken and most want smoking gone in restaurants and bars.  It has been a huge success and a great example of our form of government in action that improves the quality of life and does not involve wealth redistribution or some phony social justice issue.

Separating/removing smoking from inside restaurants/bars has been a good thing and it would have happened on its own when market demand warranted it.  There wasn't a law saying that bars had to provide free wifi, but how many bars/restaurants now have free wifi?

One could say the exact same thing about race and why there was no need for civil rights laws forcing businesses to serve blacks.

This might be true-even an abstract force-the free market thinks you are racist. That said, I don't think 25 years of civil strife would have been worth it for the market to work things out.

(03-01-2019, 02:00 PM)Brutus Buckeye Wrote: Bars and Churches are the most segregated institutions in America, because folks are free to choose their own.

People naturally self segregate when given the option.

People go to bars and churches consistent with their own social preference-gay bar, honky tonk, hipster microbrewery, hood' club, Mormon, black Baptist, "seeker', Catholic,whatever. The only motel or grocery store/restaurant in a given geographic are discriminating is a much more tangible and serious issue