Okay...just gotta ask

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Sorry for the double post, but I had to add something.

Restaurants and bars that are open to the general public (as opposed to truly private clubs with memberships) are not "private." They are subject to all sorts of laws, like public accommodation laws. For example, a bar or restaurant that is open to the public can't ban customers on the basis of race or any other protected category.

I guess my point is that they are not really "private" entities that can do as they please.

[sherban]

I am 100% for a smoking ban! Because we know the second hand smoke can harm us...enough justification for me. I don't need my kids "smoking" when we go out for dinner...second hand smoke sucks.

SJ- C'mon...eradication...really? So we are going to fly into south america and the middle east and spray a bunch of chemicals and crap on someone else's country because we can't manage demand/importation at home? Yeah, let's napalm them at the same time, why not...

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Cid]

Sherban - So the Afghan Taliban is able to poison us with their chemicals, why should we be able to return fire? Actually, I would do it differently.

Please share. I'm curious to hear what your plan might look like. Honest discussion is healthy and long overdue.

[soxfan22]

Sherban - So the Afghan Taliban is able to poison us with their chemicals, why should we be able to return fire? Actually, I would do it differently.

I agree...Using the same logic used by Sherban and others in regards to the smoking ban (it's bad for us, bad for my kids, government must protect us, yada, yada, yada)...Why then should we allow other countries to poison our citizens who simply cannot help themselves?

So yes, eradicate the crops. That is, if we are to be consistent.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Sherban - So the Afghan Taliban is able to poison us with their chemicals, why should we be able to return fire? Actually, I would do it differently.

I agree...Using the same logic used by Sherban and others in regards to the smoking ban (it's bad for us, bad for my kids, government must protect us, yada, yada, yada)...Why then should we allow other countries to poison our citizens who simply cannot help themselves?

So yes, eradicate the crops. That is, if we are to be consistent.

I don't want my comments to be dismissed as "yada, yada, yada." Allowing smoking in bars and restaurants poses a risk to the employees of those establishments. Don't the owners of such establishments have a legal duty to prevent such potential harm to their employees? (That was rhetorical...the answer is yes.)

I don't have an answer for the drug issue...well, actually, I do have an idea...but it's not very popular.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

sox, here's what you wrote, and I think we might actually agree for once:

So no, I don't think the point is stupid. What is borderline stupid (IMO) is thinking that only government can control the masses from themselves, and from each other.

Again, you cannot legislate all risk out of life. And even if you could, how mundane life would be!

I like personal choice.

Okay, so here's what we do...we don't make any drugs illegal. Why should government tell us what to do? Darwin. If some can't handle it, screw them.

Without the legal restrictions, prices will decrease making the business less attractive to a criminal element.

There would be the sticky issue of the misuse of prescription drugs, but the answer to that is to stop the classification of prescription vs. non-prescription drugs. After all, why should government tell any individual what they can and cannot obtain with or without the assistance of a doctor? The drug companies would see their profits plummet, as would the illegal drug dealers I mentioned previously. Too bad, so sad.

Individual liberty. I am on board. I really am. Let each person decide what they want to put into their body. Making it illegal just makes it a lure for huge profits...whether the profiteers be illegal dealers or the major drug companies.

[Cid]

"I don't want my comments to be dismissed as "yada, yada, yada." Allowing smoking in bars and restaurants poses a risk to the employees of those establishments. Don't the owners of such establishments have a legal duty to prevent such potential harm to their employees? (That was rhetorical...the answer is yes.)

I don't have an answer for the drug issue...well, actually, I do have an idea...but it's not very popular."

Pete, as I recall you are an attorney? I can't really remember, too much weed (lol), but I have an instance on this issue I'd like an opinion. Others feel free to chime in here. My friend owned a nightclub that happens to be down the street from a "private" club. The Elks to be exact. When the smoking ban went into effect, all 6 of his employees were smokers. His patrons, smokers and non-smokers alike, had been frequenting his club for years without any complaints about smoking. The law gets passed and his business drops by a fair amount. We live in a small town where there are few nightlife options. Membership at the Elks is up three doors down and my friend has been harmed by someone else sticking their nose into his business. How is this fair and how has the law protected the three employees he's cut back to part-time?

As far as OSHA regulations being the law of the land on this issue, I would beg to differ. Why is there no national workplace smoking ban? Because it's an issue that is decided on a state by state basis. I would stand corrected if you can quote the OSHA regulation that specificly bans workplace smoking. I don't believe there is one. If there is, can you cite any instances of OSHA enforcing the regulation in that manner. I'd be surprised. If it's the law why isn't it being enforced? Is OSHA that inept? (That was rhetorical...the answer is yes.)

Once again for the record, I'm a reforming lifelong smoker, but I do support smoking bans. It's a nasty unhealthy habit that shouldn't be done around people that might not want to be affected. I hate people smoking around me when I eat....otherwise I don't really care too much.

[Cid]

Pete....I've had that same thought before....it has its merits. It's ideologically sound. I'm not so sure about the execution though. Heheheheee....

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Shift the facts and say that all of your friend's employees were non-smokers. They could argue that the second hand smoke makes their workplace unsafe. Has OSHA enforced this? Not uniformly...but watch, it's coming.

Again, I smoke. I like it. I especially like it with a cocktail at my favorite drinking establishment. I'm not in favor of these laws, but I do understand the argument.

If the government can tell employers to keep the floors dry so workers don't slip (which they can and do everyday), they certainly can tell employers to keep the air free of toxic smoke.

I would be happy to provide you with details on the general duty clause of OSHA that deals with this issue, but then I would have to charge you $350.

[soxfan22]

You are painting me as some type of anarchist. I never said government doesn't serve any role.

I live within an 8 mile radius of a nuclear power plant. If something happened (reactor meltdown, radiation leak, etc), I would die. There would be no questions asked, and no amount of iodine pills will likely save me.

Should we outlaw all nuclear power plants due to the *risk* associated with the public at large?

Why is it the government's job to protect people from life's inherent dangers? Comparing the regulation of pharmaceuticals is very different from regulating whether or not a private business can allow people to smoke in the establishment. And again, I have no rooting interest here. I actually enjoy being able to go out without coming home smelling like smoke.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Well, first off, you missed one, important point...these bars and restaurants are not "private" businesses. Once they invite the public into their doors, they become subject to regulation. The municipality in which they operate can say to them, "you must let the health inspector in and you must live up to sanitary codes." Right?

So, too, can the municipality say to them..."oh, and no smoking." I'm not a fan, but it's true.

Sox, it always comes down to the slippery slope...is it okay for the municipality to say, "make sure your kitchen is clean" but not okay for it to say, "no smoking?"

And, extending that argument, where is the line? Where does government's right to intervene stop? Is public safety the line in the sand, like in your nuclear facility example? If so, evidence shows a severe risk to public safety from second hand smoke.

Once one embraces some regulation, the slippery slope begins.

[Cid]

"I would be happy to provide you with details on the general duty clause of OSHA that deals with this issue, but then I would have to charge you $350."

I'm glad to see I still have a few braincells left! I'll take your word for it. I actually figured it out because you answered my question with a question and never really addressed the scenario. Well before I got the $350 charge that always seem to come at the end. Have you considered a career in politics? Just poking fun Pete.

I agree that OSHA regulation and enforcement is probably not too far off and probably not unwarranted. I just get angsty when the government wants to regulate personal choice. It's a grey area that overlaps also into the marijuana legalization issue.

[Pete (Mr. Marcia)]

Hey, Cid, don't get me wrong...I'm not a fan of such government regulation. I was just pointing out the legal argument. The only reason I gave up getting high is that if I got caught I could lose my law license...and that license allows me to feed my family.

Oddly, in Wisconsin, I could amass five DUIs before my license could...could...be in jeopardy. Go figure.

It is bassackwards.

[soxfan22]

Once one embraces some regulation, the slippery slope begins.

And on this, we can agree!

Here's an interesting piece from The Washington Post (Dec 2009)...It discusses the smoking ban implemented in Virginia recently. I thought the following quote was telling, and it supports my case that in the end, the market gets it right in most instances, without any government intervention:

Virginia's law is in some ways catching up with what has been a reality in much of the state, especially in Northern Virginia, where most restaurants went smoke-free long ago. By February, when the legislature finally passed the ban after years of lobbying by anti-smoking advocates, about 66 percent of restaurants had already gone smoke-free in response to customer demand. A week ago, that proportion was about 75 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02282.html

The public is always more intelligent than our elected officials give us credit for. They enact something like this, then shout from the rooftops "see, without us, you rubes would all die horrible, horrible deaths because, well, you just don't know what's good for you (kind of like obamacare)...Or worse yet, you don't know what's bad for you.".