Restaurant smoking ban in Baton Rouge

I smoke, but have enough respect for others to go outside anyway. So I could really care less if a place has a no smoking policy. I do however have a problem with the fact that the government that preaches freedom has taken away another one of our rights.

It will take a bunch of little things like this for people to see what is happening. Before long it will be against the law to sell alcohol in bars because people must drive away from them. Then it will be illegal to yell to loud at football games because some guy on the third row has a loss of hearing from the noise pollution.

Where does it end? or will it? We just keep letting them take our rights away.

 

But, as red pointed out, your rights end where mine begin. You do not have the right to kill, abuse, or harm someone in any other way on private property. I don't see people getting upset over laws preventing that.

This isn't the Patriot Act. These 'omg they're opressing us' dramatics are just silly. No one is taking away your privelege to smoke. How many times must that be repeated?

 

This is exactly why I've always thought that the term 'tyranny of the majority' that NoLimitMD mentioned early on is preposterous. Such an idea is obsolete in a democratic society. And the only way to avoid it would be if everyone factioned themselves off into groups that wanted certain things the same way. Even then, there would be enormous overlap, and compromises ('tyranny of the majority') would have to be made.

 

Not true. It happens all of the time. The dumbing down of American schools. The antiquated speed limits. Antiquated immigration policies. Having the government regulate private business because the majority doesn't like something. Hmm.

 

All that you're saying is that you just disagree with the majority on some issues. Yeah, that happens frequently. But, such is life in a democracy. What sort of alternative do you suggest? And 'antiquated speed limits?' Don't even get me started...

Yeah, most people tend to be opposed to others harming their health. Those oppressive bastards.

 

A more representative (proportional) Democracy could be a start -- that's a whole other discussion (and one I don't feel like expounding on today.) Much like speed limits for you, I guess? :yelwink2:

I can't believe you're overdramatizing the purported impact of 2nd hand smoke so much. There's just a world of difference from incidental exposure, and living in a house with a smoker.

Regardless, to me (and many people on this thread), it's about the rights of a business owner to run their business, not about people being able to smoke or keeping whiny people's lungs perfectly clean (other than the crappy air we have to breathe in some places.)

 

Not saying they are taking away my right to smoke. They are taking away the business owners right to conduct his business how he chooses.

 

And I can't believe that people are overdramatizing the impact of restricting smoking so much. So I suppose it's a wash.

Of course, and apparently a quantifiable difference at that. But establishments do need employees.

But that's just it...it's not telling someone how they can or can't 'run their business.' It's not setting profit limits or prices, dictating menu items, hours of operation, etc...it's concerned with protecting people that work there and patronize it. Regulation of things that go on between patrons/employees have always been in place. Ack...Ok I'm going in circles now (or have I/we been)!

 

the compromise is that when i go some places there will be smoke and i either deal with it, ir go somewhere else. there are plenty of other non smokers like me and i am sure the market will provide us places we can go.

i dont feel like i should go to anywhere and boss people around. when a situation like this presents itself, you leave the decisions us to individuals, not the government. i dont have any problems with places that want to have so much smoke in them that i cant be there 5 minutes without my eyes watering and coughing and everything, i can compromise and find a place where i feel comfortable and we are all happy. i am very prudent.

i dont smoke, but that doesnt make it my right to tell you you cant smoke in places where the owner of the place allows it.

i am so moderate and prudent , i can take this position even though my mom smoked when i was a kid and caused me deep emotional as well as cardiovascular pain. i deserve an award of some sort.

 

not me, i love that phrase. you dont like it becuse you are one of the tyrannasaurs, smashing and crushing our freedoms with ferocity.

i dunno why you keep saying that when it clearly is. if i own a bar and you and me are in there kickin it, and you ask me if you may smoke, isnt that my decision? yunno, its my place.

true, a democracy is a place where being moderate and prudent is wonderful. but there is a limit to how much we should want to control each other. maybe sometimes leave the decisions to the (individual!) people of this wonderful country.