Belgian wrote:Pondering this ^ do we still have the right to build with asbestos or Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation? Does that ban offend our sacred property rights?
If (it may be argued) getting rid of smoking in bars has no more effect on business than getting rid of lead in gasoline or getting rid of CFC's in refrigerant systems, then that's not an infringement on useful privileges. It's providing a cleaner healthier space to live in.
I honestly think a lot of us today would still HAVE to breathe others' 'rightful' second hand smoke in a lot of places we had to go or work each day if they didn't slowly ban it over the last 25 years. Used to be cars, bars, workplaces, restaurants, airports, taxis, malls, people's homes, concerts, bus shelters... and you as a child or an adult just had to deal with The Smoking Class, like they were some kind of royalty... while the rest of us endured a constant toxic stress.
What about the right to not smoke? I sure would miss it.
MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm concerned about rights. Either you believe in property rights or you don't. As soon as you place even one restriction on property rights, you are against property rights.
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Where do you draw the line? What restrictions do you think should be imposed on a property owner? And what about your neighbour, what if he think's your restrictions don't go far enough? And what about his neighbour? And so on?
Once you start telling people what they can and cannot do with their property, or with their lives for that matter, you start a chain reaction. First it's only a few restrictions, some things that really make sense. Until you end up forcing people with businesses on 2nd floors to put in an elevator or close up their business... which is what's is being mandated by 2025.
lister wrote:MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker.
MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm all for banning smoking in public places. No parks, hospitals, etc. Have a campaign against it, it's gross and it's anti-life.
Kish84 wrote:lister wrote:MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker.MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm all for banning smoking in public places. No parks, hospitals, etc. Have a campaign against it, it's gross and it's anti-life.
I guess you can think it's gross and still do it, but...
MatttthewGeorge wrote:Let's look at it another way: Joe Blow, the owner of the bar we've been talking about, hates the new smoking ban. He tells his customers "Go ahead and smoke, it's my property and I say it's ok". His customers go smoke on the patio and Joe Blow gets a fine for allowing it. Are we ok with this? I'll assume you guys are ok with it. But what if Joe doesn't pay? What if he refuses because he thinks the law is unjust? Are you ok with Joe being taken to jail because he didn't pay? Is that a fair price to pay for wanting to allow your customers to smoke on your property? And what if Joe refuses to go to jail? What if is resists arrest? Do we shoot Joe? Does Joe die because he refused to go to jail, because he refused to pay his fine, because he refused to support a law which he felt was unjust and against his rights?
lister wrote:MatttthewGeorge, I suspect you're a smoker. This is kind of like arguing with religious people about their beliefs, pointless as whatever ludicrous examples get brought up to support them.
You talk about rights. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Same goes for smoke. There are rules that govern our society mostly for our protection whether it's public, private-public and truly private (like your home) spaces. Do you seriously advocate a free-for-all do-whatever-you-like fuck-you-and-everyone approach?
MatttthewGeorge wrote:I'm not advocating a lawless society. I'm actually pro-government, however I want government to do what it is suppose to do: govern. This means government should protect our rights, not impose on them. This means government should act as an arbiter in disagreements, a referee if you will, not a player. This means government should have the sole allowable use of force (self-defence excluded) to protect it's citizens from those that would do it harm. But it does not mean using said force to impose it's will on the people. I'm for a government that wants to defend it's citizens, not defeat them.
Craig wrote:Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic? Just off the top of my head, we've had a national building code since the 60s and provincial ones since the 70s. An absolutist stance on property rights is awfully antiquated and not particularly relevant to a smoking ban.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest