Most of the opposition to drugs is based on paranoia; a modern day version of "refeer madness." The vast majority of the population doesn’t question the propaganda out of the government on drugs after all. Which is why the government can publish such irrational B.S. and get away with it.
Epicurus - 11:04am on 04/26/2006
Dave,
Have you seen this story?
South Carolina legislator Rep. Ralph Davenport (Republican) wants to "make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses." He’d have South Carolina join Alabama, Texas and Mississippi.
Happily the article also states: "No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor and its passage this year seems unlikely."
Davey, how does my unwillingness to condemn all statutory law on a whim translate into support for what you’ve just cited?
Get a grip.
Rob - 01:04pm on 04/26/2006
Rob,
He’s attacking your general line of reasoning re: government regulations.
Epicurus - 02:04pm on 04/26/2006
Zsa Zsa said, The federal government has already imposed taxes and restrictions on smoking. Why not just make it illegal?
You do that and we’re going to be fighting girl.
likwidshoe - 02:04pm on 04/26/2006
I am defending the right of a property/business owner to allow a perfectly legal activity on his/her property. This has nothing to do with a made-up "right to smoke."
So basically, businesses should be free to do whatever they choose within their buildings with limited or no government oversight, despite the well documented adverse risks and despite clear majorities of the citizens that want to regulate these actions?
I will concede that the Federal Government has absolutely no role whatesoever in this debate or in passing a "Nationwide Smoking Ban", but I think that realistically this is precisely the kind of issue that belongs to the states and to majority rules. So long as the state does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights or Federal Laws, they should be able to regulate workplace environments. States should have the right to regulate medical proceedures (read human cloning, abortion, medical marijuana, etc.) and should also be able to set their own liquor laws and tobacco laws as well as license what constitutes a marriage within their state as well as determine tax rates.
What we would end up with ideally is states reflecting their constituents and majority rules on situations such as this. California may try some cockeyed scheme and we all point and laugh, but progressive California was the first to ban smoking and their businesses did not even suffer a hiccup over it. Big money tobacco is spending tons to lobby to keep these laws off the books, but the people across the US are turning out to pass these laws. And for good reason. I have no problem with the Tobacco lobby spending money, but if these laws turn out to be a bad idea, then repeal them.
I just fail to see any logic on why majority rules does not work here. Because it imposes laws on business owners? Because it puts an undue burden on businesses? Because it makes a vocal minority that choose to engage in a harmful activity unhappy? The ADA did far more than this and affected almost every business. It forced wheelchair ramps and led to frivolous lawsuits left and right.
Justin B - 03:04pm on 04/26/2006
You know what’s hilarious? I’m not a smoker. I can’t stand smoking. Its just that I don’t like the idea of people telling me what I can and can’t allow on my property. Zoning ordinances based on concerns over traffic and that are understandable as they effect other property owners...but banning smoking so that people who don’t like smoke can come onto my property?
Rob, this is not your home. This is your business. Part of running a business is that you participate in the local licensing laws and follow the regulations. A Business is not simply your property, but a regulated activity that is subject to additional laws and rules.
Whether you smoke or not in your home and whether people that come into your home or not like it is one thing. Applying those same standards to your business is another. My home does not have to be ADA compliant, but if my business fits the criteria, it does. Businesses can chose to cease operations or move elsewhere if they do not like the regulatory environment. Property or not, ownership or not, you only have the right to own or operate a business on said property when you are following the regulations and the law.
Justin B - 03:04pm on 04/26/2006
Lik...I’ll fight ya! Now bend over… Just kidding! I will probably be accused of flirting, you big stron white blogging male you.
Zsa Zsa - 03:04pm on 04/26/2006
Justin why is it that you think you can regulate the business that someone owns but not YOUR HOME. What if you sold something on Ebay? What if they wanted to regulate Rob because he blogs from home?
The main problem here is that government appears to feel that they have the moral imperative to command our entire lives no matter where we are.
They’ve already passed that law. What more, you support it!
Dave,
Most of the opposition to drugs is based on paranoia; a modern day version of "refeer madness." The vast majority of the population doesn’t question the propaganda out of the government on drugs after all. Which is why the government can publish such irrational B.S. and get away with it.
Dave,
Have you seen this story?
South Carolina legislator Rep. Ralph Davenport (Republican) wants to "make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses." He’d have South Carolina join Alabama, Texas and Mississippi.
Happily the article also states: "No other legislator has signed on as a co-sponsor and its passage this year seems unlikely."
http://www.independentmail.com/and/home/article/0,1886,AND_8195_4641568,00.html
Davey, how does my unwillingness to condemn all statutory law on a whim translate into support for what you’ve just cited?
Get a grip.
Rob,
He’s attacking your general line of reasoning re: government regulations.
Zsa Zsa said, The federal government has already imposed taxes and restrictions on smoking. Why not just make it illegal?
You do that and we’re going to be fighting girl.
So basically, businesses should be free to do whatever they choose within their buildings with limited or no government oversight, despite the well documented adverse risks and despite clear majorities of the citizens that want to regulate these actions?
I will concede that the Federal Government has absolutely no role whatesoever in this debate or in passing a "Nationwide Smoking Ban", but I think that realistically this is precisely the kind of issue that belongs to the states and to majority rules. So long as the state does not infringe upon the Bill of Rights or Federal Laws, they should be able to regulate workplace environments. States should have the right to regulate medical proceedures (read human cloning, abortion, medical marijuana, etc.) and should also be able to set their own liquor laws and tobacco laws as well as license what constitutes a marriage within their state as well as determine tax rates.
What we would end up with ideally is states reflecting their constituents and majority rules on situations such as this. California may try some cockeyed scheme and we all point and laugh, but progressive California was the first to ban smoking and their businesses did not even suffer a hiccup over it. Big money tobacco is spending tons to lobby to keep these laws off the books, but the people across the US are turning out to pass these laws. And for good reason. I have no problem with the Tobacco lobby spending money, but if these laws turn out to be a bad idea, then repeal them.
I just fail to see any logic on why majority rules does not work here. Because it imposes laws on business owners? Because it puts an undue burden on businesses? Because it makes a vocal minority that choose to engage in a harmful activity unhappy? The ADA did far more than this and affected almost every business. It forced wheelchair ramps and led to frivolous lawsuits left and right.
Rob, this is not your home. This is your business. Part of running a business is that you participate in the local licensing laws and follow the regulations. A Business is not simply your property, but a regulated activity that is subject to additional laws and rules.
Whether you smoke or not in your home and whether people that come into your home or not like it is one thing. Applying those same standards to your business is another. My home does not have to be ADA compliant, but if my business fits the criteria, it does. Businesses can chose to cease operations or move elsewhere if they do not like the regulatory environment. Property or not, ownership or not, you only have the right to own or operate a business on said property when you are following the regulations and the law.
Lik...I’ll fight ya! Now bend over… Just kidding! I will probably be accused of flirting, you big stron white blogging male you.
Justin why is it that you think you can regulate the business that someone owns but not YOUR HOME. What if you sold something on Ebay? What if they wanted to regulate Rob because he blogs from home?
The main problem here is that government appears to feel that they have the moral imperative to command our entire lives no matter where we are.