- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:18 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
this has nothing to do with public wellbeing.
Please tell me what possible other motives one would have to enact such an ordinance. I assure you they didn't just wake up and say hey, let's frick with bars today.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:19 pm to Breesus
quote:
Go outside
So effect people outside who don't choose to be inside of a bar instead of just effecting people who willingly choose to go inside a bar that allows smoking
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:21 pm to TigernMS12
quote:tyranny of the majority
Please tell me what possible other motives one would have to enact such an ordinance.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:22 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
Please tell me what possible other motives one would have to enact such an ordinance.
Regulation gives these agencies power. Most politicians love them some power. They love to regulate everything they possibly can for that exact reason. Same reason you need your car inspected under the guise of public safety
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:23 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
People love their nanny state
It's incredibly sad
It's incredibly sad
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:25 pm to TigernMS12
But what about the issue with limiting personal freedom and freedom of expression?
A person who doesn't want to be around smoke, fine, no problem. Smoke-free establishments, great, I'm with them. Would rather go eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. Want a rental car or hotel room that doesn't smell like an ashtray? Yep. They have that right and I'm all for it.
If I own a business, and want to have it set as a place for smokers to congregate, maybe have a beer or burger, and not have to worry about offending non-smokers, should I have the same rights?
A person who doesn't want to be around smoke, fine, no problem. Smoke-free establishments, great, I'm with them. Would rather go eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. Want a rental car or hotel room that doesn't smell like an ashtray? Yep. They have that right and I'm all for it.
If I own a business, and want to have it set as a place for smokers to congregate, maybe have a beer or burger, and not have to worry about offending non-smokers, should I have the same rights?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:25 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:
tyranny of the majority
if you think the majority of people are smokers. In a 2013 gallop poll LA had a 24.1% smoking rate, and the highest smoking rate in the country by state was Kentucky with 30.2. Even if I were to give you a 10 point margin of error, you don't come close to a majority. And that was in 2013, with smoking rates continuing to fall throughout the country. Gallop
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:26 pm to TigernMS12
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:27 pm to Salmon
I agree, but it's not even a nanny state in this situation. They want the government to force private businesses to follow their wishes. That's much worse than a well meaning nanny state IMO.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:27 pm to Honky Lips
I've always believed that the owner of the establishment should be able to decide whether or not they allow smoking. If Patrons don't like it, don't fricking go to that bar. If employees don't like it, don't apply for a job in a bar that allows smoking.
And if the smoking hurts the owners business thats on him, and he can decide if he wants to change.
It honestly makes zero sense to me that any fricking Republican would disagree with the above. Im liberal as frick and I think it's wrong for a city, state or federal government to tell a business owner what to do regarding this subject.
And if the smoking hurts the owners business thats on him, and he can decide if he wants to change.
It honestly makes zero sense to me that any fricking Republican would disagree with the above. Im liberal as frick and I think it's wrong for a city, state or federal government to tell a business owner what to do regarding this subject.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:28 pm to TigernMS12
Lol. U dumb.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:28 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
They want the nanny state to protect them from their own choices. They can't make choices on their own, so they need to the government to force the issue.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:30 pm to GreatLakesTiger24
If a bar wants to allow trashy people to frequent their establishment, it's up to them. But I think we can all agree smoking is one of the trashiest things you can do. Right behind dipping.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:30 pm to mikrit54
quote:
But what about the issue with limiting personal freedom and freedom of expression?
Your personal freedom is limited in countless ways, and every limit is to not cause harm to others, in other words, for the general wellbeing of the public. You can't speed, you have to stop at red lights, and on and on and on.
There is nothing expressive, speech wise, about smoking a cig
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:31 pm to TigernMS12
I love the "well you already don't have these personal freedoms, so you should be ok with losing more" argument
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:34 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
you think the majority of people are smokers. In a 2013 gallop poll LA had a 24.1% smoking rate, and the highest smoking rate in the country by state was Kentucky with 30.2. Even if I were to give you a 10 point margin of error, you don't come close to a majority. And that was in 2013, with smoking rates continuing to fall throughout the country.
Congrats on agreeing with his point. He was saying that non smokers are the majority.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:34 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
There is nothing expressive, speech wise, about smoking a cig
Well, I'm not talking about speech, for one thing.
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:38 pm to Honky Lips
quote:
So as a non smoker, I don't have the freedom to patronize any business I please? Got it.
No. You have it backwards. As a non smoker you have the right not to go to a business that offers a product that you do not want. You do not have a right to force a business to offer a product that you want to buy.
The real question here is, why do you hate freedom? Or are you willing to admit that you only like your own freedom, and you hate the freedom of others?
Posted on 6/25/17 at 3:56 pm to mikrit54
You stated "limiting freedom of expression." Freedom of expression, at least constitutionally and how you implied it as an argument, is a sub-category of free speech.
Page 16 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News