• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Smoking ban begins today in Washington, DC!

Deegan said:
"Odd, I feel I have a better understanding then most of how the constitution is supposed to operate"

And you are the problem then, your opinion shows that, "you know better then most" you don't know sh!t!

States have their own lawmakers, and they can obviously be bought and sold to the highest bidder, but they can't bypass the constitution. These rights are well described, and well known, it's just a step away from the SCOTUS, as it should be. If a group of folks want to get together and smoke, they should be able to be afforded a little tiny spot in our f**king existence, don'tcha think?:confused:

To turn them in to criminals, and extort unreasonable taxes, this is the crime!
Click to expand...

The constitution lists explicit powers given to the federal goverment with everything else left to the state or the people. I was hoping for something a little more specific to back up your words.

What of local zoning laws? I don't much care for some of those either, should we just scream "unconstitutional". from the rooftops with those as well?
 
zymurgy said:
The constitution lists explicit powers given to the federal goverment with everything else left to the state or the people. I was hoping for something a little more specific to back up your words.

What of local zoning laws? I don't much care for some of those either, should we just scream "unconstitutional". from the rooftops with those as well?
Click to expand...

Yes we should, but bringing up other bad opinions, to attempt to rationalize this bad decision making, is just not an argument at all! It's saying, "my opinions, are right, yours are wrong" and it's just not common sense thinking, it's a new world order.
 
Deegan said:
Yes we should, but bringing up other bad opinions, to attempt to rationalize this bad decision making, is just not an argument at all! It's saying, "my opinions, are right, yours are wrong" and it's just not common sense thinking, it's a new world order.
Click to expand...

You have completely lost me.

Apparently neither of us like is law. My only dispute with your post was you were looking for the constitution as the means to argue your position, which I didn't understand.

And since I first responded to it your replies continue to get stranger to me. What am I missing?
 
aps said:
Just so you know:
Click to expand...

Good articles, aps.

I am open minded to smoking houses and places where you can just smoke. But I don't really have a problem with smoking bans. I've seen first hand how deadly smoking can be and how it can kill you. Since second hand smoking is more deadly than first hand, it might make sense to ban it in most establishments. I'm all for private property but think about the employees that work in a smoke filled bar that can't find a job anywhere else and are exposed to all that second hand smoke.
 
zymurgy said:
You have completely lost me.

Apparently neither of us like is law. My only dispute with your post was you were looking for the constitution as the means to argue your position, which I didn't understand.

And since I first responded to it your replies continue to get stranger to me. What am I missing?
Click to expand...

I realize that, as you can no longer hold to your usual moral ground, you have now found yourself on the other side of that, and you don't know how you got there, or even how to defend your position. It's fine, you're not the first one to have taken that ride down the slippery slope, and didn't like the trees coming at you at increased speeds.
 
Deegan said:
I realize that, as you can no longer hold to your usual moral ground, you have now found yourself on the other side of that, and you don't know how you got there, or even how to defend your position. It's fine, you're not the first one to have taken that ride down the slippery slope, and didn't like the trees coming at you at increased speeds.
Click to expand...

Still lost.

Are you arguing about the smoking ban itself or the constitionality of it?

Or is it Bob Marley Night at Wrigley?
 
zymurgy said:
Still lost.

Are you arguing about the smoking ban itself or the constitionality of it?

Or is it Bob Marley Night at Wrigley?
Click to expand...

Until smoking is deemed unlawful, then doing a legal activity in your own establishment, can not be restricted by the state, or the federal government! This has no grounding, or legal precedent certainly, it's a silent minority's attempt to slip in through the backdoor, in the black of the night, and impose their will through unreasonable law! The alcohol they serve in the bar, or the fat they put on your plate, has been found to be just as dangerous to one's health. This is a return to prohibition, and that didn't work either.
 
Deegan said:
Until smoking is deemed unlawful, then doing a legal activity in your own establishment, can not be restricted by the state, or the federal government! This has no grounding, or legal precedent certainly, it's a silent minority's attempt to slip in through the backdoor, in the black of the night, and impose their will through unreasonable law! The alcohol they serve in the bar, or the fat they put on your plate, has been found to be just as dangerous to one's health. This is a return to prohibition, and that didn't work either.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is unreasonable law, I don't agree that it is unconstitutional however. It is up to the states to protect individual rights in a given state.

As for precedent, I see plenty. Boating is a legal activity but I'm not allowed to park my boat on the grass. These types of city ordinances have held up reasonably well at all levels of the court system.

Ironically, what could be argued as unconstititional is for SCOTUS to intervene in a state courts decision when it is only given the power to be supreme over lower federal courts.
 
Deegan said:
Until smoking is deemed unlawful, then doing a legal activity in your own establishment, can not be restricted by the state, or the federal government! This has no grounding, or legal precedent certainly, it's a silent minority's attempt to slip in through the backdoor, in the black of the night, and impose their will through unreasonable law! The alcohol they serve in the bar, or the fat they put on your plate, has been found to be just as dangerous to one's health. This is a return to prohibition, and that didn't work either.
Click to expand...

Kinda like having sex in a restaurant, right? Or firing a gun in one. Cause both of those are legal and all. Oh wait...
 
Kelzie said:
Kinda like having sex in a restaurant, right? Or firing a gun in one. Cause both of those are legal and all. Oh wait...
Click to expand...

Having sex in public in a restaurant, I think, would be gross to the people trying to eat. Firing a gun, I think, would definitely disturb people. The way I see it is, an individual shouldn't the right to disrupt others. I just think you have to use some common sense about it, too. It's easy to say that everything should be left up to individual choice but in practice, I don't think it would work out.
 
George_Washington said:
Having sex in public in a restaurant, I think, would be gross to the people trying to eat. Firing a gun, I think, would definitely disturb people. The way I see it is, an individual shouldn't the right to disrupt others. I just think you have to use some common sense about it, too. It's easy to say that everything should be left up to individual choice but in practice, I don't think it would work out.
Click to expand...

So you're actually in favor of a smoking ban?
 
This is a violation of smoker's rights, although I use to think outlawing smoking was good, but think of hte private businesses. The city should have no juridiction over that.
 
Kelzie said:
So you're actually in favor of a smoking ban?
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't mind if people had places dedicated to smoking, like in Holland. But for general restaurants and bars, yes, I favor a smoking ban. I know probably most Republicans aren't for it. But then again, I used to be friends with a woman who smoked most of her life...before she died. I know what a disgusting habit smoking is. I just don't see why innocent employees or customers need to be exposed to second hand smoke.
 
Synch said:
This is a violation of smoker's rights, although I use to think outlawing smoking was good, but think of hte private businesses. The city should have no juridiction over that.
Click to expand...

What about my right to have sex where ever I want?
 
Kelzie said:
What about my right to have sex where ever I want?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about private businesses, I would ban smoking in public, where you are forced to go to each day.

I wouldn't mind you have sex in public.:3oops:

I would remove obscenity laws as long as they are not visible to the public, in restaurants and bars, as long as the windows are not see through, I wouldn't mind if people had sex in there, or private restaurants in fact.

A sex restaurant, or hooker restaurant... wait, they have those in Europe.
 
Synch said:
I'm talking about private businesses, I would ban smoking in public, where you are forced to go to each day.

I wouldn't mind you have sex in public.:3oops:

I would remove obscenity laws as long as they are not visible to the public, in restaurants and bars, as long as the windows are not see through, I wouldn't mind if people had sex in there, or private restaurants in fact.

A sex restaurant, or hooker restaurant... wait, they have those in Europe.
Click to expand...

Man I can't argue with a guy who thinks it's okay to have sex in a restaurant.:lol:
 
Kelzie said:
Man I can't argue with a guy who thinks it's okay to have sex in a restaurant.:lol:
Click to expand...

Private restaurants, in our capitalistic society, we all want to make money, sex in a restaurant will no doubt deter certain customers from eating at that particular eatery, and the owner will lose money.

But seriously, I think it's ok to have sex in restaurants as long as it's private property and isn't visible to the public.

What's wrong with restaurant sex?

1. There's a long wait between ordering your food and getting it on the table, sex is a good timewaster.
2. Having sex before a meal will create a fiesty appetite.
3. It's good for the restaurant possibly, because a larger appetite = more food = more money.
4. The restaurant can have a condom vending machine.

Seriously, what's wrong with restaurant sex?
 
Synch said:
Private restaurants, in our capitalistic society, we all want to make money, sex in a restaurant will no doubt deter certain customers from eating at that particular eatery, and the owner will lose money.

But seriously, I think it's ok to have sex in restaurants as long as it's private property and isn't visible to the public.

What's wrong with restaurant sex?

1. There's a long wait between ordering your food and getting it on the table.
2. Having sex before a meal will create a fiesty appetite.

Seriously, what's wrong with restaurant sex?
Click to expand...

You already derailed my argument. You gotta rub it in now too? ;)
 
Deegan said:
"Odd, I feel I have a better understanding then most of how the constitution is supposed to operate"

And you are the problem then, your opinion shows that, "you know better then most" you don't know sh!t!

States have their own lawmakers, and they can obviously be bought and sold to the highest bidder, but they can't bypass the constitution. These rights are well described, and well known, it's just a step away from the SCOTUS, as it should be. If a group of folks want to get together and smoke, they should be able to be afforded a little tiny spot in our f**king existence, don'tcha think?:confused:

To turn them in to criminals, and extort unreasonable taxes, this is the crime!
Click to expand...

You're kinda cute when you're tough, Deegan. ;) So what do you think of the seatbelt law? Do you think that the states should be able to force you to wear a seatbelt?
 
Deegan said:
Until smoking is deemed unlawful, then doing a legal activity in your own establishment, can not be restricted by the state, or the federal government! This has no grounding, or legal precedent certainly, it's a silent minority's attempt to slip in through the backdoor, in the black of the night, and impose their will through unreasonable law! The alcohol they serve in the bar, or the fat they put on your plate, has been found to be just as dangerous to one's health. This is a return to prohibition, and that didn't work either.
Click to expand...

That is true, but the alcohol I am drinking and the food I am eating has no impact on your health--but if you light up a cigarette, it has an impact on all of those who surround you.
 
Synch said:
A sex restaurant, or hooker restaurant... wait, they have those in Europe.
Click to expand...

lol What the hell is that? A sex restaurant? You mean live sex shows? Watching people have sex on stage though is different than just letting anybody go at it all over the tables and counters...
 
Smokers have a right to smoke yes, but people have a right to breathe air not poisonious cancerous fumes. If second hand smoke didn't harm anyone, smoking shouldn't be banned, but it does - it is harmful to the person next to you.

The Republic of Ireland last year or two years ago banned smoking in all public buildings. Of course at first their was outrage. But do you know what? People got used to it and people don't mind it anymore.
Northern Ireland and Scotland are banning smoking in public buildings next year, Wales and England the year after. Personally I can't wait!! The smoke on your clothes reeks.

Man I want to have sex in a restaurant, and on a plane and in the park and on the beach and.... in alot of places. :smile:
 
GarzaUK said:
Smokers have a right to smoke yes, but people have a right to breathe air not poisonious cancerous fumes. If second hand smoke didn't harm anyone, smoking shouldn't be banned, but it does - it is harmful to the person next to you.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's true, BUT, there's a thing to be said about personal responsibility. One takes that upon themselves when entering a bar to imbibe beverages which slowly destroy their livers, and their brain cells, and occasionally their dignity. Based on history and obvious a priori knowledge, I know that going into a bar 99% of the time will have me breathing in second-hand smoke. Should I choose to go into the bar or not, I've made a personal decision and know the consequences. I'd rather make the decisions myself than have an intrusive government make them for me.
 
Kelzie said:
What about my right to have sex where ever I want?
Click to expand...

Move to Oregon, they allow sex acts in public places, but at the same time, don't allow a smoke, ridiculous really.
 
aps said:
You're kinda cute when you're tough, Deegan. ;) So what do you think of the seatbelt law? Do you think that the states should be able to force you to wear a seatbelt?
Click to expand...

NO, it's just turned in to yet another way to extort unreasonable tax, through fines, and is now being used as a reason to invade your privacy. I don't support roadblocks for seat belts, it's certainly not what they are looking for, and seems like a police state to me. I agree with a ticket for not putting a seatbelt on your child, because they don't know enough to do so themselves, but especially in cars with airbags, I think they can do more harm then good. I do wear my seatbelt all the time, it's just a habit, but I don't like what this law has become.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom