The article prior to this began a bit of back and forth through comments. Sometimes folks don’t read all the way through the comments (though personally, I prefer the comment section nearly everywhere I go) and I felt the response would be better drawn as a new post. This is the answer to CG’s last comment on that page (unless he adds after this is posted.)
Guru, I wouldn’t care if you call them carrots. It does not make them or you any more correct. And this argument is not about a reasonable attempt at managing a local government. That is quite yet another debate. YOU are the one bringing it up with your parking space example. But OK.. consider this, If I am making a decision whether to build within the city, or in the out reaches of the county, I might actually look at the liability of doing so based on the oppressive nature of whatever local government I have to deal with.
CAPS BTW, are for EMPHASIS ..and as to the ..
“No one is depriving you of your constitutional right to smoke, but the law will protect the health of innocent bystanders. You do understand that secondhand smoke is a toxin; there is no debate on that.”
OK, so it is my constitutional RIGHT to smoke? If that is the case, then why should I capitulate to a government entity which is infringing my RIGHT no matter WHERE it is? It either is, or it is not.
The question needs to be framed this way: “What is my responsibility to those who wish NOT to inhale second hand smoke?” The answer is simple.. Let them know it is a smoking environment, and tell them to go away if they don’t like it.
Why is it so hard for Liberal-Fascists to understand the challenge of that concept? If it is not your life, how has it become your responsibility? Is it because you feel the government will have to eventually pay for my health care, and that makes it your business? Can you not then see the perfectly obvious answer to that?
We all make decisions which are sometimes beneficial, provide sustenance or rob us of our health. the government’s SOLE role in that is to provide for the protections that guarantee we can continue doing that at will. It is not government’s place to second guess my personal decisions, but it IS government’s place to assure that my decisions do not take away from the freedoms of others, and that we are held accountable to our actions.
With that in mind, I return to your comment:
” Just because you own a business does not give you the right to endanger other people’s health. That is not a right. Of course someone can tell if they walk into a restaurant which allows smoking, but that’s not the point. The employees should not have to choose between receiving a paycheck and their health. Many people simply cannot be around secondhand smoke because of breathing ailments, so why is it OK to deprive them of their rights?”
Who is forcing those employees to work there? What makes it government’s obligation to choose who works where and under what conditions? For the record, I do not allow smoking in MY place of business. I feel it endangers my own health. However, on this blog and through my comments strewn about the web, I INSIST on what is right to maintain that we are a truly free people. Government’s role as a protector of our rights has devolved into becoming a protector from ourselves.
You quite obviously disagree, and feel government’s role is to centrally plan our existence through force. It is only logical. Thus the Liberal-Fascist tag you, and many others have so rightly earned. If I was to be a member of the Catholic church, I suspect I would be labeled a “Catholic,” A-Rod was a steroid using “Baseball player,” etc… It took a while for liberals to openly acknowledge the “liberal” tag, so it might just take some time for you to acknowledge the current one.
If you don’t like it… change.