thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 15:12:18 GMT -5
Austin, using your logic then, everything is illegal unless it is specifically deemed to be legal in the Constitution. I think the opposite. We "should" (and remember, that is the title of this thread ...) have the right to smoke, in as much as it shouldn't be illegal. That being said, I must agree with you, in that most of the smoking bans have in fact been voted in by the people. In that regard, it is a tough one to argue. I have to agree here. I have a right to do it if it's not expressly forbidden in a constitutionally acceptable manner. You don't have to earn rights by finding them enumerated in the constitution. That was one of the objections to the Bill of Rights, it was argued that granting specific rights implied if they were not granted you didn't have them. So that's why #10 is in there. That is most certainly not my view of the constitution or common law. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 18, 2008 15:15:35 GMT -5
A pays B to screw C, films it, and sells it....LEGAL
A pays B to screw in private...................ILLEGAL. Well, this is how it would work if prostitution were legal. But not every john is an Eliot Spitzer, and most individuals getting prosecuted for prostitution aren't Ashley Dupres. It often works like this: Crackhead A has no money for crack rock, so Crackhead A puts himself/herself at risk of rape, robbery, and numerous other crimes by selling sexual favors (sometimes in private, sometimes in public) to gain money to buy said crack rock. Prostitution often goes along with other criminal ventures. If legalizing prostitution across the board would eradicate the type of prostitution described above, then I'm all for it. If it won't, then I'm not so sure I care either way. Crackheads are only "at risk" to begin with because it's illegal. If it were legal, you take the risk right out of it by making these toothless crackheads compete with much better looking and cleaner legit escorts. Their opportunities to perform for money will dry up over night. Take it off the streets. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 18, 2008 16:42:41 GMT -5
Well, this is how it would work if prostitution were legal. But not every john is an Eliot Spitzer, and most individuals getting prosecuted for prostitution aren't Ashley Dupres. It often works like this: Crackhead A has no money for crack rock, so Crackhead A puts himself/herself at risk of rape, robbery, and numerous other crimes by selling sexual favors (sometimes in private, sometimes in public) to gain money to buy said crack rock. Prostitution often goes along with other criminal ventures. If legalizing prostitution across the board would eradicate the type of prostitution described above, then I'm all for it. If it won't, then I'm not so sure I care either way. Crackheads are only "at risk" to begin with because it's illegal. If it were legal, you take the risk right out of it by making these toothless crackheads compete with much better looking and cleaner legit escorts. Their opportunities to perform for money will dry up over night. Take it off the streets. Wow! What a radical view ... tough to argue with the logic though. Still, even though I am for legalizing pot, I don't think I could go to the point of legalizing cocaine ... although the fundamental libertarian in me is awfully tempted ... |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 18, 2008 18:31:54 GMT -5
Austin isn't advocating legalizing crack, hifi. At least not there. He's advocating legalizing prostitution.
Legalizing prostitution would possibly create a market situation where clean, good looking women (and I suppose men) would enter the trade at a certain cost. His argument is that there would be less demand for a potentially disease-ridden crackhead because people would understandably prefer a non-strung out prostitute with teeth.
A problem with that theory is that it doesn't solve the crack addiction, and certainly would not eliminate crack whores but rather further depress their pricing structure. The issue is that once someone is hooked on drugs, despite demand being low for whatever services they offer, they can't rationally exit the labor market of whatever they are doing. They are still going to be strung out on crack and making even less money and having less options. If it were easy to get off crack, that'd be one thing, but I'm not sure the issue goes away.
On the other hand, it would definitely lower the spread of disease by requiring testing, etc., and make it safer for the prostitutes and easier to get out of that profession as well.
There's a lot of issues with legalizing anything like this, and prostitution is no exception. But what Austin was putting forward was legalizing prostitution, not cocaine.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 18, 2008 18:46:52 GMT -5
There is something to be said for getting crime off the streets, even if it's still happening. In Sydney, Australia they opened a center in the worst part of the city where heroin addicts can shoot up in a medically supervised place with clean needles. Surprisingly, the locals and local businesses think it's great, since it's gotten the shooting up off the streets, and they don't have to watch people die from overdoses anymore. It's a clear case of treating the symptoms instead of the disease, but when the disease can't be cured anytime soon, sometimes it helps to reduce its negative effects. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injecting_room |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Aug 18, 2008 18:49:32 GMT -5
By the way, from what I remember in driver's ed, in Wisconsin you can have your windows as dark as you like, as long as they're done professionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 18, 2008 22:19:41 GMT -5
Austin, using your logic then, everything is illegal unless it is specifically deemed to be legal in the Constitution. I think the opposite. We "should" (and remember, that is the title of this thread ...) have the right to smoke, in as much as it shouldn't be illegal. That being said, I must agree with you, in that most of the smoking bans have in fact been voted in by the people. In that regard, it is a tough one to argue. I have to agree here. I have a right to do it if it's not expressly forbidden in a constitutionally acceptable manner. You don't have to earn rights by finding them enumerated in the constitution. That was one of the objections to the Bill of Rights, it was argued that granting specific rights implied if they were not granted you didn't have them. So that's why #10 is in there. That is most certainly not my view of the constitution or common law. I think my views are being distorted somewhat, but that's probably my own fault, as my response to hifi was somewhat heavy-handed. I think we're all in agreement that I can go out in my backyard, pick some pecans off my pecan tree, chop those pecans up, and smoke them. I have that "right," if you really want to call it a right, though personally I think that usage cheapens the meaning of the word. What I am arguing is that the citizens of the State of Texas, through their government, have every right to regulate my growing, processing, and smoking of pecan nuts. When we speak of things the government cannot regulate, such as political speech (no matter how hard McCain-Feingold tried), we are typically talking about Capital R Rights guaranteed by our Federal and/or State constitutions. Smoking is already regulated by the government in many ways -- who can buy cigarettes, ultra-high taxes, etc. It baffles me as to why people accept these regulations as perfectly legitimate, yet get flustered when the government wants to regulate where people may smoke. (But it's a legal drug! Yes, because the government has not outlawed it, but it could, just as the government can prohibit sales of cigarettes to minors or smoking in specific places.) All criminal law in the year 2008 AD is statutory (it is NOT common law), and most of it is state law. States have broad power to regulate just about whatever the hell they want to, as long as they don't infringe on individual rights or try to preempt the federal government. That includes hifi's smoking habits, whether he chooses to light up a Camel straight or a fat spliff. There are many laws out there that are stupid. But I prefer a system where democratically-elected governments can make and repeal laws at will to a system where individuals like hifi rail against legislation by suddenly claiming phony "rights" that have no legal basis. If you are really that upset about smoking bans, your remedy rests in the hands of your city councilman or your state legislator. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 18, 2008 22:24:32 GMT -5
Personally, I would love to drink in the car while someone else is driving, but I could see that leading to a TON of accidents. I just imagine my drunk-ass friends all over the car getting boozy. I don't know about that one. Do other countries allow non-drivers to drink in cars? That "other country" is called the State of Louisiana. They also sell booze in gas stations, which encourages crusin' and boozin'. I have "heard" of college kids from Texas tapping kegs at the border on road trips to NOLA. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 18, 2008 22:36:32 GMT -5
Personally, I would love to drink in the car while someone else is driving, but I could see that leading to a TON of accidents. I just imagine my drunk-ass friends all over the car getting boozy. I don't know about that one. Do other countries allow non-drivers to drink in cars? That "other country" is called the State of Louisiana. They also sell booze in gas stations, which encourages crusin' and boozin'. I have "heard" of college kids from Texas tapping kegs at the border on road trips to NOLA. Driving from Boston, as soon as you cross the state line into New Hampshire, there's a huge package store (Liquor store to those who don't know). Always thought it was odd to put it right on the highway, then tell people not to drink and drive. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 18, 2008 22:49:37 GMT -5
yeah i mena they have a chain drive threw liquor stores called brew throughs.
I agree with Austin there's a difference between rights and Rights. Rights i feel are things that the government can't take away no matter what. rights are what's not currently illegal. they're different.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 19, 2008 10:18:15 GMT -5
I still disagree with the cig ban in places like bars. I do agree that, at least in most places, it happened by a majority vote. But I'm still not sure that the ballot was "fair." I know it isn't remotely close to anything scientific, but I almost never run into someone who actually agrees with the law. On the contrary, I constantly encounter those who hate the law, and as I have pointed out, many opponents don't smoke. You would expect the majority of smokers to be against any such bans. That explicitly limits their own freedoms. But opposition among non-smokers is a little more difficult to explain. I think there were just too many people like my wife -- who doesn't smoke and thought about it exclusively in a selfish way. She would prefer to not smell smoke, so she voted for the restrictions. In discussing it with her after the fact, I explained the limitations placed on businesses and gave her a few examples. She almost immediately understood that she had made the wrong decision, even though she would prefer to not smell smoke. Similarly, I think a lot of the support for the ban, came from older more conservative people who don't smoke, know the habit to be unhealthy and therefore voted against it "just because smoking is bad" but not because they agree ideologically with the premise.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 19, 2008 15:46:34 GMT -5
The vast majority of people agree with anti-smoking laws. Your sample sucks, hifi. Even Boz would agree with that.
I'd even say most Californian smokers agree with it, but I have no evidence. The most common comment by far is "Gee, I don't smell like smoke."
In California, business actually went up, IIRC, as more people were staying home because of smoke. Most smokers I know don't stay home; they just step outside.
Your entire post making things up -- and everyone who opposes this law ignores the reason it was implemented -- because of employees.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 19, 2008 16:02:00 GMT -5
I don't agree with anything!!!!
You're all fascists and I hate you!!!!
;D
Ironically, I really don't even smoke that much. I might have one or two if I am out at a bar or concert, but really, that's it. I never smoke outside of that situation, unless it's a cigar at a wedding or some special occasion like that. (I'm not an idiot; I know they're not healthy, but I figure one or two here and there isn't going to kill me -- or you -- that much more quickly).
I usually have to throw away (or give away, if she's cute) cigarettes since they go stale long before I ever go through an entire pack. I just object to the whole thing on principle.
And all you YES voters should think more long-term than, "my clothes smell a little better, so I like this ban." They'll be coming for your favorite vice next, mark my words.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 19, 2008 16:11:37 GMT -5
I admitted that my sample was far from scientific. And in a sense, I could see someone suggesting I am being hypocritical. We have been a smoke-free business since we opened in 1976. But that was our choice. Additionally, we are a retail store, not a restaurant or pub.
But I have discussed it numerous times with other business owners and managers and opposition to the law is almost universal. In fairness, if you owned a business of that sort, you probably wouldn't appreciate someone limiting your business freedoms and would oppose laws that do just that. Still, even non-smoking customers have, for the most part, been against the law when the subject arose. In fairness, they could easily have actually supported the ban but didn't want to rock the boat, so to speak, in casual conversation.
Additionally, I have talked to some family members that voted in favor of the ban. As I mentioned before, my wife was one such person. But after I explained that it was nothing but government telling a business owner what he can and can't allow, she changed her opinion -- not that it mattered, since the law had already been adopted. I also had a run-in with a couple of older relatives of mine, who were in favor of the law. They viewed it very simplisticly and in my mind selfishly, simply saying that they didn't like the smell of smoke. When I pointed out that I didn't eaither, but that really wasn't and shouldn't be the point, I was met with assorted other irrelevant details. The bottom line in their mind was that:
1. They didn't smoke, so it didn't directly bother them.
2. They prefer others to not smoke, so this law works in their own favor.
3. Smoking is bad for you anyway, so you shouldn't do it.
The bottom line is that I think that if the question is posed on a more fair scale, the votes might be somewhat different. I think that many people probably voted for such bans, even though ideologically, they wouldn't agree with the underlying premise.
Agree/disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 19, 2008 19:41:50 GMT -5
I think the most shocking revelation is someone agreed to marry hifi.
How would you have phrased the proposition hifi?
Are you in favor of limiting the rights of business owners and telling them how they should or should not run their business? because that would be a pretty biased way of putting it.
I think people can vote for a bill for what ever reasons they want. And your argument ignores SF's point about why the law was implemented. It's essentially just another part of the health code. Allowing smoking causes an unhealthy environment for Employees first of all and patrons second of all.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Aug 19, 2008 20:02:51 GMT -5
But I have discussed it numerous times with other business owners and managers and opposition to the law is almost universal. In fairness, if you owned a business of that sort, you probably wouldn't appreciate someone limiting your business freedoms and would oppose laws that do just that. Please explain what "business freedoms" are, where they come from, and how they are protected anywhere but inside your head. The bottom line is that I think that if the question is posed on a more fair scale, the votes might be somewhat different. I think that many people probably voted for such bans, even though ideologically, they wouldn't agree with the underlying premise. What is a "more fair scale?" It seems to me that your premise is that everyone who voted for smoking bans did so for selfish reasons, whereas everyone who voted against it voted based on grounded principles. Don't you think just as many people voted against a particular ban because they smoke 1/2 a carton a day and think "smokers' rights" should be protected? You keep appealing to things such as "fairness" and "freedoms" to argue against smoking bans. You know what's fair? Having the freedom to vote as a group for initiatives that are intended to benefit the group as a whole. I'd even say most Californian smokers agree with it, but I have no evidence. I have heard more than one Austinite remark that they like the city's ban because now, instead of smoking an entire pack of cigarettes at the Continental Club and regretting it the next day (lungs: black, money and tobacco: gone), they smoke about two. Boz, I have an idea for you. Start an initiative pushing chewing tobacco in jurisdictions where smoking has been banned. Cover the floors of DC bars with Levi Garrett and the local pols will be clamoring for the return of cigs in no time. Or they might just ban chaw in bars. Oh well. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 20, 2008 13:19:30 GMT -5
1. medicinal marijuana use - legal (but more control over distribution) 2. recreational marijuana use - illegal 3. elicit drugs (cocaine, heroin, opium etc...) - I have no idea what elicit drugs are. But I do think illicit drugs should be illegal. 4. prostitution - illegal 5. casino gambling - legal 6. sports wagering - legal 7. open containers of alcohol by persons of age, not in a vehicle - legal and should be legal in vehicles too for non-drivers 8. dark window tint - illegal. If you're worried about it being used a pre-text, pass a law saying it's a secondary violation and you can't effect a stop simply based on suspicion of illegal tinting. Why should recreational pot be illegal? Because other people might enjoy it and you don't? You are not going to try and tell me it's as dangerous as scotch are you? No wonder we have so many stupid laws and so many damn lawyers in this country...we have too many losers who want anything they don't particularly enjoy to be made illegal. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 20, 2008 16:21:12 GMT -5
But I have discussed it numerous times with other business owners and managers and opposition to the law is almost universal. In fairness, if you owned a business of that sort, you probably wouldn't appreciate someone limiting your business freedoms and would oppose laws that do just that. Please explain what "business freedoms" are, where they come from, and how they are protected anywhere but inside your head. What is a "more fair scale?" It seems to me that your premise is that everyone who voted for smoking bans did so for selfish reasons, whereas everyone who voted against it voted based on grounded principles. Don't you think just as many people voted against a particular ban because they smoke 1/2 a carton a day and think "smokers' rights" should be protected? You keep appealing to things such as "fairness" and "freedoms" to argue against smoking bans. You know what's fair? Having the freedom to vote as a group for initiatives that are intended to benefit the group as a whole. I'd even say most Californian smokers agree with it, but I have no evidence. I have heard more than one Austinite remark that they like the city's ban because now, instead of smoking an entire pack of cigarettes at the Continental Club and regretting it the next day (lungs: black, money and tobacco: gone), they smoke about two. Boz, I have an idea for you. Start an initiative pushing chewing tobacco in jurisdictions where smoking has been banned. Cover the floors of DC bars with Levi Garrett and the local pols will be clamoring for the return of cigs in no time. Or they might just ban chaw in bars. Oh well. Alright Austin, I will try to clarify my points for you. The "business freedoms" of which I mention, are basically that the person or persons investing the time and money should have the choice of whether to allow smoking in the business or not. Customers can then choose to patronize the business or not. We don't need to worry about the poor people who don't smoke -- and last I heard that number was between 2/3 and 3/4 -- not having anywhere to eat and drink. The market will work fine on this issue. People will either choose to go to a place that allows smoking or they won't. That isn't the same thing as fire codes and food related regulations. The customer -- any customer, man, woman or child ... white, black or indian ... young or old etc... -- must have the confidence that the food and its preparation have been handled in an honestly safe fashion. Similarly, customers must have the confidence that they are dining in a "safe" venue and in the unlikely event of an accident, there have been proper provisions put in place to limit the dangers associated with the accident, for instance enough and properly lit exits, limited number of patrons within the codes etc.... There isn't an automatic parallel that people who choose to eat at a particular restaurant "must have" the confidence that other patrons of the restaurant won't be smoking. As for the voting issue, I see your point and mine didn't really come across clearly. I wasn't implying that everyone who voted for the ban did so out of ingnorance while those who opposed did so our of proper ideology. However, at least in Florida the bill was presented as simply something to improve quality of life. Hence, some number of people simply voted in favor without really considering the underlying ramifications as they pertain to individual freedoms. In fairness, I think you are correct in that many who oppose the ban weren't considering ideology either, but rather just looking out for number one. As for fairness, yes I do think it is "fair" to allow the business owner to make such decisions. I do think that the free market will work perfectly in this case. I do think it is unfair to business owners to restrict businesses in this manner. Additionally, I don't think that it is "unfair" to non-smokers to allow businesses to decide whether to allow smoking. Lastly, I didn't intentionally ignore sf's point with regard to employees. Simply put, the free market will work here as well. If you choose to work at a place that allows smoke, then so be it. If someone wants to take this platform, then have at it. But don't be a Editedfoot about it. Tackle casinos then and see how far you get. If there is a more aprepos place to test that logic I don't know where it would be. I would wager that a higer percentage of gamblers smoke than the general public. But I don't think that matters. If the argument is that employees shouldn't be subject to second hand smoke, then get off your a$$es and tackle the ultimate target. Dealers are sitting (or standing) at a table for 8 hours a day with a half dozen or more people sitting next to them. Probably close to half of these people smoke. That is a lot different from the waitstaff or cookstaff at a restaurant where maybe a third of the customers might be smokers. Additionally, I would wager that gamblers that smoke, smoke at a higher frequency when gambling than when eating. Again, that only makes the situation that much worse. If in fact, the teeth of the law is designed to protect the employees, then put your money where your mouth is and go after a real culprit. Again, my take on that issue is that there will be a proportionate number of restaurants/bars that ban smoking on their own if the patrons truly desire it. Accordingly, there will be a proportionate number of places for workers who desire a non-smoking atmosphere. |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 20, 2008 19:22:37 GMT -5
By your argument, hifi, we shouldn't have any workplace safety requirements.
Amazingly, the free market didn't solve that in the early 1900s and it wouldn't do a good job now.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 21, 2008 11:07:23 GMT -5
In all fairness, in an ideal sense, we wouldn't need any such requirements, but in a practical sense we all understand that we do ... a sort of necessary evil, if you will. But hard hat requirements, proper training for those in control of heavy equipment, proper safety harnesses for skyscraper construction etc... are not nearly the same as preventing a patron from enjoying an after dinner smoke. And besides, you totally neglected the context of the free market in my illustration. My point was that if there are enough people wanting to enjoy a smoke free meal, then there will be enough businesses which cater to those patrons. Similarly, if there are enough employees who prefer to work at such a place, then they too will have those options. The ONLY way it isn't fair to everyone is when they step in with regulations and restrictions of this sort.
|
|
