In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 576
Online now 1638 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
LOL. No one has closed because the smoking ban hurt them. Another case where Regressives screamed about regulation pinning down business, only for reality to show them otherwise.
With all due respect, I don't think that was their point (or at least wasn't mine).
I'm not a smoker and have obviously benefited from a smoking ban in that regard, but I still think it sets a bad precedent in terms of the role of government.
Sure it wasn't bad location, average service, changing demographics?
I know the smoking ban put a hurt on the people who sold and maintained Smoke Eaters and other similar equipment that made every bar a customer.
Now this is what I don't understand. This was by no means an EXPANSION of government's role. The government had already been forcing private actors to ban smoking, on airplanes for example. It was an extension of that authority, but it was not some sort of new regulatory activity that we hadn't seen before. I'm all for a deep examination into the necessity of regulation, but this kneejerk reaction always rubs me the wrong way.
Huh? Prior to the law: Could smoke in a bar.
After the law: Can not smoke in a bar by decree of the government.
Seems like the role of government expanded to me.
It's not knee jerk, I disagree with all of those things you've listed.
Even as a child, when I first learned tobacco companies were barred by the U.S. govt from advertising on television, I thought... "now that's not how I thought we operate..."
Agreed. If I spend my own money (what is left after it is taken from me and given to others) and buy a business that I own (personal property) and invite customers into my business, where does the government get the right to intercede between two citizens on their own private property?
The sheep on the left and the right seem to be ok with the government taking our personal liberties away and considering a citizen's private property theirs to regulate. Why?
Similarly, I flew from Detroit to Las Vegas recently. Again, what gives government agents the right to open my luggage and search through my shit?
We are slowly but surely slipping into tyrannny.
It's an extension obviously, but it's not a new and "unprecedented" undertaking.
That would be a great argument if the government didn't already regulate pretty much the entire operation of the restaurant (sanitation code, business license, liquor license, zoning, etc.). It would appear that the restaurant industry has already been living under the "tyranny" of the health inspectors and local zoning boards.
Now men everywhere can sneak off the the bar after work and not come home smelling like smoke as a dead giveaway as to their where abouts.
Hell one could argue that it's just a logical extension of workplace safety laws. Does second-hand smoke lead to increased health risks? Yes. Would banning smoking improve the work environment of the waiters/bussers/cooks? Yes.
If you come to apply for a job at my smoking allowed bar and I told you it is a smoking allowed work environment and pointed out the very minimal risks you would be accepting, Could you choose to not apply to work there? Yes.
This post was edited by Adm Spinebender 15 months ago
So the role of government is not to protect the majority from inhaling the harmful second-hand smoke of the minority in a closed room??
I guess I need to get a better understanding of the role of government.
This post was edited by VladtImpaler205 15 months ago
Yep. The death of private property rights, economic and individual freedom by the fear driven left wing authority lovers, Pussification of America. The regulation of EVERYTHING out of fear and anxiety. The desire to not have to think for yourself and weigh risks is so scary to the left they just can't stand it, Removing choice and free will makes them feel safer, Of course the fact it takes other people's freedoms away is irrelevant to them. Tyranny of the "we know what's good for you" crowd is going to turn us into a banal, stifled, corporatist shell of our former greatness.
Foreign policy scholar Michael Ledeen warned that even small regulations on tobacco and guns slowly and quietly erode the freedoms granted American citizens in the nation’s founding documents.
“It’s exactly what Tocqueville forecast, exactly the way he forecast it,” Ledeen said. “Millions of tiny little regulations, and we’re not going to notice them when they come in one-by-one. We’re even going to welcome them, and then one day we’re going to wake and find that we’re all tied down, we can’t move at all.”
The left is unabashedly authority loving, and just can't STAND the thought of giving people a choice. Smoking or Not. Vote with your feet, don't work there or don't go there if you don't like it. But it should be my right as an owner, the right of employees, and the right of customers to CHOOSE to voluntarily patronize my bar....or not. No one FORCED to do anything. I don't smoke but I love and respect freedom and will never understand the lefty desire to stifle it..
Here's another abomination of government tyranny. I mean, who the hell are they to tell these fine small business owners how to manage their business?! Don't they have any respect for private property?!
No, it is not the role of government to come on my property and tell me what I may or may not do on my property. I don't smoke. Never have. If I open a restaurant and allow smoking in it, it is up to others to express their own PERSONAL LIBERTY and patronize my restaurant. If they do not like second hand smoke they can go to a business that does not allow smoking.
Same with limits on soft drinks and limitations of salt in food. Why do people want the government involved so granularly in their lives?
Yes, you do need to get a better understanding of the role of government.
No. That is not the role of government as I see it. Lets ban all potentially harmful food then, and booze. Soda. Driving to the bar...statistically far more dangerous than 2nd hand smoke. Sex with the girl at the bar? STD's...ban it. Those urinal cakes in the bar bathroom? Poison...some drunk might eat them mistaking them for a hostess snowball cake....ban them. Hell, bars are just an illness, maiming or death waiting to happen. CLOSE THEM ALL! now we will be safe.
White trash problems.
Unless it comes to women's vaginas.
tRCMB - Visit at your own risk of being disgusted.
Regressives just can't accept that sometimes government makes life better. They are so locked in their ideology that they lose all perspective. Moderates on both sides of the political divide can see that some regulations are highly beneficial while others are not.
If you live in a state like Michigan or Mississippi where unemployment is really high, it's not really a choice. By your logic, we should go back to the 1880's and get rid of all workplace safety laws.
Or when it comes to two gay people wanting to get married or the drug laws in this country, etc...
Btw maybe someone can correct me but wasn't Paul Scott the sponsor of the legislation that banned smoking in Michigan bars/restaurants? He was certainly not a liberal to put it mildly.
I'm just gonna go ahead and disagree with everything you've said. Saves me a lot of typing.
"The government" is not an alien mother ship. We have a system of government where we get to throw 'em out if they don't represent our interests.
Learn to be a meber of society, instead of being such a paranoid man.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by VladtImpaler205 15 months ago
Not paranoid. Just love freedom. Tyranny of the majority is not what the Framers had in mind. The government was designed to protect our freedoms and natural rights as free individuals who own their own lives....not "protect" us from our own choices.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports