In partnership with CBSSports.com
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
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.
God damnit, Heathens. Why do you always have to take a sensible position?
One person's sensible is another's deranged. That said, if someone wants to take a position that the government should have no role in regard to public health, that's at least intellectually consistent. So it all becomes fair game - smoking, asbestos, lead paint, DDT on your lawn, etc. But you cannot be consistent and argue that you should be allowed to smoke in public, but then turn around and complain when you find out the house you bought for your wife and kids has lead paint or your neighbor is dumping oil into a pit that is polluting your drinking water.
The science in regard to smoking and second-hand smoke is 100% clear. The only question is whether you support the role of government when it comes to public health. If you do, that will expand over the course of your lifetime. If you don't, well, the libertarian utopia may not be quite what you're thinking........
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." --Gandhi
Guns and roads are specifically mentioned in the constitution. Big gulps are not.
For the purposes of establishing militias and delivery of mail. Personal protection and an interstate transportation system are not mentioned, so we enter if the Scalia nightmare of (big gulp) interpreting the Constitution. Public health, in this sense, would seem to be an extension of "promote the general welfare." Hey, look at that...."welfare" is specifically mentioned in the constitution.... ;)
I am responsible to make my own life better. The government often makes my life worse. Constantly telling me what I must do, even if it impedes my ability to succeed, and telling me what I can't do, based on some self important busy bodies or the "mob" of the majority deciding what's good for me. Individuals are so diverse that no central authority can possibly avoid doing harm to many when applying someones idea of "the general welfare"
...and when the choices you make impact others, I think it's fair to say a vast majority of Americans want to see some limits in regard to your choices. So I'm sorry if your lead paint business has its success limited by government; I'm sorry you cannot pain with lead paint or insulate with asbestos; I'm sorry you cannot get behind the wheel drunk without consequences. If you want to believe that smoking and second-hand smoke are not carcinogens, fine, ignore science and create your own reality. But a central authority limits your ability to cause harm to others in countless ways every single day. And in your secret heart, you like that when it comes to others ability to cause you and your loved ones harm.....
You are making a false argument. There are few, if any people -- libertarians or otherwise -- that take the position that "the government should have no role in regard to public health."
The argument of mainstream libertarians is very consistent -- a proper role of government is to protect individual freedom. This includes third parties that may be harmed by pollution, dumping into drinking water, etc. This is not in any way inconsistent with letting restaurant owners decide whether smoking is to be permitted on private property or not.
The fact that you are reduced to straw men arguments speaks volumes about your position on the matter.
"The RCMB on 247 is one of the most awful, alarming, inappropriate, disgusting, and offensive msg boards in the history of the internet."
Yep. I can't get over how much the lefties love authority. (Of course, only when they perceive it benefits them) "I have a RIGHT to a smoke free meal." In YOUR restaurant. That YOU pay for and pay taxes on. With YOUR blood sweat tears, risking YOUR livelihood and life savings to keep operational. Entitlement is a great word for them. Seizing pretend "rights" for themselves at anothers expense without any regard for that persons personal or property rights. Why? Because they deserve it? Where do they get the smug entitlement that others owe them whatever they want when they stamp their little feet. Suspended adolescents who still want mommy/daddy/the nanny state to get little prince or princess whatever they want I guess?
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Adm Spinebender 18 months ago
Ok my life would be better if the government didn't take tax me. I guess I shouldn't have to pay taxes since government is supposed to make life better right?
This post was edited by fallenangle 18 months ago
You know what else is a public health concern at bars and restaurants? Alcohol. Why not ban that too? Why is it less healthful to drink 20 ounces of soda rather than 20 ounces of whiskey?
If someone wants to create an establishment where people can go smoke legally, I see nothing wrong with that. Would I go there? No. But smokers would have a place to go socialize with a drink and a cig. Hire smokers to serve the drinks and everyone is happy.
Can you cite this new scientific evidence that proves how dangerous second hand smoke can be?
Actually bars are required to toss out (and in some cases call a cab for) customers who they suspect are overloaded.
Wait, wasn't the whole premise of the this thread that the smoking ban didn't cause restaurants to lose business? Why wouldn't that Italian restaurant owner just ban smoking for his establishment if he didn't want his customers (or himself) inhaling second hand smoke? Why would he need the government to help him make that decision?
Not because they're concerned about the toxicity levels of their livers
Oddly, employees in fast food restaurants are required to wash their hands before handling unhealthy food, yet the government still allows that unhealthy food to be served. I mean, what's that about?
The argument that the government must by force, protect us from every source of harm is ludicrous. It is about freedom to choose. I downhill ski at fairly rapid speeds as often as I can. I am fully aware that I am risking my life and limb to do so. The ski hill operator informs me of that up front, right on the back of the lift ticket. Yet I CHOOSE to do it in exchange for the pleasure it gives me. If you apply the safety argument to skiing and zillions of other things in life, there would be no more skiing, football, driving, boating, drinking, etc etc. You know and I know that the smoking laws thing was about one thing. It was really about the "mob" that didn't smoke and hated the smell of smoke, getting in their eyes and on their clothes getting there way. They got their way by playing the "safety" and health card. Never mind that the science is questionable at best, and that by banning smoking in bars and restaurants you are seizing use of private property rights of the bar owner, and the right of smokers to enjoy a cigarette with their beer if the owner allowed it. This was just tyranny of the majority, the non smoking mob getting there way at the expense of the minority smokers right to live their life as they would see fit. The left is just a bunch of bullies trying to force their ideals on others under the guise of the greater good. Usually what the bully argues is his right, or in this case "in the public interest" really is just an attempt to take something that doesn't belong to him by the force of the state. The Framers saw government in the form of a constitutional republic as protection of the individual against the rule of the majority. The Progressives embrace of direct democracy is a betrayal of the original intent of the founders and leads to if nothing else, a tyranny of a million tiny regulations, coming almost unnoticed one by one, until true individual freedom is impossible because almost everything is against the law or "not allowed".
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Adm Spinebender 18 months ago
People have a choice where they want to apply for a job.
Would you want the government to force a business that sells peanuts to stop selling peanuts if someone with a peanut allergy wanted to get a job there?
What if those "others" are smokers as well?
A smoker opens up a smoking bar and hires smokers to serve smokers.
Where is the problem with that?
I'll play along.... The government does regulate your ability to ski on public lands, you're not allowed to ski on the highway for example, and if you do and cause an accident, you are subject to criminal prosecution. Your behavior, in this sense, is regulated not because of your ability to cause harm to yourself, but because of your ability in that situation to recklessly cause harm to others. Your choices, good, bad, or indifferent, are yours. When they, within the framework of what is and can be known, lead to a significant liklihood of harm to others, we have laws, rules, codes, etc. Downhill ski all you like....private contract between you and the owner. But even there, go all jackass on the slopes, run over and kill a kid and see what happens.....
By law, an establishment is required by law to obtain a license to serve liquor. That license is granted by a government, and as a regulated business, they are subject to the same laws (smoking, OSHA, etc.) as any other business. Right now, under current law, someone is welcome to open up a private smoking club. But the minute you add an employee, or ask for a liquor or food license, that's a different game.....
The difference is that a very small % of people are allergic to peanuts, where 100% of people are harmed by second hand cigarette smoke. That's how it was passed into law, cigarette smoke creates hazardous working conditions for 100% of workers. Just like an employer cannot operate a business where their employees are forced to inhale asbestos they cannot operate a business where the employess are forced to inhale the dangerous and cancer causing chemicals in cigarette smoke.
Casinos and tobacco shops were given exemptions.
Would you be comfortable with a business whose employees all inhaled asbestos 8 hours a day? Would you say, well, if they don't want to inhale asbestos and get cancer, they should work elsewhere? Asbestos and cigarette smoke both cause cancer and other health problems, not just for some people, but potentially for all people exposed to them.
Actually, public consumption of alcohol is highly regulated. Walk down the street chugging a Colt 45 and you'll find out rather quickly. It's also limited in terms of where it can be sold and consumed in terms of bars, restaurants, clubs, etc. And let's also note the increase in laws pertaining to what happens if you drink and drive. The biggest difference, however, is that someone can be having a drink next to you and that alcohol has no way to enter your body. And like smoking, you're free to use in your own home without restriction. The regulation of alcohol, as it currently stands, is designed to limit your ability to impact others through its use. Just like we're seeing in Michigan with public space smoking restrictions......
So I can assume you're against the soda ban?
can anybody name one person who has died as a result of second hand smoke? Somebody other than Dana Blake who was murdered trying to enforce a smoking ban that is supposedely in place because it's so dangerous
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports