Comments on: Blue Laws and Anti-Smoking Laws

By: steve

steve — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 02:54:04 +0000

KJ,

I never said anything about “my rights”. Please read before typing, lest I mistake you for a liberal.

By: KJ

KJ — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:08:41 +0000

Steve,

It isn’t about your rights. It is about the rights of the business owners and the property owners. Your right is to say – I’m taking my business elsewhere.

I’m sure the casinos, like most bars, are not really concerned about the non-smoking gambler. Where there is one vice, there is often two. And where one vice is important enough, the problems of second hand smoke will be ignored.

But losing in the market (not enough good casinos with good smoking policies) does not mean the answer is regulation.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 04:39:34 +0000

I loathe that I live in New York, the socialist capital of the US (okay, maybe California could give us a run). But, I never appreciated our commie smoking laws until I accompanied my wife on a conference to Vegas and was subjegated to the foul tobacco stench everywhere I went. I’d have to have found a cave in some desert mountain if I wanted fresh air.

So what’s the greater freedom? Smoke where you want or breath fresh air? I had to go against my red roots for this one.

I blogged about it here:
http://www.negative99.com/archive/177

By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Carnival Of Liberty XXXIX

Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Carnival Of Liberty XXXIX — Tue, 04 Apr 2006 11:04:49 +0000

[...] Next, writing at The Liberty Papers, Brad Warbiany offers two excellent pieces. The first rips about the anti-liberty rationale behind laws restricting smoking and laws restricting what we can do on Sundays. As Brad points out, the people who advocate these laws are similar in the fact that they don’t trust free individuals to make choices. Brad’s second contribution takes a skeptical look at the Federal Election Commission’s recent decision that appears to exempt bloggers from campaign finance regulation. As Brad points out, the problem with the ruling is that it accepts the rationale that the FEC has any business getting involved in political speech to begin with. [...]

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 15:55:07 +0000

I prefer Chick-Fil-A because they just taste better.

By: KJ

KJ — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 18:37:19 +0000

Businesses can’t compete if they “chose” to be closed on Sunday or not allow smoking? BS on all fronts. If they value their business more than their personal desires, they will do what the customers want. Either way, they pay a price, but only one if financial.

Of course, the premise is BS. Restuarants were non-smoking or at least had non-smoking sections before the laws required it. I do not smoke (except a cigar a few times per year) and I have a small child. Thus, I didn’t go to smoking places. I never considered it my right to demand that my favorite sports bar refuse to allow smoking just so I would choose to go there more often.

Bottom line: the property/business owner should decide the policy. Then the customer can choose the business.

By: The Unrepentant Individual » Two Posts at The Liberty Papers

The Unrepentant Individual » Two Posts at The Liberty Papers — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 04:21:05 +0000

[...] Blue Laws and Anti-Smoking Laws [...]