Lincolnite

Whaaa? OK remember to distinguish between truly “private” (ie your house) vs. “privately-owned public forums” that are subject to government regulation (ie businesses like McDonalds, Target, etc.). The government has much more leeway to regulate the latter than the former, and rightfully so. In other words, I like knowing that the cashier at Walmart isn’t 9 yrs old and working 18 hours per day.

Wow, one comment in and our first great big straw man has already entered the battle! And it’s not even a very good straw man, considering how I explicitly mentioned that children are not able to give consent to the type of abuse you bring up. In fact I’m left wondering: what the hell are you talking about, Mr. T?

You started out on a reasonable track, though. The truly private versus quasi-private nature of various types of private space is an interesting issue in American law. But in a general sense I reject the notion that “the government (inherently) has much more leeway to regulate the latter than the former….” I ought not have any more of a government-sanctioned right to do what I wish at McDonald’s or Target than I do in your home. The fact that I open up my property to the general public does not give the government (i.e. the public) the right to tell me what I can do or how I can conduct business on that property. There exist reasonable exceptions, of course: I cannot knowingly mislead the public about the nature of my business, for example.

The absurdity of so-called “privately-owned public forums” is illustrated perfectly over at the Hi-Way Diner on Highway 2. Customers cannot smoke within the Diner itself, but they are free to smoke in the “Freedom Flyer” parked outside. What’s the difference? Why can a guy invite people to smoke inside his private vehicle (or home), but a guy can’t invite those same people to smoke inside his business?

I’m off to bed. Let’s give the 9 year-old straw men a rest too, shall we?

I’m with you on the smoking ban. I’m a former smoker, and, like many of my ilk, I really don’t like being around smoke now. Still, I voted against the ban, and I’m still opposed to it. Let people make their own choices and live with the results. Anymore, it seems the US is reluctant to allow either of these.

P.S. The puffery about the dangers of secondhand smoke is much overblown, IMHO.

The fact that I open up my property to the general public does not give the government (i.e. the public) the right to tell me what I can do or how I can conduct business on that property.

Um…yeah it does. There is a BIG difference between regulation of private residences versus businesses/places of employment. I think your problem is that you are confusing and conflating privately-owned business with privately-owned residences. Which is why statements like:

...most amusing about the smoking ban is that it criminalizes private behavior on private property…

are inherently flawed. Do you not understand this?

Abe,

P.S. The puffery about the dangers of secondhand smoke is much overblown, IMHO.

Perhaps, but be careful going there. Besides, even if the effects of secondhand smoke aren’t quite as bad as advertised, they are still bad enough. But let’s throw out all the health effects, just for fun. We don’t necessarily need them to justify restricting smoking in public spaces, especially indoor spaces. The desire of (most) non-smoking citizens not to have to breathe particulate matter and to not smell foul is sufficient to force smoking entirely into the private realm, where citizens can freely choose whether or not to enter or linger.

Mr. T,

Um…yeah it does.

Huzzah! You’ve convinced me! Psh. C’mon, Mr. T, what sort of argument is that?

What is this “BIG difference between regulation of private residences versus businesses/places of employment” of which you speak? You say I’m confused, but I’m not confused at all. I am quite intentionally conflating private property with private property because they are (are you ready for this?) the same thing. If you want me to recognize your “BIG difference,” you’re going to have to spell it out.

Do you not understand this?

I understand the words you’re saying, yes. But no, I’m not going to take your carefully-crafted “BIG difference” assertion at face-value. You’re going to have to actually make some sort of an argument first.

Whaaaa? You are simplifying, simplifying, simplifying. I think you are hung up on not being able to distinguish between a privately-owned residence versus a privately-owned place of business. Yes, both are technically, physically, on a privately-owned piece of real estate, but that doesn

You are simplifying [x3].

In a sense. There’s no reason to complicate simple matters.

You go on to cite laws that regulate business, but you’ve missed the point. I know which laws exist. I want to know what grand principle gives them the right to exist. What is the difference between an individual’s private property (his home) and his private property (his business)?

<em>I should also note that my eluding to child labor is not a

I agree that individual choices of private business people should be respected by our laws much more than they are. Unfortunately, as Mr. T notes, businesses of all sizes and activities are immeshed in a web of regulations. The costs of these, while hidden, are huge, and they are embedded in the price of everything we buy. These regulations and laws (like there’s a real difference) are well-intentioned, but they do harm as well.

The view that “anything goes” in regulating business is a pernicious one. It would be nice if the SCOTUS would recognize this at some point and put some limits on it. It would be better yet if Congress, legislatures, the POTUS and governors would recognize it and roll some of these back rather than continually adding new ones.

I can’t agree that banning smoking in private homes with children would be a good idea. I suspect that you don’t really think so either, Mr. Wilson. I can easily think of 10 other behaviors that would immediately be touted as equally valid targets for regulation of family decisions: spanking/dicipline; TV; computer games; nutrition; fitness; educational choice/progress; ...

<em>I can

Excellent definition of “enlightenment,” and I can see we are both “enlightened” individuals. 😊

I’m still not convinced secondhand smoke qualifies as “imminent harm,” even if a massive, libertarian groundswell should form around us to avoid slippery slope problems. And what harm could be more imminent than a spanking, even if the child gives consent. 😊

Uh oh, now we need to define “imminent,” because I think our definitions differ. But I’m not going to go there, lest we find ourselves on the slipperiest of slippery slopes, sliding ever-closer to, well, here.

(I feel a little guilty bringing up that particular event. It almost feels like I just invoked a grammatical corollary to Godwin’s Law.)

Heh heh. First of all, health and safety in the workplace environment can be regulated under commerce clause, and secondly, so can

Read that case…

Which case?

But I digress from your digression.

MY digression? You’re the one who brought the Commerce Clause into this.

Commerce clause is but one example of govt regulation (good or bad) of private business, which destroys your notion that there is (or should not be) no boundaries between private residences or private businesses.

It does, huh? So once a court has interpreted something in a particular way, it is settled that way, now and forever, and all arguments to the contray are “destroy(ed)?” You argue like a pawn, Mr. T.

Not that I am one to nitpick, but I expect a better informed and logically consistent argument from you Mr. Wilson…

Please cite specific instances where my logic is inconsistent.

...especially in light of the fact that you turned around and hypothetically advocated for a smoking ban within private residences.

I did no such thing. I advocate a prohibition against smoking in the presence of those who do not or cannot consent to accepting the harms caused by secondhand smoke. There is no discrimination based on location. You’ll no doubt say tomayto tomahto, but there is a critical distinction between the two.

Aaahhhh, yes, the civil rights act cases. I see you are not familiar with them as a lay student of American law? These were cases in which property owners argued that the civil rights act exceeded congressional commerce clause powers and infringed on their 5th amendment liberty and property rights. The defendants

Me…I voted for the ban.  Have I frequented establishments more because of the ban, somewhat but not really.  Have I enjoyed establishments more now that the ban is in effect, a resounding yes.  From bowling alleys to bars, my experience at an establishment is better because of the smoking ban.  Is it wrong for us to ban a personal preference in a public place?  Probably.  But my experience is still better in a non-smoking establishment than a smoking establishment.

My problem with this whole thing has been one store, Big Johns Billiards.  They closed after 3 months of the ban.  How can a store go from open to closed all in three months?  A very convenient excuse if you ask me.  Me thinks they had numerous money problems before hand, and the ban only pushed them over.

Yeah, the Big John’s Billiards situation is a joke. They had to have been in pretty sorry financial shape long before the ban went into effect for them to close that quickly.

Interesting proposals you have there and I admire the creative juices of your mind.

By nature, I am a considerate person, so, my stand is…let them put all the kinds of smoking ban that they want, just give us smokers a place of our own. That simple.

RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT (GRAND ISLAND) STATING THAT MY ESTABLISHMENT WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CLEAN INDOOR AIR ACT. I MUST SET ASIDE SMOKING AREAS REASONABLY PROPORTIONATE TO THE PREFERENCES OF THE USERS.  IF A SIGN ON THE DOOR SAYS LIKE IT OR LEAVE IT, THEN I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT NCIAA.  IF THEY WOULD MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS THEN THEY WOULD NOT HAVE THE TIME TO TO MIND MY BUSINESS.  SECOND HAND SMOKE DOES NOT KILL; HITLER BANNED CIGARETTES; FREEDOM OF CHOICE GOING GOING; CIVIL LIBERATIES LOST; UNITED CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA; BUSH A TRAITOR, WAR CRIMINAL AND NON-CHRISTIAN, POLITICANS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR, MIDDLE CLASS BEING DESTROYED, ETC.  THE SMOKING HABIT STINKS BUT THE ELIMINATION OF MY CHOICES IS WORSE.