Tyrants in Maryland do it again

[Larry Gude]

So...

Yes.

If I am walking into WlaMart and I happen to get behind someone that is smoking in the parking lot I have the choice to move away from them but then I am being forced to go where I don't want to accommodate that smoker. Not too big of a deal in reality but I still am limited in my choices aren’t I? If I am in the non-smoking part of Outback and just on the other side of the partition is the smoking section and someone lights up and that person’s smoke is drifting into the non-smoking section that non-smoking section has now become the smoking section hasn’t it?

...there it is; your rights are so sacrosanct that they demand no accommodation of your fellow citizen, whatsoever, even if it is simply diverting your path to the left side, rather than the right side of a parked car.

 

[awpitt]

That's not your business.

But this will be next, mark my words. If the government can tell you what you can and cannot do in your privately-owned business, they can certainly regulate what you do in your own home.

That would be a question of child neglect or endangerment. If you happen to see someone in their car smoking with children in the car and the windows closed, is that indicative of being a good parent or is it a form of neglect? If it’s neglect, could that reasoning be extended to the home? My wife used to run a daycare and it was so obvious which kids came from homes where smokers lived. We could tell because they stunk. If smoke in the house does that to their clothes, just imagine what it’s doing to the kids’ lungs of the years. What we do in our homes is our business, smoking and all. That is until; our actions bring harm to others.

 

[PsyOps]

...there it is; your rights are so sacrosanct that they demand no accommodation of your fellow citizen, whatsoever, even if it is simply diverting your path to the left side, rather than the right side of a parked car.

Sacrosanct? Well, since you've decided to take my point to the extreme, allow me the same... It's my right to breathe smoke-free air in a certain restaurant and that limits your choice as a smoker... I mean if it's simply diverting you to an eatery that allows smoking... I mean, historically speaking, there were no accomodations for non-smokers. That's changed and now smokers are all about it.

 

[Larry Gude]

Once again...

Sacrosanct? Well, since you've decided to take my point to the extreme, allow me the same... If my right to breathe smoke-free air in a certain restaurant and that limits your choice as a smoker... I mean if it's simply diverting you to an eatery that allows smoking... I mean, historically speaking, there were no accomodations for non-smokers. That's changed and now smokers are all about it.

...you position is 'all for me, none for them', yes? I think you are being unreasonable and unfair given what limits are already in place on smokers and given your freedom of association is not infringed in any way but that which you choose.

 

[awpitt]

What's the difference between hiring a Molly Maid for your home, and hiring a waiter/waitress for your business?

Where does this end?

The waiter/waitress would be a statutory employee of the business. The Molly Maid is not. You are the Molly Maid’s customer.

 

[Larry Gude]

Whose child is it?

That would be a question of child neglect or endangerment. If you happen to see someone in their car smoking with children in the car and the windows closed, is that indicative of being a good parent or is it a form of neglect? If it’s neglect, could that reasoning be extended to the home? My wife used to run a daycare and it was so obvious which kids came from homes where smokers lived. We could tell because they stunk. If smoke in the house does that to their clothes, just imagine what it’s doing to the kids’ lungs of the years. What we do in our homes is our business, smoking and all. That is until; our actions bring harm to others.

If you can abort your child and that is your choice, how could anyone possibly argue as to your right to smoke around your child? Or not seek the best possible education for them? Or not feed them well? Or see that they only watch some approved amount of TV? It's not such a great thing to think someone isn't doing right by their kid, but, at the end of the day, either we're free or we're not and if smoking around your kid is the same as molesting them or chaining them up in the basement, man, where does that end, utopia? Until it brings harm? How much? How little? How often? By whose rules?

I think you'd have every right to say "We don't take children of smokers because it stinks up our house." I think you have no right to say "You can't smoke in your home if you have kids."

 

[PsyOps]

...you position is 'all for me, none for them', yes? I think you are being unreasonable and unfair given what limits are already in place on smokers and given your freedom of association is not infringed in any way but that which you choose.

No, my position is both sides are demanding all for me and none for them. Once again, historically smoking was allowed in every office, establishment, every public place... that's how things were, right? It was all for smokers and none for non-smokers. Now smokers are fed up. Now they are demanding all for them just as the smokers had at once. I don't know which is more fair or unfair... I'm just stating that I understand the non-smokers' argument.

 

[vraiblonde]

That would be a question of child neglect or endangerment.

And what constitutes that would be a matter of opinion.

Some say that swearing in front of your children is a form of abuse. Others insist that watching MTV is child endangerment. Some even say that leaving your 13 year old home alone while you run to the store is endangerment.

Do you *really* want the government deciding what you can and cannot expose your children to?

 

[vraiblonde]

No, my position is both sides are demanding all for me and none for them.

I have not heard one single smoker DEMANDING (or even suggesting) that they should be allowed to smoke anywhere they please. Therefore, no smoker is demanding "all for me".

Your "argument" is going downhill fast.

 

[Larry Gude]

And I am stating...

No, my position is both sides are demanding all for me and none for them. Once again, historically smoking was allowed in every office, establishment, every public place... that's how things were, right? It was all for smokers and none for non-smokers. Now smokers are fed up. Now they are demanding all for them just as the smokers had at once. I don't know which is more fair or unfair... I'm just stating that I understand the non-smokers' argument.

...that the argument is not fair and is unreasonable.

It is human nature to think it is unfair when one side is getting all their way and to see all manner of room for compromise, yet, once the tables are turned, suddenly, when things are going the other way, harrumph, there is no room for reason or compromise, even when you are largely winning.

 

[PsyOps]

...that the argument is not fair and is unreasonable.

It is human nature to think it is unfair when one side is getting all their way and to see all manner of room for compromise, yet, once the tables are turned, suddenly, when things are going the other way, harrumph, there is no room for reason or compromise, even when you are largely winning.

I'm not winning anything because in reality if this gets litigated or, even worse, legislated we all lose. There was never legislation to allow for smoking. It just was. I think it should be the same for doing away with smoking. It just should be by the peoples' choice, as a collective. That's been my misunderstood point. Rights shouldn't have to be enforced by law; they should be respected and understood by everyone. For decades the rights of non-smokers went grossly ignored.

But this is how our society works today. We don't discuss and come to agreements and comprimise; we sue. When you get in an accident where no one is hurt, the person that was hit will sue you rather than just settle on exchanging insurance info and go on our merry way. When a smoker gets lung cancer they sue the cigarrette companies rather than just accept their responsibility that it was their RIGHT to give themselves cancer. We want to litigate everything instead of just accepting responsibility.

If non-smokers, who are in favor of banning smoking in public, think they are winning they are deceiving themselves. It will just be one more notch in the government ruling our lives and one more crutch society will use to shed personal responsibility.

 

[vraiblonde]

It just should be by the peoples' choice, as a collective. That's been my misunderstood point.

It's been misunderstood because you haven't communicated that point at all. What you have repeatedly said is that YOU should have the right to never be around smokers in ANY capacity. Forgive me if I assumed that meant you supported the ban.

Smoking or not smoking has ALWAYS been a "people's choice". To allow or not allow smoking in your business has ALWAYS been a "choice". There was never, ever, any law that said a business MUST allow smoking. Not ever.

Now it no longer "people's choice" - it is a law handed down by the dictators in Annapolis who are determined to nanny us into sheep-like compliance.

Did you see the thread where it is now against the law to scream on the rollercoaster?

What next?

 

[Makavide]

Again, what about the business owner? Do they or do they not have a right to decide what legal activities they allow in their establishment?

No, they lost that right years ago. It started with the government requiring business owners to obtain certain licenses to sell specific items. Then it was the laws that came along restricting where they could build their business. Then there were the laws saying you no longer have the right to refuse service. Next to come along were the laws regulating accessibility. In other words, when a ever special interest group comes along with the money, and the saddest stories, and gets the medias attention the bleeding hearts create more laws. (Although you must admit, it is a majority of the population that benefits from this legislation - this time).

 

[Larry Gude]

Maybe smokers...

No, they lost that right years ago. It started with the government requiring business owners to obtain certain licenses to sell specific items. Then it was the laws that came along restricting where they could build their business. Then there were the laws saying you no longer have the right to refuse service. Next to come along were the laws regulating accessibility. In other words, when a ever special interest group comes along with the money, and the saddest stories, and gets the medias attention the bleeding hearts create more laws. (Although you must admit, it is a majority of the population that benefits from this legislation - this time).

...can come along and claim minority status/discrimination/disability/addiction and receive an exemption?

 

[Ken King]

Can anyone show me where in the Maryland Constitution the state government is given the authority to do this? Frankly, I haven't looked, so I am asking out of ignorance. But I doubt that it is there and if something is there it is being stretched to the limits to apply.

Well 2A it seems it is covered in the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution. First consider Article 3. Reserved powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.

And then Article 43. What legislature should encourage; assessment of farm or agricultural land.

That the Legislature ought to encourage the diffusion of knowledge and virtue, the extension of a judicious system of general education, the promotion of literature, the arts, sciences, agriculture, commerce and manufactures, and the general melioration of the condition of the People. The Legislature may provide that land actively devoted to farm or agricultural use shall be assessed on the basis of such use and shall not be assessed as if sub-divided.

So the way this right is worded it seems that the legislature is within the Constitutional bounds of their authority whether we like it or not.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Well 2A it seems it is covered in the Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution. First consider Article 3. Reserved powers of states and people.

And then Article 43. What legislature should encourage; assessment of farm or agricultural land.

So the way this right is worded it seems that the legislature is within the Constitutional bounds of their authority whether we like it or not.

Don't see how Article 43 applies at all, and Article 3 is a "kitchen sink." I was looking for something a bit more specific. Like "The Maryland Legislature has the right to tell owners of private business how to run their businesses and who they have to cater to."

 

[Midnightrider]

Don't see how Article 43 applies at all, and Article 3 is a "kitchen sink." I was looking for something a bit more specific.

what happened to the snotty version of this post? Thanks for playing...

 

[2ndAmendment]

what happened to the snotty version of this post? Thanks for playing...

Still following me around? You must really have a thing for me. I'm not interested.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Oh Midnight, if I wanted to get "snotty" with Ken, he would be OK with it. We are friends IRL. He would take it and give it. You, on the other hand are just an Internet persona that I think is a jerk.

 

[Midnightrider]

Still following me around? You must really have a thing for me. I'm not interested.

like we decided before, when you own the internet, you will get to regulate what gets posted. Until then don't be too surprised if i call you out for being a richard, then editing your post after you realize you are making yourself look like an idiot.