Visitreno

[stan_allen]

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say there's documentation of second-hand perfume killing anyone, but again, the "evidence" of second-hand smoke causing death is overblown.

Whether or not something is commonly accepted as undesirable is not the issue - the issue is whether we want laws to regulate behavior that should be determined privately. So again, if the majority of casino patrons wants the casinos to be non-smoking, the casinos will throw out those ashtrays so fast it'll make your head spin - but I support the view that casinos, restaurants, movie theatres, and all the other venues that become part of this debate are intelligent enough to enact rules of their choosing, rather than having the government make these choices.

And Alison, no, you're certainly not the only one who hates the reek (sorry folks, it is indeed spelled "reek") of butts - er, cigarettes - I just want to offer up some support for the libertarian view of the debate.

[alison]

I understand your point as well Stan.

I will say though that there are lots of facts that support the effects of Second hand smoke.

I guess it does not matter in the long fun. With everythign else we are doing, we wont survive much longer unless we do some serious changes. Global Warming!

[remano]

[alison]

thank you remano!!!!!

[Barb]

OK Allison, Im with you--I smoked for many many years but quit old turkey 17 years ago. Now I cant stand smoke filled air and when I am playing slots I always play 2 machines at the same time to have a little room in between me any any possible smokers. I agree that with so much information about the dangers of smoking im surprised so many people still do smoke. Anyhow, this is an interesting discussion. Barb

[alison]

Good for for quitting Barb!! I too quit cold turkey about 9 years ago.

[BC Dave]

You non-smokers must have upset my Avatar - he's never smoked before!
And for a message board that sometimes gets a little on the quiet side...It sure is smokin now!

All kidding aside, I stand firmly with what I said before. The facilites in question are private property and what goes on there is between the owner and his or her guests. The government's job is to protect private property which is a fundamental right of the individual. This law (as are many others) is an example of the government violating property rights. These rights are basic American values. They should be values of citizens of all countries but most of humanity hasn't figured that out yet. Are Americans forgetting what they once knew?

It would do my heart good to see that law struck down as unconstitutional.

And thanks, John!

BC Dave

[alison]

BC DAve,
they tried to say the law was unconstitutional here in Wa, but that failed them.

Ali

[stan_allen]

Well, at least we're all getting lots of mileage out of our wonderful discussion board!

The lesson here is that this should have been turned into a poll question; that would have better reflected our democracy, and would settle the question through sheer force of numbers.

And if the casinos are interested, they'd look at such polls, and make the decision themselves.

As for the libertarian view, it still primarily applies to the concept of whether government should have the right to reguate decisions that are better left to the owners of private property; it isn't applicable to whether a particular activity which is the prerogative of consenting adults is deemed "good" or "bad". I can no more force you to ingest unwanted chemicals than I can force you to enter a particular casino.

Again, the debate is not about whether smoking is good or bad, it's about the extent to which government should be controlling the activities of private individuals, and while a casino or a department store may feel like public property, it really isn't. Having said that, I re-concede that if a majority of voters pass a particular ballot initiative, it's hard to argue that it shouldn't be honored.

And that, of course, could open up some far worse cans of worms, but I won't go there, 'cuz I think I've done enough damage already.

Fine, I'll open my own casino where I can smoke my lungs out - in my treehouse - and I'll invite all my little friends - oh, wait, that was Bart Simpson - sorry.

[BC Dave]

Being a law abiding citizen, I'll, of course, go along with this law. But here's a point I should have made earlier. The constitution's intent is to protect the rights of all citizens. And that includes limits on laws majorities can vote on and pass, that restrict the rights on minorities. These initiatives fall into that category. Absolute democracy is, of course, not what the U.S.A. is all about. It's about the upholding of individual rights.

BC Dave

[alison]

blah blah blah....
can we put it to rest yet?

[stan_allen]

I guess we should - after all, we achieved the goal of getting Dave to customize his avatar based on our debate; nothing better can be accomplished from this!

[alison]

i agree! i must say i love the avatar. Pretty funny!!

[BC Dave]

Thanks Gang! That's all I was really after. BC Dave

[alison]

i think someone has too much time on their hands...lol