Indiana To Get Statewide Smoking Ban?

[mrjarrell]

Charlie Brown (D-Gary) and his gop buddy Eric Turner are going to try again to get one passed and he thinks he has a good shot at it this time. Surprisingly, Mitch Daniels has said he'll sign it, if it gets to him. So much for non-intrusive, small government. Guess a gop sweep means more social engineering in Indiana, this go around.
While I can't stand the smell of smoke, I vote with my dollars when it comes to patronising smoking establishments. I don't want the state telling a business what they can and can't do on their private property. This is just a bad idea, all around. Guess property rights don't mean much, at all anymore.
Someone want to remind me what the difference is between the two wings, again?

Legislator: Statewide smoking ban could pass in 2011 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Someone want to remind me what the difference is between the two wings, again?

One is on the left side of the bird, the other is on the right side of the bird. They're shaped completely opposite of each other & move in precisely opposite ways...all in an effort to propel the bird in the same direction...

 

[eldirector]

Luckily, we have a lot of new reps in the state government, that just MIGHT listen if we speak up. Time for to drop your new rep a note or a call, and also remind Mitch who he works for.

Smaller government = fewer laws, no matter what the topic.

 

[mrjarrell]

Luckily, we have a lot of new reps in the state government, that just MIGHT listen if we speak up. Time for to drop your new rep a note or a call, and also remind Mitch who he works for.

Smaller government = fewer laws, no matter what the topic.

I don't have anybody new to deal with. Just the same old people.

 

[kevinj110]

Sweet next they will tell us what and when we can eat. So what would happen to Cigar bars and hookah lounges. I don't get why people think laws like this do anything but take away rights alittle at a time.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Welcome to 1984

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Charlie Brown (D-Gary) and his gop buddy Eric Turner are going to try again to get one passed and he thinks he has a good shot at it this time. Surprisingly, Mitch Daniels has said he'll sign it, if it gets to him. So much for non-intrusive, small government. Guess a gop sweep means more social engineering in Indiana, this go around.
While I can't stand the smell of smoke, I vote with my dollars when it comes to patronising smoking establishments. I don't want the state telling a business what they can and can't do on their private property. This is just a bad idea, all around. Guess property rights don't mean much, at all anymore.
Someone want to remind me what the difference is between the two wings, again?

Legislator: Statewide smoking ban could pass in 2011 | Indianapolis Business Journal | IBJ.com

+1 and repped.

The thing these lawmakers (I was going to use the term idiots, but then I figured I would have to apologize to idiots) don't understand is that private property IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE! Restaurants, bars, casinos, flowershops, malls, etc. are PRIVATE PROPERTY! When you purchase my property you can tell me how you intend for it to be used. Until then, BTFO.

 

[ATF Consumer]

+1 and repped.

The thing these lawmakers (I was going to use the term idiots, but then I figured I would have to apologize to idiots) don't understand is that private property IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE! Restaurants, bars, casinos, flowershops, malls, etc. are PRIVATE PROPERTY! When you purchase my property you can tell me how you intend for it to be used. Until then, BTFO.

Be careful Semper...you don't want to be bashing politicians or the mods will surely close this thread

 

[eldirector]

My first draft of a letter. Feel free to use, discard, or edit. I'll fire off my copies to my reps later today!

--------------------------------------

The Honorable (insert Rep name)
200 W. Washington St
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Dear (insert Rep name),

The Indianapolis Business Journal published an article on November 15th by Mary Dieter titled "Legislator: Statewide smoking ban could pass in 2011". In this article, State Representative Charley Brown (D - Gary) indicated he would offer a bill for consideration that would effectively ban smoking in all businesses state-wide.

I urge you to block this attempt at further government intrusion into private business, should it come to one of your committees or if it comes to a vote.

While I do agree that smoking is a terrible habit and bad for your health, I also believe that private individuals may engage in otherwise legal activities as they please. Individuals may already choose to visit a smoking or smoke-free business. Private business owners can already choose to ban certain behaviors if they feel it is necessary. Government regulation is not needed in this area.

There was a strong showing at the recent mid-term election. These voters shared a common sentiment for a smaller, liberty-minded government. Bills such as this smoking ban would move us in the WRONG direction - away from liberty and towards more government intrusion.

Thanks you in advance for your consideration in this matter.

(your name)
(your district)
(your address)

 

[treeman22]

I'm not a smoker, but I still think the bans are silly. What's next, telling us what we can and cannot eat? What a joke. How does that saying go? "Live free or die."

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm not a smoker, but I still think the bans are silly. What's next, telling us what we can and cannot eat? What a joke. How does that saying go? "Live free or die."

Already done. Google NYC salt and NYC soda pop.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

+1 and repped.

The thing these lawmakers (I was going to use the term idiots, but then I figured I would have to apologize to idiots) don't understand is that private property IS NOT A PUBLIC PLACE! Restaurants, bars, casinos, flowershops, malls, etc. are PRIVATE PROPERTY! When you purchase my property you can tell me how you intend for it to be used. Until then, BTFO.

While I support the right of smokers who choose to do that, I will beg to differ with you on restaurants being private property, as they are not, if they are "open to the public" and their parking lot is "open to the public", meaning that club membership, dues, keys, key card, etc. is not a requirement to gain access to the building. By law they have to maintain "public restrooms", etc. If you can walk into an establishment and walk straight into the restroom and use it, that is a public place.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

While I support the right of smokers who choose to do that, I will beg to differ with you on restaurants being private property, as they are not, if they are "open to the public" and their parking lot is "open to the public", meaning that club membership, dues, keys, key card, etc. is not a requirement to gain access to the building. By law they have to maintain "public restrooms", etc. If you can walk into an establishment and walk straight into the restroom and use it, that is a public place.

I'm sorry, but hell no. Open to the public is not the same as public property. Public property is owned by the collective. If it is privately owned, no matter the size, it is private. The Indianapolis 500 track complex is private property. The fact that you can stuff over 500,000 people into does not change the nature of its ownership structure.

The fact that unjust laws have been used to regulate and eliminate private property rights doesn't justify further erosion of those rights.

 

[rambone]

While I support the right of smokers who choose to do that, I will beg to differ with you on restaurants being private property, as they are not, if they are "open to the public" and their parking lot is "open to the public", meaning that club membership, dues, keys, key card, etc. is not a requirement to gain access to the building. By law they have to maintain "public restrooms", etc. If you can walk into an establishment and walk straight into the restroom and use it, that is a public place.

:Noway: Try again.

If you own your property, then you own your property. People visiting your property does not equate to them having some kind of stake in what facilities and features you include in you property. Smoking, non-smoking, it is up to the owner to decide. If you disagree with him, then leave.

P.S. I have been in plenty of businesses that don't offer bathroom facilities.

 

[eldirector]

While I support the right of smokers who choose to do that, I will beg to differ with you on restaurants being private property, as they are not, if they are "open to the public" and their parking lot is "open to the public", meaning that club membership, dues, keys, key card, etc. is not a requirement to gain access to the building. By law they have to maintain "public restrooms", etc. If you can walk into an establishment and walk straight into the restroom and use it, that is a public place.

Of COURSE they are private property! They can set pretty much whatever rules they want, including smoking or not.

I can't find any reference to a public restroom = a public space. No business I know of is REQUIRED to provide a restroom at all. As a matter of fact, plenty of businesses have "No Public Restroom" signs.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

It comes down to what we talked about in our political class. The laws that these douche bags pass do not affect them. They'll probably be in politics until they die.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

I'm sorry, but hell no. Open to the public is not the same as public property. Public property is owned by the collective. If it is privately owned, no matter the size, it is private. The Indianapolis 500 track complex is private property. The fact that you can stuff over 500,000 people into does not change the nature of its ownership structure.

The fact that unjust laws have been used to regulate and eliminate private property rights doesn't justify further erosion of those rights.

Now you are throwing in a completely different term....public property, versus the earlier mentioned public property. In that regard, you are correct. Public property is that which is owned and maintained by the taxpayers. But a public restaurant is a "public place", although it is privately owned. As such, when it is open for business to the "public", then that owner is subject to the laws and ordinances in that particular jurisdiction...however non-sensical it may seem at times.

 

[Regionnus Rattis]

Of COURSE they are private property! They can set pretty much whatever rules they want, including smoking or not.

I can't find any reference to a public restroom = a public space. No business I know of is REQUIRED to provide a restroom at all. As a matter of fact, plenty of businesses have "No Public Restroom" signs.

Can't have a restaurant without a public restroom as far as I know....that is usually building code or something like that.

 

[eldirector]

Can't have a restaurant without a public restroom as far as I know....that is usually building code or something like that.

Outside of Health and Public Safety, Building Codes would be local ordinance, not state law.

While "public restrooms" may be true for restaurants in some areas, this Smoking Ban would effect ALL businesses in the entire state. I would understand if it impacted business that we, as consumers, had NO CHOICE but to visit (the BMV is a bad example as a .gov, but you get the idea). However, I can already choose to visit my local AutoZone for car parts if the local NAPA is too smokey for me. I can eat in a smoking or non-smoking section at my favorite restaurant. And right now, I can visit the local Cigar Bar and actually SMOKE my purchase.

I say let the consumers decide. They are the ones effected either way.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't think we should have a definition of a "public place". Things are either private or public, end of story.

If I own my building, I should be able to deny service to anyone and conduct whatever business I want within my walls.

Screw all of this nanny state "let's make it fair" bs.

The market can take care of this better than any law.