Woohoo! Smoking banned in restaurants and workplaces in FL! :)

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Dudd

10th Amemdment

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

This was a state issue decided entirely by the voters. It seems to me that they are entirely constitutional in this respect because it wasn't handed down by the feds but was instead a state law passed by the people of Florida. You may not agree with it, but that's your choice. A majority of voters in Florida thought that it was a good idea, and that's how democracy works.

Tell me, what if a majority of Floridians had voted it legal to lynch black people? Would that be OK because of state's rights?

May I remind you of the 14th Amendment?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What this means is that states cannot deprive citizens of their federally protected civil rights, nor can the citizens vote away their rights, or the rights of the minority. PROPERTY is among those rights. A PRIVATE business is PRIVATE property.

May I remind you that we are NOT a true democracy? We are a Constitutional Republic with a democratic form of representation.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Netopia
I'm going to start by confessing that I just don't have time to read the entire thread. I did read most of the first hundred posts though and have a thought... if it hasn't already been raised:

A LOT of people said that the Federal Government has no right telling someone how to run their business or what they can or can't allow. If you REALLY believe in this, do you believe that those same business owners, if they also happen to own an apartment building should be able (PRIVATE BUSINESS) to say that they don't rent to (blacks, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, lesbians... pick your prejudice)?

If you believe that a business owner should be able to run their business any way they want, then you should agree that they should be able to be prejudicial. If not, then you should examine your beliefs because you also think Gov't should control business, but only in ways you prefer.

Just a thought.

Joe

I have never agreed with laws forcing business owners or landlords to do business with anyone based on any reason. First, it's unenforcable (they'll just make up another excuse) and second, it's unconstitutional.

Beyond lawsuits, when was the last time you saw a criminal prosecution for a business or landlord discriminating? It seldom happens, and is a law that the truely bigotted simply sneer at. It's feel good nonsense that carries little weight, but goes a long way towards taking away the rights of individual citizens. You cannot legislate away bigottry, but you can sure make it worse by trying to force people to like each other.

So according to your logic if a client I was managing a property for said that he didn't want me to rent it to a black family I should not rent to a Black Family? Besides it being illegal it is also unfair.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Netopia
I'm going to start by confessing that I just don't have time to read the entire thread. I did read most of the first hundred posts though and have a thought... if it hasn't already been raised:

A LOT of people said that the Federal Government has no right telling someone how to run their business or what they can or can't allow. If you REALLY believe in this, do you believe that those same business owners, if they also happen to own an apartment building should be able (PRIVATE BUSINESS) to say that they don't rent to (blacks, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, lesbians... pick your prejudice)?

If you believe that a business owner should be able to run their business any way they want, then you should agree that they should be able to be prejudicial. If not, then you should examine your beliefs because you also think Gov't should control business, but only in ways you prefer.

Just a thought.

Joe

I have never agreed with laws forcing business owners or landlords to do business with anyone based on any reason. First, it's unenforcable (they'll just make up another excuse) and second, it's unconstitutional.

Beyond lawsuits, when was the last time you saw a criminal prosecution for a business or landlord discriminating? It seldom happens, and is a law that the truely bigotted simply sneer at. It's feel good nonsense that carries little weight, but goes a long way towards taking away the rights of individual citizens. You cannot legislate away bigottry, but you can sure make it worse by trying to force people to like each other.

So according to your logic if a client I was managing a property for said that he didn't want me to rent it to a black family I should not rent to a Black Family? Besides it being illegal it is also unfair.

Life is unfair. Would it be anymore unfair if he refused to rent it to you because he didn't like your looks, your political beliefs, your clothing, your parents, your sister, your hairstyle?

There are always going to be bigots, Red. You cannot legislate that away. Do you really think rental agencies and landlords don't have underhanded codes and agreements between them to not rent to "undesirables?" Wake up, it happens every day. No amount of legislation is going to make that go away. It's nearly impossible to prove, and even more impossible to convict.

Get it straight that I do not support discrimination based solely on race. I'm very much opposed to it, and whenever I see it, I'm disgusted... However, all the feelgood laws in the world wont change people's hearts and minds.

 

[THUGSROOK]

whats next? banning fast food? chocolate? coffee?

this is 100% BS.

what if the business owner wanted 100% smoking only? and told all non-smokers to pissoff?
bar business is gonna suffer big time.

they arent keeping ppl from smoking in these places ~ theyre keeping smokers from GOING to these places!

 

[Zebo]

There are always going to be bigots, Red. You cannot legislate that away. Do you really think rental agencies and landlords don't have underhanded codes and agreements between them to not rent to "undesirables?"

And just when I was having second thoughts on Affirmative Action in school admissions and hiring for larger companies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused


Get it straight that I do not support discrimination based solely on race. I'm very much opposed to it, and whenever I see it, I'm disgusted... However, all the feelgood laws in the world wont change people's hearts and minds.

Who cares if it changes their hearts of not, it's the law. I also bet that banning smoking in Bars and Restaurants isn't unconstitutional. If it were I'm sure someone would have sued one of these States that enforce it by now and had it overturned.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
whats next? banning fast food? chocolate? coffee?

this is 100% BS.

what if the business owner wanted 100% smoking only? and told all non-smokers to pissoff?
bar business is gonna suffer big time.

they arent keeping ppl from smoking in these places ~ theyre keeping smokers from GOING to these places!

Bad analogy. How can you ban a fast foood at a place that sells fast food for it's main business? I'm sure that smoking is allowed at smoke shop. Also, these laws only apply to businesses that are open to the public, not private clubs the serve members only.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Who cares if it changes their hearts of not, it's the law.

i have a problem with that statement right there. its insulting, sounds like law is higher than rights.

the romans had the good idea of not trying to legislate changes in society. the only things they legislated were gray areas of responsibility.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Who cares if it changes their hearts of not, it's the law.

i have a problem with that statement right there. its insulting, sounds like law is higher than rights.

the romans had the good idea of not trying to legislate changes in society. the only things they legislated were gray areas of responsibility.

Well forgive me if I'm a little short. I'm on Vicodine because I pulled a muscle in my back lifting so I'm a little out of it.


Argue, debate and proclaim amongst yourselves, I'm through for the night

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: CurtCold
I could see this really hurting bars. Other than that people who don't smoke shouldn't have to put up with smoke. I really think business owners should have been allowed to choose smoking or non.

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
whats next? banning fast food? chocolate? coffee?

this is 100% BS.

what if the business owner wanted 100% smoking only? and told all non-smokers to pissoff?
bar business is gonna suffer big time.

they arent keeping ppl from smoking in these places ~ theyre keeping smokers from GOING to these places!

Originally posted by: werk

Originally posted by: Amused
BTW, how silly is it to force a smoking ban on a cigar shop?

That pisses me off. I know of several cigar bars that are also restaurants which I visit frequently. I'd assume there are a good number of these type of establishments in Florida as well. What happens to these business owners? Will they be forced to shut down their food service for fear of fines or being shut down? These laws are totally unfair to entirely legitimate businesses.

Wonderful. Opinionated people who have not read the proposed legislation

A quick trip to cnn.com shows us.....Amendment 6!

"To protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, this amendment prohibits tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. Allows exceptions for private residences except when they are being used to provide commercial child care, adult care or health care. Also allows exceptions for retail tobacco shops, designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments, and stand-alone bars. Provides definitions, and requires the legislature to promptly implement this amendment.

Any more questions?

-PAB

 

[Howard]

What was that quote?

Good men do not need laws to remind them to act responsibly, while bad men find a way around them.

(Sorry for the inaccuracy)

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
There are always going to be bigots, Red. You cannot legislate that away. Do you really think rental agencies and landlords don't have underhanded codes and agreements between them to not rent to "undesirables?"

And just when I was having second thoughts on Affirmative Action in school admissions and hiring for larger companies.

Oh yeah, that'll cure it. just turn the discrimination around. Tell me, what are the AA requirements for white admissions to so-called "black colleges?" None. You don't cure bigotry by passing laws promoting bigotry. All this does is create a backlash, as AA has done.

AA teaches it's recipients only one thing: They weren't good enough to get it on their own. It's one of the most damaging thing our government has ever done to entire communities.

 

[yellowperil]

Haven't read the thread (it's pretty long) but here are my $0.02. I live in FL, am a non-smoker, and support the second-hand smoke amendment. I think this will survive any challenges. There are a number of public policy statutes that place a limit on constitutional rights, to varying degrees. The courts will take public policy into consideration when balancing this sort of issue. Given the medical evidence about the dangers of 2nd hand smoke, and the fact this issue was directly voted on (makes the policy argument stronger), I don't see it being overcome. It is possible to commit a tortious battery by blowing cigarette smoke in somone's face (I believe the ruling was that the contact was offensive AND harmful) so I think the courts will side with the voters.

 

[PsychoAndy]

For the record: I live in FL. I voted yes on 6. My family has a restaurant. My family has a bar with it.

Perhaps this gives me a little more perspective than others. I think the legislation is a good idea, but it does need some tweaking with the provisions.

The Florida Restaurant Association sent out tons of paper telling everyone to vote no on 6. The reasoning stems from less gov't control on businesses, to the tobbaco costs argument, etc...

Here is MY opinion in regard to some of the reasoning and uproar of 6. See my above post for the actual legistlatvive wording.

Each state regulates alcoholic licensing differently. I think thats part of the debate. There are several types of licensing. Series 2 Consumption on Premises, Series 4 Consumption on Premises, Series RX.

2COP- Easily available for several hundred $. Serves on premises beer and wine ONLY.
4COP- Difficult to get and real PITA. Can sell ALL types of alcohol. Package store and consumption on premises.
SRX- To get this you must have a restaurant meeting a minnumum sq footage requiremen, have a min. of 200 seats, and your books can have a MAX of 49% alcoholic revenue. Easily available for several hundred $. Licensed to sell ALL alcohol, but to be consumed on premises ONLY.

IMHO the reason this is up in arms with the FRA is the following:

You have a bar with a 2COP. Stricly bar. You can smoke.
You have a restaurant with a bar and a 2COP. You serve food in your bar. Bar is physically seperated from rest of business. However, because you serve food in the bar it makes it a restaurant that serves alcohol rather than strictly a bar. No smoking.
You have a restaurant with a bar and a 4COP. Same as above.
You have a bar with a 4COP. Strictly bar. You can smoke.
You have a restaurant with a SRX. Automatic restaurant definition since food is mandatorily a minimum of 51% revenue. No smoking.

The reasoning behind the FRA's standpoint (NO on 6) is that patrtonage will drop (arguably) in the restaurant/bar's that are prohibited to smoke and that business will hurt. That may be right, that may be wrong. You can make the argument that regulars will be exactly that: regular, regardless of smoke or not.

From a logical standpoint, it seems ludicrous to have a bar that is licensed to serve alcohol that is physically separated from a restaurant (that serves food which makes it considered to be a restaurant) and forced to be under a no smoking provision. If the bar and restaurant were unable to be seperated, obviously the argument regaling smoking should take precedence. Nonetheless all businesses with a SRX, partitioned or not, now get put under a blanket provision.

PAB's Final Thought: Good idea. But it still needs work.

-PAB

 

[Gaard]

PAB - <<A quick trip to cnn.com shows us.....Amendment 6!

"To protect people from the health hazards of second-hand tobacco smoke, this amendment prohibits tobacco smoking in enclosed indoor workplaces. Allows exceptions for private residences except when they are being used to provide commercial child care, adult care or health care. Also allows exceptions for retail tobacco shops, designated smoking guest rooms at hotels and other public lodging establishments, and stand-alone bars. Provides definitions, and requires the legislature to promptly implement this amendment.

Any more questions?>>

No questions here.

Is it unconstitutional? I dunno. Somehow I don't see our forefathers giving the nod to banning smoking. But do I think this is a step in the right direction? Yep. Maybe an amendment was the wrong way to go about it...of course I am 100% in agreement to not allowing smoking in child care facilities, schools, and anywhere else that's predominantly children. Maybe they should've offered a huge tax break or something if businesses went smoke-free...something like how AAA gives you a price break if you agree to always wear your seatbelt (at least that's the way it was years ago).

I guess if you're only looking at the constitutionality of it you probably have a point. But if you look at it as smoking isn't healthy, nor is secondhand smoke, then this is a good thing.

If this is unconstitutional, is the seatbelt law unconstitutional as well? How about the helmet law?

 

[tallest1]

Is it really that hard for a smoker to NOT smoke for an hour or two? If so, look me straight in the eye and tell me that cigarettes are not addictive

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Is it really that hard for a smoker to NOT smoke for an hour or two? If so, look me straight in the eye and tell me that cigarettes are not addictive

Take the shades off first.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: tallest1
Is it really that hard for a smoker to NOT smoke for an hour or two? If so, look me straight in the eye and tell me that cigarettes are not addictive

Yep, especially when they are some Rummy getting soused in a Gin Mill

 

[bGIveNs33]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndy
For the record: I live in FL. I voted yes on 6. My family has a restaurant. My family has a bar with it.

Perhaps this gives me a little more perspective than others. I think the legislation is a good idea, but it does need some tweaking with the provisions.

The Florida Restaurant Association sent out tons of paper telling everyone to vote no on 6. The reasoning stems from less gov't control on businesses, to the tobbaco costs argument, etc...

Here is MY opinion in regard to some of the reasoning and uproar of 6. See my above post for the actual legistlatvive wording.

Each state regulates alcoholic licensing differently. I think thats part of the debate. There are several types of licensing. Series 2 Consumption on Premises, Series 4 Consumption on Premises, Series RX.

2COP- Easily available for several hundred $. Serves on premises beer and wine ONLY.
4COP- Difficult to get and real PITA. Can sell ALL types of alcohol. Package store and consumption on premises.
SRX- To get this you must have a restaurant meeting a minnumum sq footage requiremen, have a min. of 200 seats, and your books can have a MAX of 49% alcoholic revenue. Easily available for several hundred $. Licensed to sell ALL alcohol, but to be consumed on premises ONLY.

IMHO the reason this is up in arms with the FRA is the following:

You have a bar with a 2COP. Stricly bar. You can smoke.
You have a restaurant with a bar and a 2COP. You serve food in your bar. Bar is physically seperated from rest of business. However, because you serve food in the bar it makes it a restaurant that serves alcohol rather than strictly a bar. No smoking.
You have a restaurant with a bar and a 4COP. Same as above.
You have a bar with a 4COP. Strictly bar. You can smoke.
You have a restaurant with a SRX. Automatic restaurant definition since food is mandatorily a minimum of 51% revenue. No smoking.

The reasoning behind the FRA's standpoint (NO on 6) is that patrtonage will drop (arguably) in the restaurant/bar's that are prohibited to smoke and that business will hurt. That may be right, that may be wrong. You can make the argument that regulars will be exactly that: regular, regardless of smoke or not.

From a logical standpoint, it seems ludicrous to have a bar that is licensed to serve alcohol that is physically separated from a restaurant (that serves food which makes it considered to be a restaurant) and forced to be under a no smoking provision. If the bar and restaurant were unable to be seperated, obviously the argument regaling smoking should take precedence. Nonetheless all businesses with a SRX, partitioned or not, now get put under a blanket provision.

PAB's Final Thought: Good idea. But it still needs work.

-PAB

As a big opponent of 6, I'll agree with that. I just think its a shame that it had to come to the government stepping in. Well, I say that but the government really didn't do anything. Florida has the easiest Constitution to amend. All it takes is about 5 million dollars theoretically. But, if these people are truly AGAINST smoking in restaraunts, then they should have stopped going to the restaraunt. If all of a restaraunts non-smoking patrons stopped coming, how quickly do you think the restaraunt would comply? Very quickly. Overall I think I'm disappointed with Florida voters. The ammendments that got passed were ridiculous. I would have liked the amendment to say something to the sort of... "You can either offer smoking or you can't offer it at all". Oh well, I guess I'll have to live with it.

 

[Balthazar]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Why not let the owner decide? Why should the gov. tell him how to run his business? If people don't like it, they won't eat there, he'll go out of business or ban it. Has worked for several places around here. Banned both smoking and alcohol and they get tons of business.

I'm not a smoker, and I take by business to places where smoking isn't allowed. It's not up to the gov. to police it.

I agree. It should be up to the owner of a PRIVATE business to decide what to allow in his business. If you don't like it, don't do business there.

Where in the Constitution do you derive the right to force business owners to do business on YOUR terms only?

Same rules apply to MANY aspects of that same business. THEY decide how you store your food, how you prepare it, how you server alchohol, to whom you serve it to.
A "PRIVATE" business is kind of a joke, because, especially in a restraunts case, your business is dealing with the public. And there are health concerns.

If there is a kick@ss restraunt down the road from me why the heck should I miss out onit because some stupid schmuck wants to light up?
Screw him, he can take his @ss outside and do that.

Smokers act like they have some God given right to smoke whnever and wherever they want.

 

[Placer14]

As a side comment. And i don't know if this was already said or not. (This is a HUGE thread!) Part of the ban is no smoking in workplaces. I heard if a plummer, technician, tradesman comes to your house to do some work, your home essentially becomes a workplace, thusly No smoking in your own home?!

I'm all for this, but am i understanding this right?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Balthazar

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Why not let the owner decide? Why should the gov. tell him how to run his business? If people don't like it, they won't eat there, he'll go out of business or ban it. Has worked for several places around here. Banned both smoking and alcohol and they get tons of business.

I'm not a smoker, and I take by business to places where smoking isn't allowed. It's not up to the gov. to police it.

I agree. It should be up to the owner of a PRIVATE business to decide what to allow in his business. If you don't like it, don't do business there.

Where in the Constitution do you derive the right to force business owners to do business on YOUR terms only?

Same rules apply to MANY aspects of that same business. THEY decide how you store your food, how you prepare it, how you server alchohol, to whom you serve it to.

as was said earlier, you can't just walk into the front door of the place and determine if the beef has sat on their counter for 4 days or not.

A "PRIVATE" business is kind of a joke, because, especially in a restraunts case, your business is dealing with the public. And there are health concerns.

If there is a kick@ss restraunt down the road from me why the heck should I miss out onit because some stupid schmuck wants to light up?
Screw him, he can take his @ss outside and do that.

or you could just not go there and vote with your dollars and you get an efficient market solution instead of more bureaucracy and cost

Smokers act like they have some God given right to smoke whnever and wherever they want.

 

[Jzero]

If there is a kick@ss restraunt down the road from me why the heck should I miss out onit because some stupid schmuck wants to light up?
Screw him, he can take his @ss outside and do that.

Why can't the competent owner of a kickass restaurant tell the smokers to leave if he so chooses to run his enterprise that way?

Smokers act like they have some God given right to smoke whnever and wherever they want.

Non-smokers (actually I should say anti-smokers since there are plenty of non-smokers arguing against this), act like they have some God given right to force everyone to cater to their tastes.

I'm not sure which is worse.
Yes I am.
What good is health if you've sacrificed liberty to attain it?
Better still, why must we sacrifice liberty for the sake of "saving" people who are too weak or stupid to save themselves?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Balthazar

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: aphexII

Originally posted by: ElFenix
workplace, yeah maybe, but restaurants? you guys suck!

Why the hell should we have to breathe in your smoke while were eating? Go outside and do that crap.

Why not let the owner decide? Why should the gov. tell him how to run his business? If people don't like it, they won't eat there, he'll go out of business or ban it. Has worked for several places around here. Banned both smoking and alcohol and they get tons of business.

I'm not a smoker, and I take by business to places where smoking isn't allowed. It's not up to the gov. to police it.

I agree. It should be up to the owner of a PRIVATE business to decide what to allow in his business. If you don't like it, don't do business there.

Where in the Constitution do you derive the right to force business owners to do business on YOUR terms only?

Same rules apply to MANY aspects of that same business. THEY decide how you store your food, how you prepare it, how you server alchohol, to whom you serve it to.
A "PRIVATE" business is kind of a joke, because, especially in a restraunts case, your business is dealing with the public. And there are health concerns.

If there is a kick@ss restraunt down the road from me why the heck should I miss out onit because some stupid schmuck wants to light up?
Screw him, he can take his @ss outside and do that.

Smokers act like they have some God given right to smoke whnever and wherever they want.

What if that restaurant owner didn't like you, and told you not to come back? Would you still feel ENTITLED to do business with him? What if he played music you simply couldn't stand? Would you feel entitled to do business with him on your terms, and try to make him change the music?

The point here is, you are NOT entitled to do business with anyone on only your terms. If an establishment owner decides to allow smoking, it is readily evident. And if it offends you, you simply don't do business there. It's not the smokers who are keeping you away, it is the business owner who allows the smokers to smoke.

The only sense of entitlement I see here, is from you.

People REALLY should read through the thread before responding. El Fenix has more than once discussed the difference between readily and obviously apparent so-called health risks (such as smoke, or loud music) and ones that are not apparent (food poisoning).

 

[Ziptar]

Originally posted by: aphexII
Amendment 6 -- Passed
Bans smoking in restaurants and virtually all workplaces.
Finally, an amendment i actually AGREE with!

All smoking and health issues aside...

If you voted for this you have laid down your rights and surrendered them. Shame on You! You will NEVER get them back.

When Individuals surrender their freedoms and rights in exchange for government control (especially when dealing with individual personal behaviours), they open the door just a bit more to total government control.

Smoking may be a terrible habit to some, but what is next....

The people have sent a message to the state that says, "We are unable to control or manage ourselves, here are our rights.. Please take care of us" Making the issue a constitutional amendment makes the damage worse exponentially. It weakens and cheapens the constitution and makes it no more valuable than a post-it note. A smoking ban should be a matter of Law and that is it... If it cannot be passed as a law then so be it....

In 1, 5, 10 years what constitutional amendments will we need next, banning TV shows some find offensive, the government may decide that Florida residents are too obese and add an amendment that all residents must eat only yogurt and salad everyday. Or they decide to ban alcohol??

These are extreme examples but they are just to illustrate a point....


You have laid down your rights and those of others in exchange for not having the inconvenience of having to vote with you feet or dollars when choosing a restaurant.....

I for one am angered and frightened when these things happen. They illustrate just what a bunch of crybabies and peeping toms the nation has become...

Congratulations.... I hope you are happy....

I for one am sickened...