Virginia's "Click It or Ticket" Campaign

[Deleted deleted]

If you wear your seat belt consistently everytime you get behind the wheel it becomes habit, something you just plain know is good sense.



But you can carry laws to the extreme.... should goverment ban smoking since it's been proven to cause cancer? What about alcohol?



Goverment should not legislate common sense!

 

[Tom Schindler]

should goverment ban smoking since it's been proven to cause cancer?

They are working on that already. They are called "Indoor Smoking Bans". Instead of letting the buisness owner decide if they will allow customers smoke, states, counties, and cities are enacting smoking bans aginst the will and consent of business owners and votors.





Tom

 

[Deleted deleted]

Well, I should have re-phrased that.... I am all for banning smoking in public places, what I meant was making tobacco illegal.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Darin,



That is the next step.



Leaving it up to the business owner to decide to allow smoking is the only fair thing to do.



A indoor smoking ban by the government is no different then "click it, or ticket".





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Leaving it up to the business owner to decide to allow smoking is the only fair thing to do.

Then I guess your firm belief, Caymen, is that a business owner should be able to run their business the way they want, and attract the kind of clientel they choose, right?



So, then, I guess a business owner can have a "Whites ONLY" restaurant by that same logic, right?



Such laws are in place to protect those who don't have a voice, who want fair treatment. If 85% of the people wanted a smoke-filled bar, but 15% did not, SHOULD it be majority rules? No, not necessarily. The 15% are entitled to a smoke free establishment, regardless if they are in the majority or the minority.



That's why laws like this exist and why government doesn't allow the business or the individual to choose, because the choice made my often hurt the individual or the minority.



TJR

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Indoor smoking bans are no different than environmental laws. You can't dump anti-freeze down you gutter, because it poisons the water. You can't smoke indoors, because it poisons the air.



What I was speaking against are laws that prevent adults from doing something they want to do, even when the only one at risk is themselves. I'm not stating I favor all such acts, but people were born with freewill, and within certain societal limits, people should be allowed to pursue those things. "Pursuit of Happiness" is actually in the Bill of Rights, right next to the right to Life and Liberty.



So in essence, Virginia is stomping on the Bill of Rights specifically on Memorial Day week, which is meant to honor the very folks which have died defending that same Bill of Rights under the Constitution. Pretty ironic, isn't it? :blink:

 

[Richard L]

The re are places here in Texas, and probably elsewhere that you cannot smoke outside or inside !! There are places like Hospitals, public parks, and some college campuses that completely smoke free and you can be ticketed for smoking anywhere within the boundaries including parking lots while you are sitting in your car ???



I don't know of anyone who got a ticket at any of these locations but they claim it's legal and will be enforced. Part of the reason for the law goes beyond just health, but also involves the labor necessary to provide and clean up cigarette butts, and potential fire hazards.



...Rich

 

[WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs]

We have that here in the Seattle area and the cops are not shy to pull you over either.

 

[A K]

I'll add this.



The click it or ticket is tied to the federal government. Though it is easy to blame a state, the federal government essentially passed legislation that if a state does not implement it, the federal government can cut off severely the funding to the state for its highway fund. States, who can barely afford to keep their roads decent as it is, had almost no choice.

 

[Tom Schindler]

So, then, I guess a business owner can have a "Whites ONLY" restaurant by that same logic, right?

Nope, not the same thing. There is a federal law prohibiting discrimination because of Race, Religon, Sexual Orientation, Sex, etc.

Such laws are in place to protect those who don't have a voice, who want fair treatment. If 85% of the people wanted a smoke-filled bar, but 15% did not, SHOULD it be majority rules? No, not necessarily. The 15% are entitled to a smoke free establishment, regardless if they are in the majority or the minority.

If 85% of the patrons of a bar are smokers, thier rights to smoke override those that don't like the smoke. When voters vote on levey and 85% turn it down, does that mean it will still pass because 15% wanted it to pass?



If there was a market for bars that are non-smoking, there is an opportunity for a bar owner to open one up and advertize it as a non-smoking bar. The non-smokers can enjoy going to a bar to support thier cause. if the non-smoking bars make more money then the smoking ones do, there will be more bars opening that are non-smoking.



I don't need the government to dictate what a business are allowed to do. Sure laws forbit poluting the environment and I am willing to bet most everyone would agree wwith it. polution is a problem and must be controlled. An employee of a bar can choose to work in a smoking bar or they can choose to work somewhere else. The government has not given each one of us a test then said "Mr Rogers, you scored a 83 on your test, you are going to be a Lawyer, but sorry Mr. Schindler, you only scored a 65. You are going to be a bartender".



Majority rules. Plain and simple. We vote on isssues and by the general concensus, we decide what we are going to do. If we don't like the Mayor, we can vote him or her out during the election. The majority dictates the winner of the election. The government does not take our vote, dismiss it and say, "We are keeping so-and-so, as the Mayor even though 85% said they want a different person, the other 15% has the right to keep that person, so he or she will stay". I just doesn't work that way.

Indoor smoking bans are no different than environmental laws. You can't dump anti-freeze down you gutter, because it poisons the water. You can't smoke indoors, because it poisons the air.

Not really. Last time I checked, the ground, rivers, and air are not owned by the business owner. They are public property and in the best interest of the public, those resources are protected unlike the fact that as a non-smoker (I do not smoke and personally feel it is nasty) I have the choice to patronize an establishment or not. Smoking in a building is doing as much damage to the air as it would be smoking outside.





Tom

 

[Rick Kent]

Smoking bans in bars/restaurants trample on the private property rights of the owners. The choice to enter a smoke filled bar is that of the patron. Anyone familiar with Dr. Williams’s writings knows he is a big proponent of private property rights.



The slippery slope mentioned earlier is two fold. What is the next: Alcohol, fast food, obesity? All of these can have a negative impact on the individual and by extension the general public. The second problem with government regulation of private property is the possibility of extending this to other areas. I am sure I have read that somewhere in California there is a movement afoot to ban smoking within your own residence.



I personally do not smoke and never have but until smoking is illegal we need to step back as a society and examine what we are asking for. Anyone that thinks the government is the solution to anything needs to go and have his/her head examined.



As Caymen points out, if there is a market for smoke free bars then someone will open one voluntarily and make a ton of money. Then the government will use our punitive tax system to punish their success.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says to my "All Whites" restaurant question:

Nope, not the same thing. There is a federal law prohibiting discrimination because of Race, Religon, Sexual Orientation, Sex, etc.

So, if there is a law that says a business owners can't do something, than that law supersedes the business owners rights to do that thing.



Kinda like a bar owner NOT being able to have a smoking section in a bar if local laws prevent smoking in bars.



You then went on several times, Caymen, to point out that it should be "Majority Rules", and businesses should be able to make their own rules, and if you don't like it, make your own business that has the rules you want, or go to some other business. Frankly, it just doesn't work that way. The minority is often lead by mob-mentality. Many laws are passed to protect the minority from the majority...like the anti-discrimination laws of the 50s...a majority in many areas DID NOT want them, but they were passed anyway. Would you have been siding with the sheet-wearing majority then?



As I said, laws are often meant to protect the minority that wouldn't have a voice or rights; you don't like that Caymen, and I respect that, but it's all the same...laws are their to protect and to give the minority their rights; whether they be anti-discrimination laws or no-smoking laws.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

The difference you fail to see that not hiring someone because of thier color affect thier lives. Allowing a business owner decide to allow or not allow smoking in his establishment is totally different.



As a business owner, I must do something to attract custtomers. There are many ways I can do that. One is good food. My food can be the best in town and if I choose to allow smokers to smoke in my resturaunt, those that don't smoke can decide to visit other local places or they can live with it. If my smoking resturaunt is emp\ty because the smokers do not partonize my place, then I can make a choice. I can no longer allow smoking and the non-smokers can spend all the money they want in my place.



Hiring someone because of thier color, or denying thier employment is illegl because they had no choice of thier color and we have a freedom of religon that is protected in the constitution. If someone is a smoker, they have just as much as a say as the non-smoker. Majority rules in that case.



I know you will disagree, but I have a choice when watching TV or a visiting a bar. If I don't like something, I can leave or turn it off. If I don't like the smell of smoke, I can find a bar that is smoke free. If there is a demand, someone will take advantage of it.



So far, there is not much of a demand for a non-smoking bar in my area.





Tom

 

[Casey Everhart]

I'm a claims adjuster for GEICO. I get to deal with the stupid choices of people on a daily basis. Doing my job, seeing the pictures I see, and having to speak to someones mother, or their spouse after their loved one was a fatality in accident, and could have been saved by wearing a seatbelt... I dont get in any car without wearing one.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I am not talking about businesses hiring people; I am talking about establishments that had "Whites Only" customers, like the restaurants and bars and such that were common, especially in the South, before the 50s. Those businesses ran the way THEY and the MAJORITY wanted, attracting the customers they wanted, and felt that if they were forced to change it would hurt their business.



It's the same thing. A law was passed by the govt to protect the rights of the minority from the majority.



TJR