Smoking in Casinos

Quote: Nareed

My apologies. I meant to say "public" places.

Bars, restaurants, office buildings, stores, hospitals, are not public places, they're private places open to the public. The governmetn infringes on the property rigths of the owners of these places, who're the ones who should decide whether smoking is or ins't allowed in their property.

Oh, be serious. It's common (and expected) practice for the government to enact regulations to protect the public safety, even in privately-owned structures open to the public. They have a tremendous amount of effect on the design and operation of these buildings: fire resistant materials, handrail requirements, electrical power protections, methods for containing toxic chemicals and other hazards, etc. No one thinking clearly considers these to be unwarranted infringements on private property rights. If you don't like operating your facility in a manner the government considers safe for the public, don't admit the public and expose them to the risks you create. Restricting smoking in public areas within private facilities is a natural extension, once the public health hazard is recognized.

Quote: Doc

Oh, be serious.

I'm serious.

All you listed, and more, are infringements on private property rights.

The worse thing is the government is largely ignorant of what is needed in msot cases. People who depend on the public for their living, mostly take care to build locales that are safe.

Did you know the Titanic carried the number of lifeboats government regulations dictated? How did that work out?

Quote: Nareed

All you listed, and more, are infringements on private property rights.

Every law is an infringement on some freedom or another. "Rights" are nothing more than privileges granted by common assent (and backed up by threat of force). Some rights are more universally accepted than others, like the right to not be murdered. The right to breathe clean air in a casino isn't so universally accepted, so there's a dispute. It all comes down to common assent. To illustrate, consider that cigarette smoke is often accepted in places where other smoke wouldn't be. I doubt very much that a casino would tolerate a smoldering bunch of hay in the same way they tolerate a smoldering roll of dried tobacco leaves.

Quote: MathExtremist

Every law is an infringement on some freedom or another.

Not every law, but some of them are.

Quote:

"Rights" are nothing more than privileges granted by common assent (and backed up by threat of force).

Wrong.

By that reasoning, black people had no right to anything in several British jurisdiction in the Americas, until the white people lording it over them decided differently. Therefore any slave revolt was criminal and sinful, wasn't it? A wench resisting rape by her master was just an uppity nigger, right?

Well, of course not.

Fact is blacks in the Americas (and Africa for that matter), Jews in Nazi-occupied lands, and Armenians within Turkey all had the same rights as their neighbors who massively violated them. The fact that a majority chooses to disregard your rights doesn't mean you don't have them. If 51% of the electorate decide to enslave the other 49%, they're morally wrong and the minortity has evrey moral right to defend itself by any means necessary.

Quote: Nareed

Not every law, but some of them are.

What law, at its core, fails to either restrict a freedom or impose a duty?

Quote: Nareed

Quote: MathExtremist

"Rights" are nothing more than privileges granted by common assent (and backed up by threat of force).

Wrong.

By that reasoning, black people had no right to anything in several British jurisdiction in the Americas, until the white people lording it over them decided differently.

Indeed, that's why there was a war over it. Don't confuse "right" (c.f. "wrong"), which is a moral construct, with the notion of "rights", which is a political one. I don't think slavery was morally "right", but it was historically a "right" in the U.S. prior to the Civil War. Those who believed in the right to own slaves did indeed back it up with force until a stronger force knocked it down.

Quote:

Fact is blacks in the Americas (and Africa for that matter), Jews in Nazi-occupied lands, and Armenians within Turkey all had the same rights as their neighbors who massively violated them.

Did they? I agree that they should have had those rights, but history shows they did not. History also shows that, prior to the 19th Amendment, women in the U.S. did not have the "right" to vote. You can argue that they should have on a moral level, but the political fact is that they didn't. I don't think it would be historically accurate to suggest that U.S. women did have the right to vote yet that right was massively violated.

You may distinguish "inalienable rights" or "civil rights" from other rights such as the right to vote or to smoke cigarettes in a casino, but isn't it all just a matter of degree? If not, where and how do you draw the line?

Quote: MathExtremist

What law, at its core, fails to either restrict a freedom or impose a duty?

Any laws that prevent you from doing that which you have no right to do. Like murder, theft, fraud, and so on.

Quote:

Don't confuse "right" (c.f. "wrong"), which is a moral construct, with the notion of "rights", which is a political one.

Rights are a moral issue. Politics derives from ethics, not the other way around.

Quote:

Did they? I agree that they should have had those rights, but history shows they did not.

History shows their right were not respected, to put mildly. That's why we call what the Nazis and others did "atrocities."

Quote:

You may distinguish "inalienable rights" or "civil rights" from other rights such as the right to vote or to smoke cigarettes in a casino, but isn't it all just a matter of degree? If not, where and how do you draw the line?

I do not have a right to smoke in a casino. The casino's owner has a choice of whether or not he allows smoking in his property. His right to make that choice is what government is supposed to protect, not regulate.

Quote: Nareed

I'm serious.

All you listed, and more, are infringements on private property rights.

The worse thing is the government is largely ignorant of what is needed in msot cases. People who depend on the public for their living, mostly take care to build locales that are safe.

Did you know the Titanic carried the number of lifeboats government regulations dictated? How did that work out?

And if there had been no government regulations at all, the ship owners, especially if they were of the laissez-faire mindset you espouse, would have foregone the unneccesary expense of having any lifeboats at all. After all, the ship was unsinkable. Then EVERYONE would have died.

"Rights" have, in fact, been recognized for over two centuries as things that are inherent to the human condition: a person has them because he exists. See: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

It follows, therefore, that no goverment can "grant" fundamental human rights; it can only (illegitimately) take them away. There are non-fundamental rights than government CAN grant (such as the right to a jury trial, or the right to free medical care), but those are in an entirely different class.

Quote: Nareed

Rights are a moral issue.
[snip]
I do not have a right to smoke in a casino. The casino's owner has a choice of whether or not he allows smoking in his property. His right to make that choice is what government is supposed to protect, not regulate.

It seems that you're suggesting that the choice to allow smoking on one's property is a right, and therefore a moral issue. I disagree -- I think the only rights which rise to the level of morality are those we'd call "inalienable".

In my state, a restaurant owner may not choose whether smoking is allowed, since it is not - by popular assent. I would not say the owner's rights have been violated. I would say his rights have been diminished through the political process, in precisely the same way that women's rights were enhanced through the political process with the 19th Amendment. I don't think there's an inalienable right to either allow or prohibit smoking in one's restaurant or casino.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: Nareed

Rights are a moral issue.
[snip]
I do not have a right to smoke in a casino. The casino's owner has a choice of whether or not he allows smoking in his property. His right to make that choice is what government is supposed to protect, not regulate.

It seems that you're suggesting that the choice to allow smoking on one's property is a right, and therefore a moral issue. I disagree -- I think the only rights which rise to the level of morality are those we'd call "inalienable".

In my state, a restaurant owner may not choose whether smoking is allowed, since it is not - by popular assent. I would not say the owner's rights have been violated. I would say his rights have been diminished through the political process, in precisely the same way that women's rights were enhanced through the political process with the 19th Amendment. I don't think there's an inalienable right to either allow or prohibit smoking in one's restaurant or casino.

What is garbaging up this discussion is the failure to acknowledge that a private property that allows unrestricted access/use by the public is in a legal gray area. Perfectly private property--such as the inside of one's home--is subject to one set of laws, and personal freedom within that space is largely inviolate. Perfectly public property--such as a city street, or park---is subject to a different set of laws altogether, and personal freedom in such places is subject to a number of limitations. Private property that is open to the public is subject to a mixture of both kinds of laws. In practice, the owner of such property does not have as much freedom as he would if his property were completely private, but he does have some say in what goes on there. The balance in favor of state authority is most often tipped when it comes to the safety of those who visit the property--the welfare of the public trumping the rights of the owner. A good example of why this is the way the law works is the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston in 1942. The owner of the nightclub exercised his "right" not to have fire exits. 492 people died.