Smoking in Casinos
Quote: WizardThis has been discussed before in the Smoking Bans thread.
And not to any purpose, either--it's a subject that gets people a little, um, passionate. Though I am proud to say that I, myself, have NEVER killed a smoker. I think.
Quote: EvenBobIn my state, the only public place you can smoke now is in casinos!
Count your blessings. In some states there are no public places where you can smoke.
Quote: NareedCount your blessings. In some states there are no public places where you can smoke.
The blessing is that smoking is banned in all public places. I'm all for freedom of choice for smoker's, but the health of others, has to trump the service of a nicotine addiction.
Quote: AyecarumbaThe blessing is that smoking is banned in all public places. I'm all for freedom of choice for smoker's, but the health of others, has to trump the service of a nicotine addiction.
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: NareedMy 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.
Quote: DocOh, 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: NareedAll 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: MathExtremistEvery 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.
What law, at its core, fails to either restrict a freedom or impose a duty?Quote: NareedNot every law, but some of them are.
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: NareedWrong.Quote: MathExtremist"Rights" are nothing more than privileges granted by common assent (and backed up by threat of force).
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.
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.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.
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: MathExtremistWhat 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: NareedI'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.
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: NareedRights 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: MathExtremistQuote: NareedRights 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.
Quote: mkl654321What 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.
Nobody likes a garbaged discussion. But even the concept of property rights is not a universal, inviolate truth. There are many extant human societies that don't do "property ownership" at all. Even those that do very frequently treat property differently.
Consider intellectual property rights, which are wholly ephemeral and entirely granted by political acts. Because I'm in the U.S., I can have patents on casino games. Virtually none of my patents would be allowed in Europe because, under EPC conventions,
Quote: EPC 1973, Article 52(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
I would have expected Nareed to support government imposition of requirements for handrails, fire resistant materials, sprinklers, emergency exits, and the like in public areas of private facilities, but perhaps I would have been mistaken. I suppose he feels that the NGC regulations are an unreasonable imposition on the casino owners' private property right to operate games there in whatever fashion they want. Why do we even have threads discussing whether casinos cheat -- isn't that their right in their own facility?Quote: mkl654321... 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.
Quote: DocWhy do we even have threads discussing whether casinos cheat -- isn't that their right in their own facility?
No, it's not. If a casino cheats then it's committing fraud. No one has the right to defraud anyone else.
See here. A casino could run a 21 game where the dealer draws whenever he likes and throws cards back if he busts, as long as that's stated on the rules. It can pay 1 to 2 on BJ also, as long as that's stated on the rules. it would be a terrible game and I can't see why anyone would play it, but it can do so.
What a casino cannot do is say BJ pays 3 to 2 and then pay a winning customer less than that.
What???? Isn't a law against casino fraud an outrageous government infringement on their "rights" to behave as they want inside their very own private property? Is it even possible that one person's perceived "rights" might infringe on another's perceived "rights"?Quote: NareedNo, it's not. If a casino cheats then it's committing fraud. No one has the right to defraud anyone else.
Of course I'm being facetious, but doesn't this come back to the issue of whether an individual's "right" to a safe and healthy (and non-fraudulent) environment is in conflict with a property owner's "right" to maintain an unhealthy (or fraudulent) environment into which the public is invited? The no-smoking laws/regulations are just the government reassessing which rights should have precedence. Such assessments must be expected to evolve as knowledge of impacts increases and societal views shift.
Quote: DocOf course I'm being facetious,
Actually you're being fallacious. You're engaging in the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
You have a right to do what you want within your own property. you do NOT have a right to do things to other people, in your property or elsewhere, without their consent. If I consent to play against you by a set of rules we agree upon, and you break those rules then you're committing fraud.
If you allow smoking in your property then people coming in know this. They can choose whether or not to visit your property. If you post "no smoking" signs in your property, but allow people inside to smoke, then you're defrauding those who came in with the expectation of a non-smoking place.
And people do have the right to do things to other people without their consent. Children everywhere get disciplined without their consent. Parents can ground children to their room because it's not illegal. You cannot smoke in your car even if the child next to you consents.
Quote: NareedIf you allow smoking in your property then people coming in know this. They can choose whether or not to visit your property. If you post "no smoking" signs in your property, but allow people inside to smoke, then you're defrauding those who came in with the expectation of a non-smoking place.
You are morally defrauding them. However, if the non-smoking sign is not enforceable by a law, then if someone lights up in the casino, and the property does nothing about it, and it isn't illegal, the casino could not be held accountable for fraud.
Quote: boymimboAnd people do have the right to do things to other people without their consent. Children everywhere get disciplined without their consent. Parents can ground children to their room because it's not illegal. You cannot smoke in your car even if the child next to you consents.
Childhood is a temporary phase with different rules than adulthood. Children are not entirely responsible for their actions because they lack knowledge and experience. As they grow they become more responsible for what they do, until they reach adulthood. While that's happening they require adult supervision in varying degrees.
So there's no moral problem with children having limited rights, as they also have limited responsibilities. The problem arises when government attempts to treat adults as children, removing both responsibilities and rights in the process.
Quote:You are morally defrauding them. However, if the non-smoking sign is not enforceable by a law, then if someone lights up in the casino, and the property does nothing about it, and it isn't illegal, the casino could not be held accountable for fraud.
You could make a good case for a civil lawsuit. If there's a contract involved, then the case would be easy to make.
Of course he is right. At least in regard to a casino committing fraud. I thought (and still hope) that it was obvious that I did not think it would be OK for a casino to cheat/defraud their customers. I was attempting to illustrate that we all accept and expect that the government will implement and enforce regulations that restrict an owner's rights on how they operate their facilities when they invite the public in.Quote: boymimboNareed is right. Of course, there has to be laws in place to enforce those rights.
Does this mean that smoking has to be illegal in a casino? Of course not. But it is not necessarily a violation of private property rights for the government to place restrictions on what is done there. If the government decides that it is in the public interest to prohibit smoking in restaurants, bars, offices, casinos, and similar places, that is not a violation of the owner's rights any more than the government saying they can't have open vats of acid that you walk over to get to the blackjack pit. (That's my nod to you, Nareed, acknowledging that I know how to take a point to the absurd.)
Quote: DocDoes this mean that smoking has to be illegal in a casino? Of course not. But it is not necessarily a violation of private property rights for the government to place restrictions on what is done there.
Yes it is.
If the government decides it's in the "public interest" to prevent restaurants from serving meals containing certain ingredients, does that not violate both the restaurants' and the customers' right to decide what they want to serve and eat?
Nope. That's why we have the FDA and the Department of Ag. Sometimes I wish they were more effective.Quote: NareedIf the government decides it's in the "public interest" to prevent restaurants from serving meals containing certain ingredients, does that not violate both the restaurants' and the customers' right to decide what they want to serve and eat?
(OK, I may not be certain just what agency makes/enforces what regs. I just hope someone in the government is helping keep various hazards out of the food I get in the restaurant.)
Quote: DocNope. That's why we have the FDA and the Department of Ag. Sometimes I wish they were more effective.
I hope you're never in a position to sing the praises of the FDA while dying because the FDA has not approved a drug that may save you.
Quote: DocOf course he is right. At least in regard to a casino committing fraud. I thought (and still hope) that it was obvious that I did not think it would be OK for a casino to cheat/defraud their customers. I was attempting to illustrate that we all accept and expect that the government will implement and enforce regulations that restrict an owner's rights on how they operate their facilities when they invite the public in.
Does this mean that smoking has to be illegal in a casino? Of course not. But it is not necessarily a violation of private property rights for the government to place restrictions on what is done there. If the government decides that it is in the public interest to prohibit smoking in restaurants, bars, offices, casinos, and similar places, that is not a violation of the owner's rights any more than the government saying they can't have open vats of acid that you walk over to get to the blackjack pit. (That's my nod to you, Nareed, acknowledging that I know how to take a point to the absurd.)
I believe that it is definitely a violation of private property rights. Let the market decide what is best. For instance if the need for non-smoking casino's was so great then the owners would cater to that need and willingly have non-smoking casinos. Also, we don't need to have the government ban open vats of acid on the way to the blackjack pit. If a casino decided to have that in their establishment they would suffer from a lack of customers and would change or go out of business.
Similarly, I hope that neither of us suffers from a drug that causes great harm but slipped past the FDA with insufficient testing.Quote: NareedI hope you're never in a position to sing the praises of the FDA while dying because the FDA has not approved a drug that may save you.
There are perhaps multiple issues: (1) What regulation can the government legally impose without improperly intruding on the rights of the property owner? and (2) What regulations should the government impose?Quote: wrongwayI believe that it is definitely a violation of private property rights. Let the market decide what is best. For instance if the need for non-smoking casino's was so great then the owners would cater to that need and willingly have non-smoking casinos. Also, we don't need to have the government ban open vats of acid on the way to the blackjack pit. If a casino decided to have that in their establishment they would suffer from a lack of customers and would change or go out of business.
It is my opinion that the government can legally impose quite a few regulations, but that not all are necessarily the best way for the government to govern. If a proper evaluation of the public health issues determines that smoking should be restricted, then I think such regulations are legal and probably appropriate. If there is no such proper evaluation, then the regs might be legal, but I would consider them inappropriate. And I don't care whether the property owner really wants to present a public health hazard as just his way of doing business.
As for letting the free market determine how it is done, thirty years ago, free-market pressures did not give us smoke-free restaurants because smoking was allowed in all of the restaurants. The options were to eat in a restaurant or don't, not to go to another restaurant where there was no smoke and thereby illustrate your preference. Times changed, but some facilities did not change until it was imposed by government regulation.
Quote: DocSimilarly, I hope that neither of us suffers from a drug that causes great harm but slipped past the FDA with insufficient testing.
Bravo! You do see that government regulations and regulatory agencies are no guarantee of anything. That's not a bad first step.
Quote: DocAs for letting the free market determine how it is done, thirty years ago, free-market pressures did not give us smoke-free restaurants because smoking was allowed in all of the restaurants.
But neither did government regulations. Why not? Because there was no hysteria about smoking.
Besides markets did offer non-smoking sections in restaurants. In many restaurants these were sufficiently separated from the smoking areas to be effective.
No, there was indeed no hysteria. With the intense bombardment of advertising telling how manly (or sophisticated, for the ladies) cigarettes were, there was not a wide-spread acceptance of the health hazard of smoking. A very high portion of the people were convinced (indoctrinated?) that the health problems, if any, would never strike them and that smoking was the thing to do -- didn't that ruggedly handsome Marlboro man do it? There was hardly even any acknowledgment that there might actually be a health hazard (not just an annoyance) from second-hand smoke.Quote: NareedBut neither did government regulations. Why not? Because there was no hysteria about smoking.
Besides markets did offer non-smoking sections in restaurants. In many restaurants these were sufficiently separated from the smoking areas to be effective.
Thirty years ago probably was, indeed, when non-smoking areas started to appear. I remember the restaurant where my work colleagues and I usually went for lunch. They established a small section of their dining area as non-smoking in the early 80s. Quickly, they encountered a line of customers who would wait for non-smoking rather than going to smoking, so they increased the non-smoking area. The line waiting for non-smoking was a continuing phenomenon through three or four adjustments until the entire dining area was non-smoking with a small smoking lounge near their bar. Like many restaurants and bars, they did not anticipate that this kind of customer reaction was even plausible until they gave it a try. That restaurant, though, was innovative. Most establishments aren't willing to take such risks to see how it will work -- they keep operating like everyone else or would actually prefer the government to impost the regulation so that they and all their competitors would have to do it the same way.
Quote: Nareed
If the government decides it's in the "public interest" to prevent restaurants from serving meals containing certain ingredients, does that not violate both the restaurants' and the customers' right to decide what they want to serve and eat?
Other than smoke, there could be non-visible carcinogens in your food that you could happily eat for years and not know it (pesticides, food additives, preservatives, additives). Even if you let the free market work, and something is linked to disease, then everyone avoids the restaurant and it closes. Fine, but what prevents it from happening again and again with new restaurants. Especially if it's non-visible?
Smoking is visible, that’s the only thing that makes it different really.
edited- well not the only thing as it travels through the air
Quote: NareedBravo! You do see that government regulations and regulatory agencies are no guarantee of anything. That's not a bad first step.
Well, duh. No program administered by fallible mortals can GUARANTEE perfect results.
However, that does NOT equate to an argument for no regulation at all. I'd still rather have imperfect regulation than a complete free-for-all. The FDA has probably saved millions of lives over the course of its existence.
Thank you, mkl. I hadn't bothered to respond, since I assumed that everyone could see the fallacy, but you are correct -- it's dangerous to make that kind of assumption around here.Quote: mkl654321Well, duh. No program administered by fallible mortals can GUARANTEE perfect results.Quote: NareedBravo! You do see that government regulations and regulatory agencies are no guarantee of anything. That's not a bad first step.
However, that does NOT equate to an argument for no regulation at all. I'd still rather have imperfect regulation than a complete free-for-all. The FDA has probably saved millions of lives over the course of its existence.
Quote: DocThere are perhaps multiple issues: (1) What regulation can the government legally impose without improperly intruding on the rights of the property owner? and (2) What regulations should the government impose?
It is my opinion that the government can legally impose quite a few regulations, but that not all are necessarily the best way for the government to govern. If a proper evaluation of the public health issues determines that smoking should be restricted, then I think such regulations are legal and probably appropriate. If there is no such proper evaluation, then the regs might be legal, but I would consider them inappropriate. And I don't care whether the property owner really wants to present a public health hazard as just his way of doing business.
As for letting the free market determine how it is done, thirty years ago, free-market pressures did not give us smoke-free restaurants because smoking was allowed in all of the restaurants. The options were to eat in a restaurant or don't, not to go to another restaurant where there was no smoke and thereby illustrate your preference. Times changed, but some facilities did not change until it was imposed by government regulation.
That is my point exactly. If there was a market for smoke free restaurants thirty years ago then opening one would have been a gold mine. But there wasn't. Just as today I would by far prefer to play in a smoke free casino, but evidently the owners don't think there are enough people like me to have one. From what I can see in my local casino's is that they are right. It seems to be that certain vices go together. Smoking and drinking, smoking and gambling, drinking and gambling. I guess I just don't believe it's as clear cut as what is good or bad for folks, I think that personal choice and liberty usually trump all else for me.
On a side note it may be more of local casino thing to have the majority of patrons smoking. I think at the destination cities it may be put up with because the people are on vacation and came to gamble so it's not going to make them stay away. I, for example, enjoy going to Niagara Falls since they are smoke free. I'm not even sure for me the issue is a smoking or non-smoking thing. I see the gov intruding in so many areas of my life and property that I'm beginning to push back on all gov intrusion.
Well, actually there probably was. I just cited a very successful example. The problem was that there was such a strong pattern, perhaps a tradition, of allowing smoking in restaurants and bars, that most establishments wouldn't give a ban a serious try (until the government required it) -- they just kept operating as always, since there wasn't any significant competition from others trying it.Quote: wrongwayThat is my point exactly. If there was a market for smoke free restaurants thirty years ago then opening one would have been a gold mine. But there wasn't.
I will give you this: restaurants and casinos are very different creatures. Gambling and smoking may have links somewhere in the area of compulsive behavior so that nicotine addicts and gambling addicts are significantly overlapping sets. (Yes, I know that "addicts" is probably not the right word, but my vocabulary seems to be limited tonight.) If this is true, efforts to discourage smoking in casinos may well degrade the gambling business. This was speculated for the restaurant business and didn't turn out to be the case there. But it may be the case in casinos. I'm not sure that it has been adequately investigated over an extended period.
The above addresses whether it is good or bad business practice for a restaurant or casino to voluntarily choose to ban smoking in their own establishment. The earlier discussion was whether it was a violation of rights for the government to mandate that decision. My opinions are: (1) not an unwarranted violation of rights by the government, (2) a good business decision by a restaurant, (3) not yet all that clearly either a good or bad business decision by a casino.
Quote: DocThe earlier discussion was whether it was a violation of rights for the government to mandate that decision. My opinions are: (1) not an unwarranted violation of rights by the government, (2) a good business decision by a restaurant, (3) not yet all that clearly either a good or bad business decision by a casino.
Suppose government were to ban butter, whole eggs and other fatty ingredients from all restaurants. Explain why that wouldn't be a violation of property rights.
On the other hand, if in 2035 it is determined that normal intakes of butter are causing widespread cancer throughout the population, such a butter ban might indeed be warranted. But it won't happen.
Quote: NareedSuppose government were to ban butter, whole eggs and other fatty ingredients from all restaurants. Explain why that wouldn't be a violation of property rights.
Your question presumes that you even have such property rights to begin with. You may, depending on where you live, but if you do it is only due to popular assent.
Do I have a right to free healthcare? Not here I don't. If I were a citizen of Denmark I would, since that government has accorded its citizens that right. I wouldn't say my right to free healthcare is being violated, I'd say I don't have that right to begin with.
It follows that any right grantable by government (i.e. not the fundamental ones) can also be un-granted by government. Similarly, government can grant conditional rights, like the right to perform surgery or operate a casino only after being licensed. I'm not a licensed surgeon, and I don't think its a violation of any right to prohibit me from performing surgery. And we all know what happens when casino licensing is lax...
Quote: MathExtremistDo I have a right to free healthcare? Not here I don't. If I were a citizen of Denmark I would, since that government has accorded its citizens that right.
No one has a right to free health care because there's no such thing. Unless you suggest medicines, hospitals and doctors don't cost anything.
At a Vegas casino you're not charged for drinks. Not directly. But if you believe you're getting them free, you've no idea how a casino works.
