After the fact - KC's smoking ban, three+ years later

[Bowser]

So, now that we have had time to adjust and absorb the smoking ban, how do you feel about it? Was it a good thing, a bad thing, still an unholy infringement on our "civil rights", or do you just not care one way or another?

Poll to come.

[Raiderhader]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

They're going to have to just ban them all together. You can buy them, and please do, we need the tax revenue, but you are NOT to smoke them!

That is something that may turn the tide in all of this some where down the road. People continue to smoke regardless of the rising cost to do so but, what will they when it reaches the point where it is just too damned inconvenient due to it being banned more and more places? If that does happen and the government starts seeing a short fall in their revenue, you will see things ease up some.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

I'm guessing AustinChief is probably livid right now. Check out this story from this afternoon:

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Organ...187691471.html

Awesome. I LOVE SMOKING BANS

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Awesome. I LOVE SMOKING BANS

HEY! Come on, dude. I didn't ****ing ban you. Be ****ing cool to a long time friend, man. I'm in mourning, bro.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

HEY! Come on, dude. I didn't ****ing ban you. Be ****ing cool to a long time friend, man. I'm in mourning, bro.

Think about it this way, we are saving your life. I would hate for you to die because of lung cancer and having you to talk through a hole in your throat.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

1. I own my land and house but I can't have livestock on my property. Damn majority bullies...

Maybe you should move. I can have livestock on my property. Of course, I'm not in a town where livestock would create substantial problems. Which is probably why your town doesn't allow them.

2. I own my land and house but I can't have a junkyard in my front yard. Damn majority bullies...

Junkyards can be incredibly toxic. Compare how the EPA treats tobacco smoke with how they treat those toxins.

3. I own my land and house but I can't have a pond in my yard. Damn majority bullies..

Sounds like you live in a crappy town. I don't know, maybe you could work with your fellow citizens to get that law overturned.

4. I own my land and house and those ****ers are making me keep my yard mowed...damn majority bullies

Public nuisance, providing a fire hazard or potential home for pests perhaps?

5. If you own a bar\restaurant you can't sell alcohol after 1AM . Those ****ing majority bullies...

It's 2AM here. They say it's because that law tends to cut down on drunk driving, public intoxication and other undesirable illegal activity. I've never done my own case study but it seems legit.

6. I own my own business but the city has decided it looks shitty so they are going to confiscate it and build nice new condominiums. Those damn Supreme Court majority bullies.

Nine people out of 300+ million doesn't create a majority.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Hah.

I was just posting about dirk. I had no idea he had ALSO banned Bowser (again, one of the more respeced posters on ChiefsPlanet) and suzzer (who's a quality poster here at DC). I knew he banned KC Native as well, someone who I agree with more often than not on the issues, but Native's a well known shit talker on this forum. Suzzer and Bowser honestly aren't.

Hard to believe I missed all that. I clearly underestimated the depth of AustinChief's impulsiveness towards the left leaning posters in DC.

Much love, Bowser & suzzer. I know not what he did.

HA, I had no idea I had banned Bowser either. Stupid name changes. Wouldn't change anything but that makes it two posters I respect and suzzer (who I have no clue about, no offense buzzer) and KCNATIVE who is a d-bag.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

That is a bad defense.

And Kyle I still support smoking bans so you really didn't accomplish anything.

I didn't expect to change your mind, proving a point rarely does, especially on a BBS. But I feel much better that the point was made, so you should be happy about that!

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

He had no idea about that. It was purely a coincidence.

I really didn't and still don't. I know Dirk leans left (not crazy though) As for Bowser, I didn't even know it was him getting banned. But believe whatever you want, you have never let reality get in your way before.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Maybe you should move. I can have livestock on my property. Of course, I'm not in a town where livestock would create substantial problems. Which is probably why your town doesn't allow them.

Junkyards can be incredibly toxic. Compare how the EPA treats tobacco smoke with how they treat those toxins.

Sounds like you live in a crappy town. I don't know, maybe you could work with your fellow citizens to get that law overturned.

Public nuisance, providing a fire hazard or potential home for pests perhaps?

It's 2AM here. They say it's because that law tends to cut down on drunk driving, public intoxication and other undesirable illegal activity. I've never done my own case study but it seems legit.

Nine people out of 300+ million doesn't create a majority.

Thanks for trying. Having livestock, keeping junk and not mowing your yard are listed as nuisances. But hey what happened to my property rights? It is my land I should be able to do what I want right? And if I am bar owner I should be able to serve alcohol as late as I want too since no one should be able to tell me how to run my business.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

I'm guessing AustinChief is probably livid right now. Check out this story from this afternoon:

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Organ...187691471.html

Yeah, it isn't likely to go through but I would love to hear the excuses for why this would be justified. It obviously is not about workplace air quality in this instance.

Other than Dirk's idea that unjustified mob rule is something we have to accept in society. (I'll address that in a future post)

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

HA, I had no idea I had banned Bowser either. Stupid name changes. Wouldn't change anything but that makes it two posters I respect and suzzer (who I have no clue about, no offense buzzer) and KCNATIVE who is a d-bag.

Indeed and it looks like he will be back tomorrow. With that being said, I thought I would drop off this to ease his pain, because I'm sure he will be bleeding out.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Thanks for trying. Having livestock, keeping junk and not mowing your yard are listed as nuisances. But hey what happened to my property rights? It is my land I should be able to do what I want right? And if I am bar owner I should be able to serve alcohol as late as I want too since no one should be able to tell me how to run my business.

DING DING! And here you have actually killed your own argument. Private property rights can be curtailed when they create a PUBLIC nuisance. So, if you drive down the street can you pick out the non-smoking bars from the smoking bars? The funny thing is.. one could argue that a smoking ban forces people out unto public property to smoke, thereby CREATING a nuisance that wouldn't exist if smoking was allowed. It would be a weak argument but it shows how your entire premise fails.

The justification for most zoning laws falls under this concept in historical property law.

So now that that is out fo the way, what is next? I assume you will go to another exception to private property rights. Public safety. And again, this is covered by OSHA standards. But let's say you don't like those. FINE. The city has a right to make stricter air quality standards for public spaces... and yes that would include a bar open to the public. In those case, the bar may have to install special equipment if they wish to allow smoking.

BUT again, this isn't about public safety or nuisances ... those are poorly crafted excuses used to prop up what amounts to a one group bullying another and legislating what is otherwise LEGAL behavior.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Thanks for trying. Having livestock, keeping junk and not mowing your yard are listed as nuisances. But hey what happened to my property rights? It is my land I should be able to do what I want right? And if I am bar owner I should be able to serve alcohol as late as I want too since no one should be able to tell me how to run my business.

It's not just a nuisance to keep livestock where you aren't supposed to. It can pose serious health risks to your neighbors if not handled correctly. I live in the Sierra Cascade section of California. We do livestock out here. A junkyard can be incredibly dangerous. Here's a Vermont website with some info:http://www.toxicsaction.org/problems...egal-junkyardsIt's really not safe at all. I'm sure you could find a lot of other sites. I just typed "junkyard toxin" into the Google search bar and that popped up. I don't know how they do it where you live but we take fire safety very seriously out here. It's a dry climate and fire is devastating to a community, and wild fires regularly alter our local ecosystems. Also, wild animals present a significant health risk and we are required to maintain our properties to cut down their number. Like I said, from what I understand, alcohol cut off times are designed to eliminate certain specific illegal activity. I haven't researched it myself. Perhaps you'd like to.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

DING DING! And here you have actually killed your own argument. Private property rights can be curtailed when they create a PUBLIC nuisance. So, if you drive down the street can you pick out the non-smoking bars from the smoking bars? The funny thing is.. one could argue that a smoking ban forces people out unto public property to smoke, thereby CREATING a nuisance that wouldn't exist if smoking was allowed. It would be a weak argument but it shows how your entire premise fails.

The justification for most zoning laws falls under this concept in historical property law.

So now that that is out fo the way, what is next? I assume you will go to another exception to private property rights. Public safety. And again, this is covered by OSHA standards. But let's say you don't like those. FINE. The city has a right to make stricter air quality standards for public spaces... and yes that would include a bar open to the public. In those case, the bar may have to install special equipment if they wish to allow smoking.

BUT again, this isn't about public safety or nuisances ... those are poorly crafted excuses used to prop up what amounts to a one group bullying another and legislating what is otherwise LEGAL behavior.

No because many cities and states cite public nuisance as a reason to ban smoking. Which it is.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

No because many cities and states cite public nuisance as a reason to ban smoking. Which it is.

If they were sued and tried to use that justification in court... they would lose. Unless the supreme court decided to set a new precedent in the matter.

"...[c]onduct does not become a public nuisance merely because it interferes with the use and enjoyment of land by a large number of persons. There must be some interference with a public right. A public right is one common to all members of the general public. It is collective in nature and not like the individual right that everyone has not to be assaulted or defamed or defrauded or negligently injured."

Not all interferences with public rights, however, are public nuisances. The nuisance must also produce a common injury, or be dangerous or injurious to the general public. Numerous commentators, including authors who favor the expansion of public nuisance, severely criticize courts that allow plaintiffs to use public nuisance as a means to address what are essentially personal injury cases. The "key inquiry" is whether the public will be injured by the offending conduct while exercising their common rights.
Consider the classic public nuisance claim against a party for allowing a tree to block a public road. Everyone would agree that the fallen tree interferes with the public right to drive on that road. Thus, a government could seek an injunction to stop the blockage even if no one ever actually drove down the road. Conversely, if the tree blocked a neighbor's driveway, or the entrance to a commercial shopping plaza or church, a governmental entity could not bring a public nuisance claim because no public right was violated because the public does not own the property on which the tree fell, and there is no public right of access to private property.
This is why the manufacture and distribution of lawful products will rarely, if ever, cause a violation of a public right. Products tend to be purchased and used by individual consumers. Therefore, any harm a product causes is to an individual or a discrete group of individuals. This is true even if the use of the product is widespread and the manufacturer's or distributor's conduct is unreasonable. For example, say a fast-food chain sold millions of defectively produced cheeseburgers, causing millions of people who ate them to become obese, have poor health or just become ill. Regardless of the number of person affected, the injuries caused by fast-food chain are still to the private rights of individuals (i.e., standard consumer tort or contract rights), and not a violation of the rights of the general public (even if described as an .unreasonable interference. to the nation's health). The sheer number of persons affected cannot transform individual injuries into a communal injury unless the term "public right" is altered and expanded beyond its understood boundaries of the past 900 years.

Degree of Harm - "Substantial" and "Unreasonable"
To be a nuisance, a defendant's interference with the public right must be "substantial." It cannot be a "mere annoyance," a "petty annoyance," a "trifle," or a "disturbance of everyday life." The interference must be substantial, objectionable to the ordinary reasonable man, and one that materially interferes with the ordinary physical comfort of human existence according to plain, sober, and simple notions.
The harm must also be unreasonable. Traditionally, this requires a risk-benefit analysis weighing the gravity and probability of a risk occurring against the utility of the activity or conduct. This test was a judicial attempt to control the potentially "disruptive consequences of injunctive relief" and allowed courts to find that some interferences with the use and enjoyment of land were not actionable.