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.

[frazod]

BTW, this seems like a perfect opportunity for Direckshun and the rest of his liberal pals to thank Kyle for providing this site free of charge to them. They could also thank those of us who occasionally contribute the operating fund.

Doesn't seem like many of our liberal pals contribute the site, does it? I guess "liberal" doesn't mean "liberal with money."

At least not their own.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

To be honest, i have ZERO issue with people telling me how to run the board... I would however take issue with someone passing a law FORCING me to run it how they want. As it is, people telling me what they want (or ranting) is not an issue.

Oh. Well then, you’re doing it wrong ass pipe.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

Oh. Well then, you’re doing it wrong ass pipe.

ASS PIPE! Now that is a new one. I am totally stealing this insult.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by frazod

BTW, this seems like a perfect opportunity for Direckshun and the rest of his liberal pals to thank Kyle for providing this site free of charge to them. They could also thank those of us who occasionally contribute the operating fund.

Geez, just blow him already to show your appreciation and stop your nagging.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't have a say, I'm just able to say.

This is ridiculous bullshit, and Kyle's admitted as much. He tempbanned a solid contributer to this forum for a point he doesn't even think will stick.

So sad to see such a valiant defender of civil liberties come in to a thread and attempt to talk Austin Chief into giving his up. Allow me to refer you to Steve Jackson Games vs. US Secret Service. I think it clearly shows that AC is perfectly within his rights to ban, temp ban, modify posts or do whatever he wants with his message board.

http://www.sjgames.com/SS/pdk-article.html

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I have admitted that it is ridiculous to think a smoking ban is somehow justified... my equally ridiculous response proves a not so ridiculous point.

I understand your point. There was just absolutely no need to make it by banning someone.

You could have made it easily by, you know, actually making it.

What really happened here is that dirk's zingers clearly irked you and you banned him for it.

It's happened before, it'll happen again. So it goes with AustinChief The Impulsive.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

So sad to see such a valiant defender of civil liberties come in to a thread and attempt to talk Austin Chief into giving his up. Allow me to refer you to Steve Jackson Games vs. US Secret Service. I think it clearly shows that AC is perfectly within his rights to ban, temp ban, modify posts or do whatever he wants with his message board.

I never said he wasn't. As I posted literally 20 posts ago, access to ChiefsPlanet is not a right. He can literally ban anybody for any reason.

I'm arguing that what he did wasn't right, not that it wasn't legal.

For the record, he agrees.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I never said he wasn't. As I posted literally 20 posts ago, access to ChiefsPlanet is not a right. He can literally ban anybody for any reason.

I'm arguing that what he did wasn't right, not that it wasn't legal.

For the record, he agrees.

Shouldn't you be standing up for his civil liberties in this discussion? And the civil liberties of the business owners affected by the ban?

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

ASS PIPE! Now that is a new one. I am totally stealing this insult.

Don’t know if I can take credit for that one, sounds a lot like something Iowanian would say.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by frazod

BTW, this seems like a perfect opportunity for Direckshun and the rest of his liberal pals to thank Kyle for providing this site free of charge to them. They could also thank those of us who occasionally contribute the operating fund.

Doesn't seem like many of our liberal pals contribute the site, does it? I guess "liberal" doesn't mean "liberal with money."

At least not their own.

While this is very true (and btw you and others are much appreciated by me at least!).. the irony is that Dirk has contributed before.

[frazod]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Geez, just blow him already to show your appreciation and stop your nagging.

Just saying it like it is. Some provide, some contribute, some are parasites. On ChiefsPlanet, as in life.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Shouldn't you be standing up for his civil liberties in this discussion? And the civil liberties of the business owners affected by the ban?

I am agnostic on smoking bans. I see their value and I can understand their detractors. I honestly just defer to local populations when it comes to them, I think it's perfectly fine for an election to determine which way that particular wind blows.

I'm not terribly interested or well read on the subject, anyway. I was just reading along, enjoying watching another AC meltdown, when all of a sudden: pop went the weasel.

[Phobia]

I wonder how many other people we can catch in this net. I'm glad I don't fall into that category. Even though I enjoy smoking bans because I'm selfish, I respect the rights of the business owner more than anything else. I think the guy who pays the bills and has (in many cases) spent thousands of dollars on smoke handling equipment should have the right to determine if he wants to allow smoking in his establishment. If you want to pass a law to grandfather existing establishments in and restrict smoking in new restaurants then at least a potential business owner has a choice whether he wants to invest in your city... I can swallow that pill easier than telling guys who have allowed smoking for years.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I am agnostic on smoking bans. I see their value and I can understand their detractors. I honestly just defer to local populations when it comes to them, I think it's perfectly fine for an election to determine which way that particular wind blows.

I'm not terribly interested or well read on the subject, anyway. I was just reading along, enjoying watching another AC meltdown, when all of a sudden: pop went the weasel.

In this case the business owners are the minority. The issue is arising in a place of business, the agency tasked with protecting worker health gives smoking a pass, and there is already a capitalistic mechanism in place offering consumers a choice in the matter. I see it as unnecessary legislation, and an example of the majority unfairly infringing upon the rights of the minority via popular vote.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I understand your point. There was just absolutely no need to make it by banning someone.

You could have made it easily by, you know, actually making it.

What really happened here is that dirk's zingers clearly irked you and you banned him for it.

It's happened before, it'll happen again. So it goes with AustinChief The Impulsive.

No, No you don't understand it. You really can be spectacularly dense. The point is that people are fine with supporting laws that don't limit THEIR freedom. The point I made illustrates how different it is when a person is actually affected by an arbitrary action. Like I said, I think a vacation is good for them... so it must be ok right? Hell it doesn't affect me but that doesn't matter because I know what's best for them.