| |
Dave Schuler wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > Yet if a private property owner wants to have only smokers in his
> > establishment, that should be up to him.
>
> Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or
> refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy-
> handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required • to
> lock my guns in my own home, just to re-connect with the larger debate!).
I agree BUT... The problem I have with smoking, and what leaves me with
little sympathy for smokers is the continued disdain many smokers show for
the rest of us. I have had smokers refuse my request to smoke elsewhere
(when I was there first and suffering from a cold), almost every day, I
watch buts flying out of cars, etc.
I bet not that many places would actually change their smoking policies if
we suddenly removed the regulations. Many places have smoking policies more
strict than the law requires, and most places recognize that a significant
number of their customers want a smoke free experience.
> This brings up another semi-related question for me, though. Recently I • was
> passing through a food court at a local mall, wherein I saw a bright yellow
> "Eat-at-your-own-risk"-type sign plastered across the sneeze guard. I sort • of
> know the manager of the place, so I asked him about the sign. He informed • me
> that the local health department had surprised them with a spot inspection • and
> found the place lacking in key areas of food temperatures, storage • practices,
> and one or two other unsavory areas. As a result, the health department • put
> up the sign, which resulted in an immediate loss of over 80% of their
> business. My question is this: doesn't this seem in some way to violate or • at
> least circumvent due process? There was no appeals process, as far as I'm
> aware, just a summary decision and posting of the warning. Any appeal that
> might have been made would have come after the sign was posted and the • damage
> done.
> This isn't very solidly connected with the debate at hand, but the
> discussion brought it to my mind.
There is somewhat of a due process problem here, but do you have a problem
with the police locking up a suspected murderer until the trial? There does
have to be a capability to respond immediately to problems.
Now a Libertarian counter point to the above. In Libertopia, the government
will not be involved in "public health" (except when something reaches the
level of being negligence or otherwise engaging the court system). Instead,
there will be a variety of certifying agencies. The most respected agencies
will have contracts which allow surprise inspections, and posting of
performance. People will chose where to eat based on their trust of the
certifying agency, and the impact on the cost of the food that the
certification process results in. In fact, I expect under Libertopia, places
to be shut down (or at least posted) far more often than now, though there
will also develop eateries which go the extra mile, and almost never get
dinged. The grading system will also be keyed to what the customers really
care about. Going to a place which scores an A or B will mean that you
really don't need to worry. The difference between an A and a B is that you
might not take your sick grandmother to a restaurant which scores a B
because she might actually catch something with here less efficient immune
system. You'll tend to avoid places which rate a C (or at least be picky of
what you eat there, asking that your burger be well done even though you
prefer them just barely not-wiggling any more). Most of us would never set
foot in a place which scores below a C (and hopefully a place which scores
that low will either bust their behind to get an A the next time, or go out
of business). The rating will be based on whether people actually get sick
because of the problems found, not because some inspector likes to see shiny
knives (which were just spit polished by the fellow with some ugly disease
that you can catch from saliva), and really just wants to get back to the
office in time to catch an afternoon nap.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Due Process
|
| To All, I read a fascinating article in Design Systems about how restaurants handle smoking / non smoking areas. Since I work in the Architectural / Mechanical Engineering realm, most engineers design for certain CFM's for certain areas, the smoking (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Due Process
|
| (...) Certainly, but that sticker seemed like Judge, Jury, and Excecutioner all in one shot, and its effects lingered long after it was removed. I understand your analogy about the suspected murderer, in that imprisonment removes a potentially (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Due Process
|
| (...) Certainly, as a privately-owned entity it should be allowed to admit or refuse smokers as it sees fit, without being subject to federal heavy- handedness (any more than I as a private citizen should be legally required to lock my guns in my (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
