smoking and littering problem

djDaemon said:
Yeah, because 78% of MI residents are non-smokers. Legislation is supposed to protect the minority against the majority, NOT the other way around. You know, because that 78% could and should have spoken with their wallets.

But they're classic examples of whiny, self-centered Americans.

The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few(where have I heard that before?)

It's called democracy.

In case you don't know what it is look here.....

Definitions of democracy on the Web:

Protect the minority?

What the hell are you talking about?

Maybe you should move to a country that has no democracy, you may be happier there.

Seriously? That's your argument?

OK, then...

Christianity should be the ONLY religion in the US.
White people should have more rights than everyone else in the US.
And on and on...

Yeah, straw men abound, but only to highlight the moronicalness of your argument.

Your argument would hold water if we lived in a democracy and not a constitutional republic. Differences abound, not the least of which is separating people from active participation in government so as to prevent mob rule.

Hello....

My name is dj daemon, and everytime I disagree with anyone I use the "straw man" excuse.

Dude, get over yourself already.

I was pointing out straw men that I was using in my own post.

I was pointing out straw men that I was using in my own post.

But, if getting personal helps your argument, more power to ya! :)

Every argument or discussion that you are in, you pull out the straw man argument. It's just old.

Yeah, if someone uses a straw man argument (or any other flawed argument, for that matter), yes, I call them out. I prefer to discuss things rationally. I'm totally crazy like that.

djDaemon said:
Yeah, if someone uses a straw man argument (or any other flawed argument, for that matter), yes, I call them out. I prefer to discuss things rationally. I'm totally crazy like that.

That's the problem.

YOU think that if people do not agree with you, they are flawed. Just about anything anyone says that YOU don't agree with, you use that "straw man" argument. You are constantly rubbing that in peoples faces, and it's very old.

It's almost like you come on here just to argue with people all the time, not to talk rationally.

It is majority rule subject to the rights of the minority. As already noted, smoking is not a right so the majority rules. I have never said I thought that the majority didn't have the right to impose smoking bans. But I don't believe they are necessary and would leave it to the private businesses to make the decision on whether to permit smoking. And from my experience, the health issue is just an excuse. Not sure where we may see that again on different issues for which people have the ability to avoid the supposed ills but for some reason or another don't.

crazy horse said:

It's almost like you come on here just to argue with people all the time, not to talk rationally.

I'm here to discuss things. Yes, I can be and often am a total jerk, or at the very least come across that way. And, believe it or not, I do try and keep it in line. But that doesn't take away from the fact that I am rational.

If you have a rational argument on this issue, crazyhorse, let's hear it. If you set a up a straw man 15 times, I'll knock it down. Fifteen times.

If you don't have a rational argument, then do you think all the personal, "you make me sad" testimonial is adding to the discussion?

^^^ See what I mean.

Why don't you just change your screen name to "straw man" since it apparently means so much to you.

Isn't the topic about smoking & littering at CEDAR POINT djdaemon? Michigan has nothing to do with Cedar Point in this Scenario.

This discussion moved beyond smoking and littering at CP long ago. It has primarily been about smoking bans in general for about 2 months. And it was dead for 2+ weeks until someone posted last week that Michigan had passed a smoking ban.

I think it's the point that more and more places(and states) are going smoke free. And this includes amusement parks like cedar point.

I myself and others have noticed that cedar point is the worst offender when it comes to people smoking in "non" designated areas.

I have been to 15 differant parks(all differant chains) this summer, and of all of the parks, cedar point is the worst. At other parks, you will run into a smoker every once and a while. At cedar point, just look around you and you will find one at almost any time.Some parks even announce over the speakers that there is no smoking. Why not cedar point? They do next to nothing to enforce there own policy for smoking.

What really pissed me off was when my new red wings jersey got a ciggerette burn in it. I was just standing in line for a show, and a smoker bumped into me and burnt it. I did not notice it untill later in the day and was not too happy about it.

Well if it's all just a majority rule, then why do we even have gay marriage? It's been proven time and time again that the majority does not support gay marriage. However, some states have legislated such regulations which allow for gay marriage or at least civil unions.

I'm not trying to take focus off the topic at hand, but there are many times that we protect the rights of the minority against the majority.

This law, in my opinion, is no different. I am with dj, this should have worked itself out with the free market (it already has been) and not legislated by our government.

I still want my kid ban. Kids annoy me more than any smoker has with his smoke. Kid free restaurants!

Any policy has two elements to it: the stated policy and how its enforced. You need to look at both. Two organizations can have the exact same written policy on a given matter (say smoking) but if one enforces it and the other doesn't, I would say they do not have the same policy on the issue. And park A can have a very strong policy against smoking and park B have a very lose policy against smoking. But if park A totally ignores its policy and park B actually enforces its policy, park B may have the more restrictive policy against smoking.

In trying to determine what Cedar Point's policy is with respect to smoking, you need to look at its stated policy and how it enforces it (or doesn't enforce it). As noted the majority of people don't smoke (though my guess is that the percentage of visitors to CP who smoke is higher than the percentage of the poplulation at large though still not a majority). But CP wants to be as inclusive at possible. Turning away smokers isn't something they want to do unless not doing so will cost them business. My guess is that vast majority of people do not care enough about smokers to stay away from the park because of them. And until significant numbers of folks stay away because of the lax smoking policy, I wouldn't expect the park to make a change. They will enforce the rules when someone calls their attention to it but not too forcefully.

Civil marriage is created by statute. Legislatures write statutes. Citizens do not vote on statutes (sometimes we vote on referendums but those are relatively few compared to the number of statutes that get enacted). Members of legislatures represent the people from their district/ward/etc. But there is nothing that requires them to support only legislation that the majority of folks they represent support. And there is nothing that prevents them from supporting legislation that the majority of those they represent oppose. They do run the risk of being voted out of office at the next election though.

Courts have also played a role in gay marriage rights. As noted, the majority does rule but its subject to the rights of the minority. Some courts have held that marriage laws which prohibit same sex marriages violate equal protection/due process rights. Doesn't matter what the majority says if it violates the minority's protected rights. An easier example is religion. Majority of people in the US are christian. But we cannot pass a law which prohibits people from practicing other religions or none at all because of the first amendment right to freedom of religion. One way around the court issue is to amend the state constitution which is what many states have done. At that point, you cannot raise an issue that something violates state constitutional rights. Though I guess you could raise federal constitutional issues.

But what makes the smoking ban issue different is that smoking is not a right. Therefore there is nothing to protect. However, simply because we can legislate something doesn't mean that we should. To me, smoking in public places was such a situation where we shouldn't have legislated the issue.

So who saw the game last night?

As far as the business aspect of smoking bans goes, many restaurants and bars in Ohio reported an uptick in business after the smoking ban was enacted due to more non-smokers frequenting their establishments. I'm not sure the idea works as well if only one business does it, as the place next store/down the street would likely lure their smoking crowd away and they would likely have to advertise heavily in order to see an increase in the non-smoking patrons.