Non-smoking shows

[vansmack]

Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
  The point is, right now it is legal to smoke in the 9:30--therefore I have the right to smoke there.  Anyone, at this point in time, who would tell me to put out my cigarette (well not mine, but those of patrons who do smoke) would be infringing on my rights.

Really?
 
 The 9:30 Club grants you that priviledge based on DC law, and if they choose to take away that priviledge, even for one night at the request of the artist, that's their perogative.  If it truly were a right, the 9:30 Club could not infringe on it.  That's precisely what the Constitution and it's enumerated rights are for.
 
 The 9:30 Club cannot exclude African-Americans for one night because they have a right to be there, but they sure as hell can suspend your priviledge of smoking for one night.  Do you know why?  Because it's not a right.  It's a priviledge.

[kosmo vinyl]

seeing as the 9:30 club is a private establishment they not any laws are allowing people to smoke inside... so it's a privilege granted by the club which could be taken away either by the them or by regulation.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by vansmack:
  A right is usually something granted by the Constitution.  
 
 ......
 
 If anything protects smokers, it's, ironically, the right to privacy, and that is not being infringed on here - you have the right to smoke in your home if you so choose.
 

please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution.  last time i checked, i didn't find that one there. . .it must be close to the "separation of church and state" section, cause i can't find that one either.
 
 that being said, i don't think people have a "right to smoke," rather, in the absence of laws outlawing such actions, we have the priviledge of doing things not against the law.  in other words, since the law does not ban smoking, per se, people can decide whether or not they want to smoke.
 
 edited to add- smackie made my overall point much more eloquently and clearer, and i refer to his post above.

[thingsfallapart]

Fair enough, I can admit defeat.
 
 I still think it's lame for artists to request non-smoking shows at rock clubs, and that's a right to freedom of expression that you can't argue with  

[vansmack]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution.  last time i checked, i didn't find that one there. . .

I knew that was coming.  
 
 And I knew it would be from you.  
 
 And I have the hand surgeon appointment right now (thankfully) which will prohibit me from answering your question.  But if you wish to take this up offline, we can meet at Yancy's for happy hour, where I will dance around this issue not nearly as eloquently as the 5-4 court did in Rowe v. Wade.

[Venerable Bede]

Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
 
 I still think it's lame for artists to request non-smoking shows at rock clubs, and that's a right to freedom of expression that you can't argue with      

i don't think that's a right to freedom of expression.  rather, the band is providing the consumer with a good, and has the ability to market its good however it wants.  you as the consumer have the ability to decide if you want to buy the product or not, knowing the limitations upon the product.  
 
 so, if you want to smoke, but know that you can't smoke, you can choose not to go, and not spend your money or go and not smoke (or smoke within the rules established by the club, i.e., outside).  the 930 club can, if they want, not book the band either if it decides that the loss of pro-smoking customers would not make the show cost-effective.  as it is, there are enough people who are either a) willing to not smoke for 3 hours and enjoy the show or b) enough non-smokers to outweigh the loss of smokers to make the show cost-effective.

I love all of the legal arguments on the bboard.  Only in DC.

[ggw]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
  please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution.  last time i checked, i didn't find that one there. . .

You're such a strict constructionist.
 
 Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.
 
 nicked from Vansmack U.

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
 please point me to the "right to privacy" section in the constitution.  last time i checked, i didn't find that one there.

i've only taken a few constitutional law classes, but rights are discerned or recognized by our judicial system through the interpretation of the constitution ... finding the "right to privacy" was an especially convoluted process ... but the key is that the constitution only means what the courts determine it means

[sweetcell]

Originally posted by Venerable Bede:
   

Originally posted by thingsfallapart:
 
 I still think it's lame for artists to request non-smoking shows at rock clubs, and that's a right to freedom of expression that you can't argue with    

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

It's arguments like these that make me wish I lived anywhere on Earth than fucking DC.

[Bags]

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
  it's a privilege granted by the club which could be taken away either by the them or by regulation.

But not by other patrons in the club, which is where I felt some of the debate was going.

[thatguy]

i often enforce a "no smoking within my arms' reach" rule.  i've found it to be fairly effective.  most people learn quickly not to smoke around me, whether they have the right to or not, after i snatch a couple of cigarettes out of their mouths.  i always inform them of my rule and give them time to vacate my arms' reach first, of course.

[xneverwherex]

Originally posted by vansmack:
   

Originally posted by pdx pollard:
  ]when do the higher taxes on gasoline...get implemented

I'm voting for that one too, but I'm going to get killed in this election.  It's going to take time:  
 
 Prop 87
 
 As for the fatty foods, as soon as it reaches my ballot, I'll let you know.  We can't fix everything out here... [/b]

NYC is working on the trans fat free issue. Its getting rather interesting as KFC and BK are all working on new recipes that will be safe in NYC. So whats next that they will ban. Soon all fast food will be banned. damn if i wanna kill myself eating this junk, let me.
 
 heres an interesting article from NPR.
 All Things Considered, October 30, 2006 · The New York City Health Board holds a public hearing on its plan to ban anything more than tiny amounts of trans fats at the city's 20,000 restaurants. New York would become the first large American city to strictly limit trans fats, although Chicago is considering a smaller plan. The final New York board vote is in December.
 
 the full article is here:  NPR

[Relaxer]

Originally posted by thatguy:
  i often enforce a "no smoking within my arms' reach" rule.  i've found it to be fairly effective.  most people learn quickly not to smoke around me, whether they have the right to or not, after i snatch a couple of cigarettes out of their mouths.  i always inform them of my rule and give them time to vacate my arms' reach first, of course.

I'm glad that works for you, but you project a menacing, hostile image, as shown in your glowering photo in the Post and your style when you're working. Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing you -- a big part of your job is enforcing security, and you're always on the ball. But a smiley 5'6 guy in a beige cardigan is not going to get the same respect that you do.
 
 Besides, if we do what you do at a show, a fight will break out, and then you'll kick us out, right?