Re: OT: A Rare Voice of Sanity

X-Trace
User-Agent: Unison/1.7.9
NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-71-160-150-244.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net
X-Trace: news.bnb-lp.com 1215538447 pool-71-160-150-244.lsanca.dsl-w.verizon.net (8 Jul 2008 13:34:07 -0400)
Lines: 75
X-Authenticated-User: vca037
X-DMCA-Complaints: Send abuse or DMCA complaints to abuse@xxxxxxxxxx
X-DMCA-Complaints: The subject line should contain only the 4 letters DMCA
X-Original-Bytes: 5657
Path: mail.derkeiler.com!drt2!artnm!t1!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.bnb-lp.com!not-for-mail
Xref: mail.derkeiler.com rec.arts.mystery:527653

On 2008-07-08 09:33:16 -0700, Mike Burke <mburke@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

Nice rant, Lymaree, and I don't doubt that much of what you say is
true. But it doesn't describe Jane's world from anything I've seen
her write.

Then you haven't been reading closely enough, Mique. Jane said, "it isn't about smoking, it's about the rights of the property owner."

I took her at her word, and asked her if, in principle, she agreed that society can in fact impose ANY health and safety rules on private owners of restaurants. She went a couple of rounds with "some rules are okay" and undefined "necessary rules only" and "if it's already illegal" and "If it affects people off the property." I tried to nail her down to specific regulations she found acceptable. Still haven't gotten there. If in principle ANY regulation is acceptable, why not others?

She even told me that she'd probably eaten more rat droppings than I had since she goes places in the world where health inspections aren't done. I'm not sure what the further implication was...that rat droppings aren't so bad? That health & safety rules aren't necessary? Which is why I said that about botulism. Rat droppings are distasteful and to my mind, carriers of disease. If Jane finds them tasty and/or acceptable, okay. However, nobody enjoys a tot of botulism without consequence. I was still trying to get to what specific health and safety rules Jane actually, personally finds acceptable.

So, carrying out her statements that it's about property owner's rights, not specifically about smoking, the logical conclusion to draw is that in Jane's world, anything goes as long as 1) the property owner says it's okay and 2) it doesn't affect people off the property and 3) it's not otherwise illegal and 4) people who come onto the property accept the risk. I don't think that's a misstatement of her position.

In home kitchens, it's not illegal to store food poorly, or serve past-dated expired canned goods (though it might be if someone died and you KNEW it was contaminated with botulism), or never clean your cooking equipment, or scrape things up off the floor and serve them. So by Jane's thinking, none of those things should be illegal in restaurant kitchens, as they are privately owned. In homes or home kitchens, it's not illegal to not want to serve the handicapped, or unappreciated ethnic groups, or not have open and accessible fire exits, or to allow smoking or picking one's nose into the soup. So by extension, under Jane's beliefs, a property owner should be able to allow those things in his restaurant or kitchen.

In my mind, no one really wants to live in a world where all risks are assumed by the patrons of a restaurant and there is no duty of access, cleanliness, or safety on the part of the owner. The difference in regulation between home kitchen and commercial or restaurant kitchen is clearcut, legally. (btw, if I go into business from my home kitchen, say making cookies for sale to the public, I *DO* have to comply with health and safety regs. I find this reassuring, in that I sometimes buy food products without the opportunity to inspect where they came from.)

So the restaurant owner does NOT have unlimited rights on the use of and policies about his own property. That's what I was writing about. If property owners of public accommodation businesses DID have unlimited rights to make their own policies, then we could indeed get into a health and safety nightmare, garnished with cigarette butts.

And if the rights of the property owner are not unlimited, then the restriction on smoking isn't quite the personal-freedom debacle people are saying it is. It's one of MANY rules that commercial kitchens have to follow.

Which is not to say I think it fair that casinos get special treatment in areas where other bars must ban smoking. Laws should be applied even-handedly. It's not the role of the government to enhance the profitability of some businesses at the expense of others.
--
--
Lymaree

.