Ruth Ann’s Legacy
When the history of RAM’s admistration is written I think two things will standout as net positives for the state. One of them is the indoor smoking ban. I’m sure we all agree (with the exception of Dana) that the smoking ban is great.
The other might be controversial, so don’t click through unless you either have a strong stomach or want to get your rage on.
The other thing that will be a net positive is the state purchase of Garrison’s Lake Golf Course.
That thing looks great and if it is as well run as it is well built, it will be a great asset for the state and a boon for my quality of life.
Jason wrote:
This is the second time that you’ve used the expression “we all agree.” I’m not sure that you know what the word “all” means. After all — pun intended — if “we all agreed” that an indoor smoking ban was a good idea, no one would smoke indoors, and there’d have been no need for the ban! 🙂
I’d suggest that there are lots of smokers — and I am not a smoker — who don’t like the ban in the least; don’t they count as part of the population, or are they somehow not included in the word “all”?
don’t they count as part of the population
not for long
Again we all do not agree. More nanny state mandates telling us what we can’t do on our property.
Jason please stop thinking you stand for all. You don’t.
Her veto of SB 245 Eminent Domain bill should rank (pun intended) for many life times.
Sticks –
You got that right. The SB245 veto is a shining moment.
RAH –
You like eating in smoke filled rooms? I think you might just be playing the contrarian on this one.
My choice Jason. What is about choice that you hate?
the smoking ban is her only good thing. and smokers are a non-entity, at least in my opinion.
RAH, what about our choice not to eat in smoke filled rooms? What about our choice not to get lung cancer from second hand smoke.
Further, when Jason says “we all,” he is talking about Delaware’s progressives, liberals and Democrats. This is not Delaware Libertarian, this is not First State…er ah…Delaware Politics. Here, we do speak for the liberal and progressive point of view. So while our friends in the other side are more than welcome here, we are not speaking for you nor would we ever dare presume to. We are speaking for us.
And lastly, it is Jason’s opinion. Stop trying to edit him or censor him. If you disagree with his point, say so, but do not try to choose his words for him.
Thanks Dem. I’m starting to think that these guys are just rage-aholics.
When I mean “all people of the United States” I will say so. When I mean people from all politcal poarties I will say so like I did int he prior post.
those who applaud the smoking ban come from all political slants.
Any person who says that all agree with him is indulging in hubris.
If the business owner wants to allow smoking that is his choice. It is our choice not to use that business or restaurant.
I always thought it was liberal to believe in individual rights like the right of the owner of the restaurant to set his own policies.
But I stand corrected DD. I see that progressive /liberals are against choice for both the owner and patron. This blog stands for nanny state laws to mandate Delawareans what they can or cannot do on their property.
Perhaps you are used to this blog to be an echo chamber. Not to have diverse opinions.
I thought I saw a post on another thread bemoaning that posters no longer post on this blog.
I really thought the golf course would be much more controversial than the smoking ban.
The smoking ban was great. Special thanks to Debbie Hudson for sponsoring that legislation.
I assumed you were kidding about the golf course.
Dude, you just want an excuse to wear your golf knickers and duffer hat and a reason to stop at Fairways on the way home. I know you all too well.
RAH,
Did I not say your point of view is welcome here? Did I not say that if you disagree with Jason please feel free to point out that disagreement
So how in your mind am I wanting this to be an echo chamber?
It is especially hypocritical for you to say that considering that you are trying to put your words in Jason’s mouth.
Never played it. Is it a nice course?
Back in the day it was nice. Then Ron Jaworski ought it and ran it into the ground.
The renovation looks great. Granted, nobody has played it yet.
Thanks for the welcome mat, DD.
Sure, I think it’s great, but who gives a damn what I think? This was a property rights issue and I disagreed vehemently with the governor’s and the general assembly’s decision. Do I like going into a restaurant and not smelling that shit? Sure, but what right does the government have to take away a PRIVATE entity’s right to allow smoking. None. What. So. Ever.
The same argument was made to exclude blacks from restaurants. I think at some point there is a public welfare interest that trumps property rights. Especially when you are inviting the public onto your property.
Now then, when the smoking ban is extended to individual residences – I’ll man the ramparts with you and my new gun buddies.
I agree Jason. The smoking ban is not about private property rights. Those private property owners are inviting the public onto their property. At that point there are public health and safety issues that must be taken into consideration. For example, the fire marshall does control how many people you are allowed into your private rooms, if the public is there. And the health inspector can close your private business down if he sees roaches or unclean cooking or serving habits.
I suppose Mike that you would say if you want to endanger lives on your property but have 300 fit into a room for 100, and if you want to serve diseased food, that is your business and buyer beware.
Well, we as a society have evolved from that, thankfully.
And I will join with you and Jason if they ever try to extend smoking bans to personal private homes.
Have you played the new and improved Rock Manor? Its a must play.
The problem with that argument, DelDem, is that smoking is not an illegal activity. Jizzing in someone’s chowder and serving it as the blue-plate special is. Public health and safety is not the issue here. Smoking is a legal activity for all of-age adults. End of story. This is a private-rights matter no matter how much you disagree. Yes, businesses are inviting customers in, but the customers have the right to say “Oh, I don’t like cigarette smoke, I think I’ll go to the McDonald’s.” This is where I’m a hard-core libertarian. In this situation, the market would have worked it out fine.
The Infante/Matthews ticket would have been sweet.
“Jizzing in someone’s chowder” I almost shit myself.
And I will join with you and Jason if they ever try to extend smoking bans to personal private homes.
Homes with children in them?
I know a woman who smokes nonstop in the house. Both her kids and the dog have asthma.
I remember my own parents rolling up the car windows and both firing up cigarettes. Once in a while my father would roll down the window a crack, flick out his ash, and roll it back up tight.
I had childhood “asthma” and “allergies.’ But I “outgrew” them. I’ll be fucking lucky if I don’t grow a tumor.
Now that would have been sweet, Jason!
Does that mean if Chrissy O’Donnell goes national Mike will refuse her running ‘mate’ offer?
Mike says: “Sure, but what right does the government have to take away a PRIVATE entity’s right to allow smoking. None. What. So. Ever.”
I heartily agree with Mike on this one. I’ve been saving some information about how bikers are fighting the ban in Iowa and Nebraska in somewhat unconventional ways. I’ll get around to writing it some day.
Public health and safety is not the issue here.
Second hand smoke is a known public health hazard. It has a wide range of effects from just plain discomfort for folks nearby to being a cause of respiratory problems and cancer in those with long term exposures. And it is the very compelling evidence of those effects that make it a public health issue that the state thinks they can regulate.
Argue about whether the state can or cannot regulate challenges to public health, but second hand smoke certainly does have some effects (and potential effects) on some folks.
See the public safety issue again.
Actually Delaware was just behind the curve on this issue. Most states had already put restaurant bans in place. But I have seen the dreaded “slippery slope” because some public outside locations have followed suit. Also some beaches.
Even as I smoker, I’m living with the ban. I think that the main selling point that no one has pointed out is that is could be considered a labor law issue. Resteraunt employees should be able to work in a place where they aren’t in danger of second hand smoke.
If you wanted a restraunt bar or other privately owned business to become non smoking by force of law then you should have to pay their taxes
the Choice should have been theirs on whether to allow a legal activity in their business and then yours on whether you want to patronize a business that either allows or does not allow smoking
you all came out against RAM and others when it came to emminemt domain and rightfully so over property rights well whats the difference the government is telling some one that they cannot allow their [patrons to enjoy something that is legal in their establishment
Personally anyone in favor of both the smoking ban and against eminent domain are hypocrites
Very good point, Andy.
And, again, Cassandra, if you didn’t like the second-hand smoke, you had the choice to stay away. This is MOST DEFINITELY about property owners’ rights in every sense of the word. The closest acceptable defense is laid out by Mark Homewood, though Delaware is an at-will employment state and if you don’t like it, you can work elsewhere.
See Jason and Delawaredem not all the commenters are in agreement about the smoking ban.
DD comment
“Further, when Jason says “we all,” he is talking about Delaware’s progressives, liberals and Democrats. This is not Delaware Libertarian, this is not First State…er ah…Delaware Politics. Here, we do speak for the liberal and progressive point of view. So while our friends in the other side are more than welcome here, we are not speaking for you nor would we ever dare presume to. We are speaking for us. ”
All us do not agree. But the deal is done .
This is not about liking second hand smoke. There are real health risks to (especially) long term exposures. This is why the casino workers were able to finally get the Atlantic City casinos to go smoke free. This is why you can’t smoke on an airplane anymore — allergies, asthma, cancer are not liking.
If you have an argument about the extent of state authority, by all means make it, but you definitely can’t get there by pretending that second hand smoke is relatively harmless.
I am NOT pretending secondhand smoke is relatively harmless.
Though these restaurants are open to the public, they are not public places. They are PRIVATE establishments. The mall can kick kids out on Friday nights because they’re a PRIVATE establishment. I have no problem with that, which I think I mentioned on that respective thread. Sucks for the kids, but oh well.
As for airplanes, I think that’s a totally different beast and banning smoking was certainly wise if only for the ancillary safety issues posed. But airplanes are not restaurants and I don’t feel the equation is apt.
Again, I’m with Andy on this. Anyone who says they’re against the abuse of eminent domain but says they’re not for restaurant-owners’ rights to run their establishment as they see fit is a total hypocrite.
Just out of curiosity – other than Mark Homewood, do we have any smokers here?
To the original point of the post…The ban is working and will be regarded as one of the few accomplishments of the RAM/Carney adminstration. People like it. Even Mike Mathews conceedes “Sure, I think it’s great,…Do I like going into a restaurant and not smelling that shit? Sure,
Everything else is dorm room poli sci.
These restaurants require licenses or permits (usually) from the Dept of Health (or something similar) to operate. The no smoking thing comes under that DoH prohibition, not unlike lots of other regulations. They get to be private (healthwise)when they are completely closed to the public and entrance is for members only. I don’t see how airplanes are different — they are public spaces too, closed public spaces like most restaurants — the planes are owned privately and you buy a ticket for entry. Unless you are saying that private property rights don’t apply to those who own public conveyances….
Hey isn’t owning a restaurant a privilege? I think the fact that you have to get a license means that you don’t have a “right” to run the bar or restaurant.
There are certainly issues with the law. I know that AI hostpital had banned smoking near the building and instead had built small enclosures far away from entrances. These small enclosures were deemed buildings and smoking was summarily banned in them. Sigh.
I am relatively defensive of smokers “rights” but I know that my sister has asthmatic attacks just walking by a smoky bar. She has been in pretty bad shape after some of those run-ins.
I don’t smoke and my Dad has been a small business man all of my life he owned a restraunt for over 20 years gave that up about 20 years ago when RT 1 was built near Tybouts Corner So I think I know a little of what I speak of
Most places advertised “NON SMOKING SECTIONS” now I believed then and I do now that the Government has an obligation under the advertising laws and regs to set standards on what is considered non smoking as far as air quality and so on and the first thing would be to no have the non smoking section located at the back of the business so that the non smokers would ahve to walk through the smoking section to get there
so that the non smokers would NOT have to walk through the smoking section to get there
sorry about that
I’m amazed this argument still exists?
Reading the whole thread top to bottom brings illuminates the fallacy of logic quite clearly.
In essence, the argument FOR smoking is thus:
I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT. DAMN EVERYONE ELSE.
Those like Cassandra who defend the smoking ban, have this as their core argument…..
I WANT TO DO WHAT I WANT. SORRY IF IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR LIFESTYLE.
That is the essence of both arguments. That is the core. Of course they are hidden in explanation of libertarian values, health, hypocritical statements, and marketplace economics, but they all boil down to this one thing.
Some people want to smoke in a restaurant. Some people want a smoke free restaurant.
So how do we as a nation resolve our differences when members of our population can’t agree?
We vote. And by an overwhelming majority, non smokers stomped those that smoke.
The other arguments flat out don’t matter.
You want to dine and smoke. Hurry off to another state.
Or even better, if you wish to change Delaware, get a candidate willing to carry your cross for you.
You could try Copeland. I hear he is out of good ideas. Struggling to break out of single digits, he may take up your cause…. It might work. If every smoker voted for him, he could get maybe 10%…..
LG
A restaurant is property and covered under property rights. To open as a restaurant there may be licnses due to issues like zoning and codes for fire prevention and health safety to prevent illness from poor preparation.
So I would not call owning a restaurant a priviledge.
Some people want to smoke in a restaurant. Some people want a smoke free restaurant.
So how do we as a nation resolve our differences when members of our population can’t agree?
We vote. And by an overwhelming majority, non smokers stomped those that smoke.
The other arguments flat out don’t matter.
Excuse me then don’t complain if the State takes your house and gives it to a developer
The one thing I see that Ruth Ann could have done and had an oppurtunity to do, is to add referendums to our system of government to make it a responsive system so that even if it is only a token vote the legislators who are often out of touch with the needs of the average people can see what their constituencies really think.
Other than that many of the more serious problems she faced were a result of conditions outside of her control. They affect the whole nation. So far her administration has been able to hold off the foreclosure tide and I feel that is a real improvement compared to other states.
The only other things I can think of is she could have been a more reserved in using our national guard for federal purposes and she should have prevented eminent domain for economic purposes.
We need to understand that the feds. often hold the funding and have used it against the state to get us to do what they want. So we should not be upset about that, but it is something we could have been more open about with the citizens and worked to change.
We need to cooperate a lot less with the feds. We do not need to go along and get along. We also do not need to be openly confrontational, just do our own thing- in the quiet way we always have.
Other than these issues, she has been our governor. And I think we should be more gracious to her service.
A non smoking section in a restaurant is like having a “No Pissing” section in a swimming pool.
Most states promoted smoking bans as a workplace safety issue, which makes sense as employees are exposed to the secondhand smoke far longer than any set of customers.
I suppose the new libertarian trolls don’t like mine safety laws, either, which once were opposed on exactly the same terms — if miners don’t like the danger, they can find another job.
If the canaries don’t like the mine air they don’t have to breath.
Al –
That reminds me of a post that I have yet to write about how the libertarians have been getting on my nerves because the libertarian movement (if there is such a thing) came up so small in the George Bush years.
Here we had a classic example of all the things libertarians should have been getting fired up over – and all they can do complain about minutia.
Anon,
Ballot initiatives would shake things up here. (Maybe that can be a new PDD issue?)
Can’t we talk about golf courses?
Referendums would have been nice. The governor also might have made herself a bit more visible throughout the state. Does she ever leave Dover or Milford? For crying out loud, the darn state is only 96 miles from top to bottom, and she’s been the governor for almost 8 years.
I lived in New York state for almost 5 years in the 1980s and early ’90s, and I had a better chance of running into Mario Cuomo at some farmers’ market in Cattaraugus County than I do of seeing RAM north of the canal. I met Jim Florio and Christie Todd Whitman in Jersey, and I didn’t even live there.
RAM could have pressured her Democratic cronies in the state senate to change their rules to end the desk-drawer veto. Could have made the cancer cluster information available. Conducted a real investigation at the DPC before the News Journal embarrassed her into it. She could have done a lot of things, but I think she happier as part of the old boys network in Dover.
As for golf courses, I haven’t played the new Rock, but I hear it’s worth it. Looking forward to playing Bayside next month, and perhaps White Clay as well.
“Just out of curiosity – other than Mark Homewood, do we have any smokers here?”
Yep, there’s me. Someone has to pay for children’s health care, you know. And while I kind of miss smoking in a bar, I don’t miss having my clothes stink like an ashtray after a night out. I also don’t smoke inside my own home.
I really thought the golf course would be much more controversial than the smoking ban.
BTW RAM and Nathan the terrible pandering to people with money helped hasten the failure of the Transportation Trust Fund by purchasing Garrsions Lake CC among other non Transporation purchases with TF monies which resulted in among other things NO REAL SUNDAY BUS SERVICE
“We vote. And by an overwhelming majority, non smokers stomped those that smoke.”
And that’s why laws passed purely by majority vote are a BAD thing.
mike w.
What? ( Your statement needs explanation)