Give me your best argument(s) against smoking bans

[McD]

And how would you 'convert' someone who is sort of sitting on the fence on the issue to be against them.

[Samhain]

The effects of secondhand smoke have been greatly exaggerated over the years. I would say it's impossible for anyone to come up with definitive numbers as to the amount of deaths caused by second hand smoke, there are far too many other contributing factors to come up with any hard data on how much second hand smoke actually contributes to lung cancer in this country (i.e. do the studies allow for fumes from car exhaust and various other pollutants that have been curbed over the years?). And if the idea of second hand smoke being potentially harmful is based upon faulty data then it comes down to first hand smoke that is the problem or the 'real' killer here...in which case it's the right of the people to do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies as long as it doesn't harm others (or at least it should be).

[Metaphor]

The effects of secondhand smoke have been greatly exaggerated over the years. I would say it's impossible for anyone to come up with definitive numbers as to the amount of deaths caused by second hand smoke, there are far too many other contributing factors to come up with any hard data on how much second hand smoke actually contributes to lung cancer in this country (i.e. do the studies allow for fumes from car exhaust and various other pollutants that have been curbed over the years?). And if the idea of second hand smoke being potentially harmful is based upon faulty data then it comes down to first hand smoke that is the problem or the 'real' killer here...in which case it's the right of the people to do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies as long as it doesn't harm others (or at least it should be).

Even were there no medical harm, why should I be subjected to the smell of filthy cigarette smoke in my face and later on my clothes, whilst I am at the motor registry?

[Autonemesis]

The effects of secondhand smoke have been greatly exaggerated over the years. I would say it's impossible for anyone to come up with definitive numbers as to the amount of deaths caused by second hand smoke,

You would be wrong if you said that. People have.

... there are far too many other contributing factors to come up with any hard data on how much second hand smoke actually contributes to lung cancer in this country (i.e. do the studies allow for fumes from car exhaust and various other pollutants that have been curbed over the years?).

Yes, they do. It's quite easy to explode unfounded assumptions, isn't it? These things can all be controlled for in a properly conducted study.

And if the idea of second hand smoke being potentially harmful is based upon faulty data then it comes down to first hand smoke that is the problem or the 'real' killer here...

And if it is not based on faulty data, but is based on sound data... what then?

[Nitrousoxide]

Even were there no medical harm, why should I be subjected to the smell of filthy cigarette smoke in my face and later on my clothes, whilst I am at the motor registry?


Actually I happen to agree with you here. Government operations should be smoke free, if only because you cannot shop around for a smoke free place like you can in the free market.

[Metaphor]

Actually I happen to agree with you here. Government operations should be smoke free, if only because you cannot shop around for a smoke free place like you can in the free market.

The problem with the free market is that it is fine in the city but when you are in a one horse town, you don't have a plethora of feed stores to choose from (or whatever stores they have in rural areas).

[Samhain]

You would be wrong if you said that. People have.

Actually, I wouldn't. Unfortunately, the amount of deaths have been greatly exaggerated. Studies mainly focus upon married couples in which one spouse smokes and the other does not, or focuses on the effects of passive smoking while in the workplace (traditionally this is either in bars or restaurants). What is not researched is the effects that passive smoking has on the typical non smoker, but advertising campaigns against smoking exploit these studies and present them as if having a cigarette in the park is the equivalent to shooting a loaded gun.

As for it being impossible, I would still contend that at this point it is. The risks can be evaluated and you can come up with an estimated figure as to either the percentage of risk depending on your lifestyle, occupation, etc. But to definitively state that XX number of lives are taken every year because of passive smoking?

But this was not really the question, my response was based upon the assumption that a person is sitting on the fence about smoking bans, which typically effects those non-smokers who frequent bars or restaurants occassionally, in which case the effect is small, if it's even measurable at all (if you know of any research on these specific cases, point me to it).

Yes, they do. It's quite easy to explode unfounded assumptions, isn't it? These things can all be controlled for in a properly conducted study.

But are they?

And if it is not based on faulty data, but is based on sound data... what then?

If it's based upon sound data, then in the private sector it should still be the decision of the business who they will cater to, since, ultimately, it is the decision of the patrons to frequent the establishment or not and the decision of the employee to work there or not.

I would also say that the laws and regulations against smoking are more zealous than they need be. The lobbyists against tobacco have created a false dichotomy, IMO, as nothing has been explored in the way of air-purification or expanding air exchange for establishments that wish to allow smokers inside. Instead they've systematically banned it from all establishments as opposed to either allowing the free market to make the decisions for themselves or allowing them to meet safety regulations that would greatly reduce the potential harmful effects.

[Autonemesis]

If it's based upon sound data, then in the private sector it should still be the decision of the business who they will cater to, since, ultimately, it is the decision of the patrons to frequent the establishment or not and the decision of the employee to work there or not.

So you actually don't care what the science says, which is exactly what I suspected. Then why bring it up? It just makes you look silly when you are called on it, and you will be called on it, every time. Count on it. Consider this your free education for trying that shit in the real world.

Your bottom line: it doesn't matter if passive smoking harms anyone, smoking should be allowed anyway. Business interests are more important that public health. In fact, there is no such thing as "public health" to you.

Did I miss anything?

[Samhain]

Even were there no medical harm, why should I be subjected to the smell of filthy cigarette smoke in my face and later on my clothes, whilst I am at the motor registry?

Filthy smell is completely subjective, isn't it?

If I thought a man or woman had a terrible body odor, should they be removed from the premises because I'm not mature enough to deal with a smell? It's like saying that there should be a public ban on speaking if you have a shrill voice.

Not to say that there isn't any medical harm. I do believe that there is medical harm from passive smoking...I want to make that clear...but are the effects exaggerated? I guess that's what bothers me outside of my typical libertarian ideals that oppose the smoking bans.

[Autonemesis]

Not to say that there isn't any medical harm. I do believe that there is medical harm from passive smoking...I want to make that clear...

Well if this is your new position, contrary to what you said earlier, then how can you justify allowing people to knowingly cause harm to persons around them? If I scratch your arm and draw a little blood, have I assaulted you? Or is the fact that the injury is not serious mean I can do that to you as much as I want?

[Samhain]

So you actually don't care what the science says, which is exactly what I suspected. Then why bring it up? It just makes you look silly when you are called on it, and you will be called on it, every time. Count on it. Consider this your free education for trying that shit in the real world.

Your bottom line: it doesn't matter if passive smoking harms anyone, smoking should be allowed anyway.

Did I miss anything?

Actually, I do care, but I have two positions that work against the idea of the smoking bans. One of them is scientific, and the other is economic (based upon Libertarian ideals). Is it impossible for me to hold two different reasons for coming to the same conclusion? It makes you look silly when you create false dichotomies. Consider this your free education for trying that shit in the real world.

Look, I live in California, a state that pioneered the smoking bans, but I have definite problems with bans on many things even if I'm not a smoker. I think the health risks have been exaggerated for the typical non-smoker, and even if they have not been exaggerated greatly I think that alternative methods have not been explored in order to curb the potential risks. So now, instead of country-wide regulations on air-exchange systems that could potentially solve the problem you have a handful of states that have outright banned it and a plethora of states that have not. So, really, who's doing who a disservice with the smoking bans?

[Pavlov's Dog]

The problem with the free market is that it is fine in the city but when you are in a one horse town, you don't have a plethora of feed stores to choose from (or whatever stores they have in rural areas).

No. The free market will magically open them and if it doesn't open them that is because you are not supposed to exist, so the free market needs you to die.

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, I wouldn't. Unfortunately, the amount of deaths have been greatly exaggerated. Studies mainly focus upon married couples in which one spouse smokes and the other does not, or focuses on the effects of passive smoking while in the workplace (traditionally this is either in bars or restaurants). What is not researched is the effects that passive smoking has on the typical non smoker, but advertising campaigns against smoking exploit these studies and present them as if having a cigarette in the park is the equivalent to shooting a loaded gun.

Of course they study the places with the highest exposure. That doesn't mean they assume all secondhand exposure is at that level. They simply study it because that's where you get the highest risk and thus the easiest to identify risk.

As for it being impossible, I would still contend that at this point it is. The risks can be evaluated and you can come up with an estimated figure as to either the percentage of risk depending on your lifestyle, occupation, etc. But to definitively state that XX number of lives are taken every year because of passive smoking?

Oh, come on now. That's just bad reporting. Scientific numbers are almost always a midpoint # and the error margin. Reporters consistently drop the error margins and report the midpoint # as fact.

[coloradoatheist]

The issue boils down to conflicting rights, private property and the right not to harm someone else.

No. The free market will magically open them and if it doesn't open them that is because you are not supposed to exist, so the free market needs you to die.

Maybe the won't, but you can always eat at your house. It's your decision to eat or work there and if they are up front with the belief that it's a smoking establishment.



Mike

[Samhain]

Well if this is your new position, contrary to what you said earlier, then how can you justify allowing people to knowingly cause harm to persons around them? If I scratch your arm and draw a little blood, have I assaulted you? Or is the fact that the injury is not serious mean I can do that to you as much as I want?

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop misquoting me. I never said that there "wasn't any harm." I said that the harm was exaggerated and that the true effects were possibly immeasurable (since I haven't seen any research on the effects of the typical non-smoker, and since you have failed to provide any).

As far as knowingly causing harm to others? I don't really understand what point you're trying to make, I see things daily that happen where people harm one another knowingly whether it be physical or mental or social harm. Many of these things are not against the law, they are not banned. I also see many things throughout the country that do not harm other people, but are banned. Driving my car has the potential to cause pollutants to go into the air and potentially kill people. I drive it anyway because it's legal to and because I have someplace I need to go. You've tried to ridicule my position with slippery slope arguments, straw men, and general e-bullying since I've started it, while I have remained courteous to you (except for a little jab at one of your choice phrases earlier). You've done that knowingly, even though it had the potential to harm me mentally or socially (granted the potential is small, and luckily for me I have a thick skin :D ).

I do not mean to get off topic, I'm trying to be fair with all sides of this argument here and present a viewpoint that people generally don't agree with. It's difficult because the information that really matters for this topic just isn't out there, and the information we do have has been used as propaghanda IMO (sort of like Refer Madness).

[Bonniedundee]

It is non-invasive behaviour and to ban it would mean you couldn't use anything but utilitarian arguments to prevent the banning of other non-invasive behviour.

[Metaphor]

Filthy smell is completely subjective, isn't it?

If I thought a man or woman had a terrible body odor, should they be removed from the premises because I'm not mature enough to deal with a smell? It's like saying that there should be a public ban on speaking if you have a shrill voice.

Not to say that there isn't any medical harm. I do believe that there is medical harm from passive smoking...I want to make that clear...but are the effects exaggerated? I guess that's what bothers me outside of my typical libertarian ideals that oppose the smoking bans.

I wouldn't say it is completely subjective, no. Evolution has equipped us to find certain things offensive - rotted food smells offensive to humans with functioning noses which stops us eating it. Faeces generally smell extremely bad.

As for the body od our thing, if it were disruptive enough, then yes, they probably do need to be removed. Forcing people to wear clothes also generally benefits us.

[Metaphor]

It is non-invasive behaviour and to ban it would mean you couldn't use anything but utilitarian arguments to prevent the banning of other non-invasive behviour.

Smoke all you want in your own home. Smoke until your lungs fall out.

But when you are in a public place don't expect others to be forced to smoke along with you. It *is* invasive.

[coloradoatheist]

Smoke all you want in your own home. Smoke until your lungs fall out.

But when you are in a public place don't expect others to be forced to smoke along with you. It *is* invasive.


The issue is whether or not it's a public place. It won't be long before your banned from smoking in your own home.

Mike

[Metaphor]

The issue is whether or not it's a public place. It won't be long before your banned from smoking in your own home.

Mike

My father smoked smoked for forty years before he gave up. He smoked around his children. I hated it.

I wish it were banned if there are children who cannot protest and have no alternative, frankly.

[Bonniedundee]

Smoke all you want in your own home. Smoke until your lungs fall out.

But when you are in a public place don't expect others to be forced to smoke along with you. It *is* invasive.What do you mean by public place?

If you mean someone's theatre of restaurant, that is not a public place and is the same as their home, if you mean gov't places then I'd say the gov't is funded by coercion therefore cannot own property and its property is unowned.

[JaronK]

Smoking cigarettes is like most banned drugs, except it's more deadly than some of them (pot, mushrooms, LSD), and unlike almost all (pot being an obvious exception) if you do it in public you expose others to it.

Smoking causes a significant drain on our health care system, though the fact that smokers have to pay more for health care in many cases can counteract this.

Also, remember that the customers of a smoking restaurant may have a choice about where they go, but the workers there may not. The job market is poor in many areas, and people need to take what work they can get. Many waitresses are exposed to a heck of a lot of second hand smoke, and that hurts them over the years.

Smoking is highly invasive... if you do it around others, you're forcing it on them, especially if you're in an area that they can't leave easily.

And as a final comment, I live in California, which has very strict anti smoking laws. There has been no harm to bars and such (which is what some pro smoking folks claimed would happen), and it's actually a lot more pleasant to go out now, so overall quality of life is up (I'm sure smokers might not agree, but almost all non-smokers are quite happy with it).

JaronK

[Metaphor]

What do you mean by public place?

If you mean someone's theatre of restaurant, that is not a public place and is the same as their home, if you mean gov't places then I'd say the gov't is funded by coercion therefore cannot own property and its property is unowned.

So there are no public places. Got it.

[Bonniedundee]

So there are no public places. Got it.There can be common property, but the state is not the public.

And you didn't answer if you thought a private restaurant is a public place?

[Nitrousoxide]

So there are no public places. Got it.

Yeah, I just pretty much ignore Euro now.

As to this:
My father smoked smoked for forty years before he gave up. He smoked around his children. I hated it.

I wish it were banned if there are children who cannot protest and have no alternative, frankly.

Is there a way to choose which things should be banned in the home and which not? Many things are uncomfortable for children, or even possibly damaging, but should we ban all of them? If not, what level of harm or discomfort is necessary and why? Should we ban the parents having sex because a child might walk in on them? Should we ban swings or hot dogs?

[Scifinerdgrl]

I had this conversation yesterday. The main argument for smoking bans is that the staff are subjected to a health risk. Other restaurant & bar customers' risk can be minimized if there are separate sections. Regulating employers so they can't force employees into smoking sections unless it's stipulated as a condition of hiring or part of their job description and requiring bars & restaurants to have adequate air handling systems to protect other customers would be a reasonable accommodation to both sides.

If second-had smoke really was "worse than first-hand" smoke, there's be a higher rate of cancer and emphysema than has been reported. I have asthma, so being around smoke is a hazard for me, so I'd be in the non-smoking section but I don't care if there's a smoking section. My mom has been smoking for 40 years and has the beginnings of emphysema. I know how hard it is for a smoker to quit.

[Metaphor]

There can be common property, but the state is not the public.

And you didn't answer if you thought a private restaurant is a public place?

It is a public place in the same way a library is a public place - there is commerce, it is open to the public given certain conditions, etc.

Restaurants can be privately owned but that does not preclude them being a public place. Being open for commerce necessitates it being public in a sense.

[Metaphor]

Yeah, I just pretty much ignore Euro now.

As to this:


Is there a way to choose which things should be banned in the home and which not? Many things are uncomfortable for children, or even possibly damaging, but should we ban all of them? If not, what level of harm or discomfort is necessary and why? Should we ban the parents having sex because a child might walk in on them? Should we ban swings or hot dogs?

Perhaps we should ban slippery-slopes.

As for the method of choosing, it has to be debated. No sane person wants to allow sexual abuse to go on in the home, even though it is private property. So, clearly a certain level of harm and discomfort CAN be established to warrant something being illegal.

[coloradoatheist]

Perhaps we should ban slippery-slopes.

As for the method of choosing, it has to be debated. No sane person wants to allow sexual abuse to go on in the home, even though it is private property. So, clearly a certain level of harm and discomfort CAN be established to warrant something being illegal.

Hence why your argument banning smoking around children is far stronger than consensual agreement with someone eating in a smoking establishment.


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Yeah, I just pretty much ignore Euro now.Particularly when you ask for evidence and are given it, right. You never answered my long post of the evidence of state support for large industry.

I ignore vulgar and fake libertarians who propound statism behind weak veils of free market rhetoric.

And if you had bother to read on in this thread I said there can be common property, just that state property is not "public property" as it is not the public.

[Bonniedundee]

It is a public place in the same way a library is a public place - there is commerce, it is open to the public given certain conditions, etc.

Restaurants can be privately owned but that does not preclude them being a public place. Being open for commerce necessitates it being public in a sense.
Right, so in fact is not privately owned, this is what you are saying.

[Nitrousoxide]

Well I wasn't really intending it to be a slippery slope, I was just trying to pull out of you what the limit is. I was sure you had one.

Out of curiosity, what is the point at which you would say, "no, x shouldn't be banned" but then "yes, y should be banned."?

[Metaphor]

Hence why your argument banning smoking around children is far stronger than consensual agreement with someone eating in a smoking establishment.


Mike

I can exercise my freedom not to eat at a restaurant that allows smoking.

However, economic dependence on said restaurant (ie you work there) is a different story. Getting a new job is not a trivial process, especially if you are already working during the hours that would be reserved for interviews.

Typically, the same people who don't want the government passing legislation banning smoking also don't want government in the business of welfare - so, in a very real sense, if you are economically dependent on a restaurant you ARE being forced to endure it, for you certainly can't just quit and hope for something better.

[JaronK]

Right, so in fact is not privately owned, this is what you are saying.

No, he was saying it's privately owned but publicly used. Thus, it should be publicly regulated... which is not the same as publicly owned. Are you incapable of figuring out how that works?

JaronK

[Pavlov's Dog]

And you didn't answer if you thought a private restaurant is a public place?

In the US it is a public place.

[Bonniedundee]

No, he was saying it's privately owned but publicly used. Thus, it should be publicly regulated... which is not the same as publicly owned. Are you incapable of figuring out how that works?
If it is "publically" regulated, it is not private property.

If I don't have full use of something it isn't really mine. And what gives anyone the right to regulate my property anyway?

And the public doesn't regulate it the state, the executive committee of the ruling classes, does.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Maybe the won't, but you can always eat at your house. It's your decision to eat or work there and if they are up front with the belief that it's a smoking establishment.

Yes, and you can shop at home using amazon.com. Thanks to the free market there is no reason why people have to leave their home. It really does work!

[Bonniedundee]

Yes, and you can shop at home using amazon.com. Thanks to the free market there is no reason why people have to leave their home. It really does work!What free market we don't live in a free market.

In the US it is a public place.Then it is not private property.

If I have a party is my house a public place?

[coloradoatheist]

What free market we don't live in a free market.

Then it is not private property.

If I have a party is my house a public place?



It's something we agree on


If Jefferson was alive, this would be an issue that he believed there would be some dead govt officials.

Mike

[Pavlov's Dog]

If I have a party is my house a public place?

Probably not, but there are several factors that would have to be considered.

[Bonniedundee]

Probably not, but there are several factors that would have to be considered.Well at least you being very considerate and careful about taking the property off people and delcaring it "public" ie state or ruling class property.

[Bonniedundee]

If Jefferson was alive, this would be an issue that he believed there would be some dead govt officials.Ahh Thomas Jefferson, with the exception of old Tom Paine of course, the only founding father I have much time for.

He must have been the only anti-federalist president. Great man.

Reminds me of what Mencken once, something about everyone at some point wanting to hoist the black flag(the anarchist's flag.) .

[Pavlov's Dog]

Well at least you being very considerate and careful about taking the property off people and delcaring it "public" ie state or ruling class property.

If you want to be technical it is not taking it. Privately owned property is not the default position. You can think of it as the state allowing you to pretend like you own it.

[Bonniedundee]

If you want to be technical it is not taking it. Privately owned property is not the default position. You can think of it as the state allowing you to pretend like you own it.Indeed, you could go further by calling the state what it is, in Marx's words, the executive committee of the ruling classes.

Regulations are not something pressured on evil, greedy businessmen by a benevolent gov't acting in the public interest, they are almost always lobbyed for by a mix of pressure groups seized upon by corporate special interests to disadvantage smaller competitors or perhaps some other group in society like workers or even finance capital trying to gain at the expense of industrial capital or commercial capital etc etc.

[spamandham]

And how would you 'convert' someone who is sort of sitting on the fence on the issue to be against them.

The only argument I can come up with is in regard to 'public' vs. 'private' places of accommodation. The line between these is blurry, but I think it is legitimate to impose restrictions on entities that take advantage of state protection (corporations, LLCs, etc.) in ways that proprietorships do not.

There is an unshakable libertarian, authoritarian, conservative, and liberal argument that the state can legitimately impose a restriction like this on legal entities that have limited liability due to state intervention. The same argument, applied to unprotected organizations like sole proprietorships, and unlimited partnerships, is much weaker.

A reasonable compromise, IMHO, is that incorporation and similar strategies come with the burden of arbitrary restrictions in exchange for protection from unlimited liability, whereas organizations that do not lean on this aid from the state, should have more freedom - which might include allowing smoking.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Regulations are not something pressured on evil, greedy businessmen by a benevolent gov't acting in the public interest, they are almost always lobbyed for by a mix of pressure groups seized upon by corporate special interests to disadvantage smaller competitors or perhaps some other group in society like workers or even finance capital trying to gain at the expense of industrial capital or commercial capital etc etc.

And sometimes they are lobbied for by consumer interest groups, labor unions, small business associations, and other groups that are in direct conflict with large corporate interests.

[coloradoatheist]

If you want to be technical it is not taking it. Privately owned property is not the default position. You can think of it as the state allowing you to pretend like you own it.

Then the govt can regulate who you have sex with because you've made it a public place.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

And sometimes they are lobbied for by consumer interest groups, labor unions, small business associations, and other groups that are in direct competition with large corporate interests.They are rarely in direct opposition with large corporate interests at least some of it, and they usually get the support of some of it before they are passed.

Like minimum wage laws that do cost big business, but they more than make up for this in the damage it does to smaller competitors.

Of course they almost always find allies in other places, like the very mistaken consumer advocates who demand regulations or the leaders of the large labour unions who wish to get benefits from an alliance with big business.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Then the govt can regulate who you have sex with because you've made it a public place.

Mike

The state has been doing that for years. Although, who a person has sex with is not a place.

[coloradoatheist]

The state has been doing that for years. Although, who a person has sex with is not a place.


They ruled that Georgia's anti-sodomy laws were un-constitutional because of the right of privacy on a private residence. However your arguing it's public and they could say, "hey we are protecting you from getting AIDS".


Mike

[JaronK]

If it is "publically" regulated, it is not private property.

If I don't have full use of something it isn't really mine. And what gives anyone the right to regulate my property anyway?

And the public doesn't regulate it the state, the executive committee of the ruling classes, does.

Something can be private property and yet have public regulations enforced on it. For example, you own your house, but if you play extreamly loud music late at night, you are affecting other people.

It's still your house and your sound system, but the public can stay "stop invading everyone else's space with it."

Likewise, the government can enforce that restaurants not put cyanide in the food. You can serve any kind of food you like, but you can't poison people or punch them in the face and steal their money in your restaurant. It's still a private restaurant, but there is some degree of public regulation.

As there should be.

JaronK

[coloradoatheist]

Something can be private property and yet have public regulations enforced on it. For example, you own your house, but if you play extreamly loud music late at night, you are affecting other people.

It's still your house and your sound system, but the public can stay "stop invading everyone else's space with it."

Likewise, the government can enforce that restaurants not put cyanide in the food. You can serve any kind of food you like, but you can't poison people or punch them in the face and steal their money in your restaurant. It's still a private restaurant, but there is some degree of public regulation.

As there should be.

JaronK

So you are okay with the next Fallwell saying that you can't have sex outside of marriage because you might give them a disease?

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Something can be private property and yet have public regulations enforced on it. For example, you own your house, but if you play extreamly loud music late at night, you are affecting other people.

It's still your house and your sound system, but the public can stay "stop invading everyone else's space with it."That is not a regulation, it is simply invasive behaviour.

Likewise, the government can enforce that restaurants not put cyanide in the food. You can serve any kind of food you like, but you can't poison people or punch them in the face and steal their money in your restaurant. It's still a private restaurant, but there is some degree of public regulation.

As there should be.Ditto.

And what is "public regulation", you mean state regulation.

[JaronK]

So you are okay with the next Fallwell saying that you can't have sex outside of marriage because you might give them a disease?

Mike

Hardly. What two people do in their home (even if one of them doesn't live there) is a lot more private than a publicly available restaurant.

If we want to get into personal beliefs, I believe very much in consent. If everyone's consenting (and knowledgable enough of potencial ramifications to give that consent) then I see no problems.

Notice that all my examples involve someone who isn't consenting. Waitresses forced to be exposed to potencially deadly toxins on a regular basis (or else lose their job). Poison of a customer. Playing music loud enough to wake the neighbors. All of this involves someone being harmed without their consent.

Two (or more!) people having sex, all consentual, has no such problem.

Furthermore, I was talking about private property which is used by the public (the example being a restaurant) being regulated by the public, though still being privately owned and operated. I fail to see how two people having sex in their home is in any way related. Public usage implies some degree of public oversight. Private activities are a whole other matter.

JaronK

[coloradoatheist]

Hardly. What two people do in their home (even if one of them doesn't live there) is a lot more private than a publicly available restaurant.

If we want to get into personal beliefs, I believe very much in consent. If everyone's consenting (and knowledgable enough of potencial ramifications to give that consent) then I see no problems.

Notice that all my examples involve someone who isn't consenting. Waitresses forced to be exposed to potencially deadly toxins on a regular basis (or else lose their job). Poison of a customer. Playing music loud enough to wake the neighbors. All of this involves someone being harmed without their consent.

Two (or more!) people having sex, all consentual, has no such problem.

Furthermore, I was talking about private property which is used by the public (the example being a restaurant) being regulated by the public, though still being privately owned and operated. I fail to see how two people having sex in their home is in any way related. Public usage implies some degree of public oversight. Private activities are a whole other matter.

JaronK

The restaurant is a private building that through freedom of association sells a service to other people (food, service, drinks, and smoke). If you don't like Bob's Bar and it's smoke you don't have to go just like you don't have to have sex with the other person.

Where we disagree, waitresses are giving consent when they choose the job and it's the service the business may choose to sell (allow smoking with dinner or selling drinks). Go work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart.

Mike

[JaronK]

The restaurant is a private building that through freedom of association sells a service to other people (food, service, drinks, and smoke). If you don't like Bob's Bar and it's smoke you don't have to go just like you don't have to have sex with the other person.

Where we disagree, waitresses are giving consent when they choose the job and it's the service the business may choose to sell (allow smoking with dinner or selling drinks). Go work at McDonalds or Wal-Mart.

Mike

Except that jobs are scarce in some areas, and McDonalds, due to low minimum wage, simply does not pay enough to survive, so that's not an option. But are you actually claiming here that any amount of regulation on an area used by a large number of people, such as keeping poisons out of the food (or the air), is the exact same thing as telling people they can't have sex in their own home? You honestly can't tell the difference?

JaronK

[Bonniedundee]

If we want to get into personal beliefs, I believe very much in consent. If everyone's consenting (and knowledgable enough of potencial ramifications to give that consent) then I see no problems.

Notice that all my examples involve someone who isn't consenting. Waitresses forced to be exposed to potencially deadly toxins on a regular basis (or else lose their job). Poison of a customer. Playing music loud enough to wake the neighbors. All of this involves someone being harmed without their consent.
Now I'm not one to call our system a free society and know that the waitresses' choice is not completely free but in a free society how does she not consent? She agrees to work there.


Furthermore, I was talking about private property which is used by the public (the example being a restaurant) being regulated by the public, though still being privately owned and operated. I fail to see how two people having sex in their home is in any way related. Public usage implies some degree of public oversight. Private activities are a whole other matter.
How is the public going to regulate it?

And what is the difference between public use and private use? Simply that commerce takes place?

[coloradoatheist]

Except that jobs are scarce in some areas, and McDonalds, due to low minimum wage, simply does not pay enough to survive, so that's not an option. But are you actually claiming here that any amount of regulation on an area used by a large number of people, such as keeping poisons out of the food (or the air), is the exact same thing as telling people they can't have sex in their own home? You honestly can't tell the difference?

JaronK

What are the risks of having safe with an unknown partner, AIDS, pregnancy, multiple other STDs. What I am arguing is that it's consentual. If the restaurant bar says they are smoking, then it's up to the person deciding to get a job there or a person eating there to decide if the risk is worth what they get.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

What are the risks of having safe with an unknown partner, AIDS, pregnancy, multiple other STDs. What I am arguing is that it's consentual. If the restaurant bar says they are smoking, then it's up to the person deciding to get a job there or a person eating there to decide if the risk is worth what they get.To be fair it must be stressed that this is only in a completely free society, there is something(a hell of alot of something.) in the claim that today choices are artificially constricted.

[Jon Barleycorn]

My main objection to smoking bans is that they are unnecessary. If you think about it - smoking has been in decline for the last 30 years or so, ever since it was discovered to be harmful to health in fact, so one could argue that "education" (ie; informing people of the risks) was working. However, when you ban something (something that many people have been doing for a long time) you just make people dig their heels in & say "f--k you I'll do what I want to do" so in fact, it can be counter-productive. Further more there is not a single death certificate in the world which gives "passive smoking" as a cause of death. As regards the restaraunt & bar issue - as the musician Joe Jackson says in his excellent "Smoking, Lies & The Nanny State" - there are now available air filtering systems which can easily remove harmful fumes from the air & in fact, make the air in a smoking environment cleaner than the air on a normal city street.

http://www.forestonline.org/files/pdf/SMOKE,%20LIES%20A4%20v5b.pdf

to quote from it : "I believe smoking bans are doing great damage, & not only economic damage. They promote intolerance, social tension & a "stool-pigeon" culture. They ostracise a large & law-abiding segment of the population. They set a worrying precedent for all kinds of other social engineering, & they bring "Nanny into Nightlife": the last place she belongs."

McDuffie, I would strongly recommend you giving the whole article a read. He makes the case against a ban far better than I can.

[Metaphor]

My main objection to smoking bans is that they are totally unnecessary. If you think about it - smoking has been in decline for the last 30 years or so, ever since it was discovered to be harmful to health in fact, so one could argue that "education" (ie; informing people of the risks) was working. However, when you ban something (something that many people have been doing for a long time) you just make people dig their heels in & say "f--k you I'll do what I want to do" so in fact, it can be counter-productive.

We are not talking about banning smoking for individuals.

Further more there is not a single death certificate in the world which gives "passive smoking" as a cause of death. As regards the restaraunt & bar issue - as Joe Jackson says in his excellent "Smoking, Lies & The Nanny State" - there are now available air filtering systems which can easily remove harmful fumes from the air & in fact, make the air in a smoking environment cleaner than the air on a normal city street.

So, in other words, all the patrons in a bar should pay for a filtering system made necessary by the patrons that smoke?



to quote from it : "I believe smoking bans are doing great damage, & not only economic damage. They promote intolerance, social tension & a "stool-pigeon" culture. They ostracise a large & law-abiding segment of the population. They set a worrying precedent for all kinds of other social engineering, & they bring "Nanny into Nightlife": the last place she belongs."

I would strongly recommend you giving the whole article a read.

Damn straight I am intolerant of people who are recklessly indifferent in their imposition of second hand smoke onto me.

As for the social engineering bogeyman, every time I read or hear the word social engineering, alarm bells signalling rightwing nutjob opinion go off in my head.

Maybe you are nostalgic for the days when men and women could blithely smoke wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and the rest of the world be damned. Every time someone lights up near me, they are polluting the air I breathe. If second hand tobacco smoke is so alluring to you, smoke it continuously in your own private space.

[Bonniedundee]

So, in other words, all the patrons in a bar should pay for a filtering system made necessary by the patrons that smoke? What are you talking about, do you not recognise that a bar is private property?

You seem offended that anyone should dare claim ownership of a bar.

I could understand perhaps if the local community had declared in favour of communism or syndaclism, is this what you are suggesting?


Maybe you are nostalgic for the days when men and women could blithely smoke wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and the rest of the world be damned. Every time someone lights up near me, they are polluting the air I breathe. If second hand tobacco smoke is so alluring to you, smoke it continuously in your own private space.If it is so awful for you, you could not go where people are smoking.


Damn straight I am intolerant of people who are recklessly indifferent in their imposition of second hand smoke onto me.I'm intolerant of people who call of the state because they can't exercise personal resposibility.

I'm more than willing to admit we don't live in a free society and that coercion is very prominent in it, but when we are talking about patron's of a bar it is stretching it more than a little.

[Metaphor]

What are you talking about, do you not recognise that a bar is private property?

You seem offended that anyone should dare claim ownership of a bar.

A bar is private property but a public place.


If it is so aweful for you, you could not go where people are smoking.

So I should be chased away from covered bus stops because people have decided to pollute my air?


I'm intolerant of people who call of the state because they can't exercise personal resposibility.

So I have to take personal responsibility for being around in public space whilst people pollute the air I breathe? If I am mugged as well, is it my personal responsibility to not have been mugged?

[Bonniedundee]

A bar is private property but a public place.
It cannot be both.

Either it belongs to someone or it belongs to the community or it(illegitimately.) "belongs" to the state, if it belongs to someone they can do whatever they like with, your idea of "public places" within private property is at odds with every property rights theory I know.(and I know alot about private property theory.)

So I should be chased away from covered bus stops because people have decided to pollute my air? It depends what the owner sets up as the rules.



So I have to take personal responsibility for being around in public space whilst people pollute the air I breathe? If I am mugged as well, is it my personal responsibility to not have been mugged?
On someone else's property you have to take responsibility. A mugging is invasive behaviour, it is a direct attack on you and your property, second hand smoke, when you are warned and still agree to enter is not.

In fact if you were warned and agreed to being mugged it would be the same.

[Metaphor]

It cannot be both.

Either it belongs to someone or it belongs to the community or it(illegitimately.) "belongs" to the state, if it belongs to someone they can do whatever they like with, your idea of "public places" within private property is at odds with every property rights theory I know.(and I know alot about private property theory.)

I don't know what to tell you. Any space that is set up for general commerce or for the use of the public in other ways is public space.


On someone else's property you have to take responsibility. A mugging is invasive behaviour, it is a direct attack on you and your property, second hand smoke, when you are warned and still agree to enter is not.


Second hand smoke is DAMNED invasive. It is like somebody drinking alcohol and then SPITTING BACKWASH IN MY MOUTH.

Bus stops are generally state property but I couldn't say for certain.

Why is it fine for somebody to force their smoke into my lungs when we are both waiting for a bus?

[Bonniedundee]

I don't know what to tell you. Any space that is set up for general commerce or for the use of the public in other ways is public space.Not by any kind of property theory that is based on self-ownership.(and these are the only kind of theory that are logically consistent.)

This idea you set up is just arbitrary, suddenly because it is used for commerce ceases to be private property(and yes your idea does violate the basic tenets of private property.).

Second hand smoke is DAMNED invasive. It is like somebody drinking alcohol and then SPITTING BACKWASH IN MY MOUTH.It is not invasive if you agree to enter a place where it goes on.

Bus stops are generally state property but I couldn't say for certain.The state is a gang of robbers funded by coercion, it cannot legitimately own property.

A bus stop is either common property or unowned in any legitimate property rights theory, based on self-ownership.

Why is it fine for somebody to force their smoke into my lungs when we are both waiting for a bus?It is not if you are not notified or it is against the owner's wishes.

Why are you incapable of taking any responsibility for your own actions?

Now our society is not a free society, so there is coercion in it, but in a free society what stops you from just exercising free choice and not frequenting someone else's property where this goes on.

Would we had no responsibility and nursed cradle to grave, because this is where you ideas will end, well kind of, except the state doesn't really care much for the people besides exploiting them.

I'm a very left-wng guy, albeit a libertarian socialist but I normally look for allies among the liberal and social democrats but beginning to understand the conservative attitudes towards big gov't liberals.

[Metaphor]

Not by any kind of property theory that is based on self-ownership.(and these are the only kind of theory that are logically consistent.)

This idea you set up is just arbitrary, suddenly because it is used for commerce ceases to be private property(and yes your idea does violate the basic tenets of private property.).

I never said it ceases to be private property.


It is not invasive if you agree to enter a place where it goes on.

The state is a gang of robbers funded by coercion, it cannot legitimately own property.

A bus stop is either common property or unowned in any legitimate property rights theory, based on self-ownership.

It is not if you are not notified or it is against the owner's wishes.

Why are you incapable of taking any responsibility for your own actions?

Now our society is not a free society, so there is coercion in it, but in a free society what stops you from just exercising free choice and not frequenting someone else's property where this goes on.

Would we had no responsibility and nursed cradle to grave, because this is where you ideas will end, well kind of, except the state doesn't really care much for the people besides exploiting them.

I'm a very left-wng guy, albeit a libertarian socialist but I normally look for allies among the liberal and social democrats but beginning to understand the conservative attitudes towards big gov't liberals.

What alternative do I have? Walk to another bus stop because some dickhead wants to violate public space? Wait until everyone who smokes is gone from the busstop? Have you any idea how a bus stop actually works?

[coloradoatheist]

I never said it ceases to be private property.



What alternative do I have? Walk to another bus stop because some dickhead wants to violate public space? Wait until everyone who smokes is gone from the busstop? Have you any idea how a bus stop actually works?

In his belief, the govt wouldn't own the bus stop. However I do believe the govt can own the bus stop so they set the rule, whether or not there is smoking there.

Mike

[Trout]

I cannot see why it should be illegal for certain clubs/bars to allow smoking if the patrons and employees are all adults and aware of the environment.

We don't ban car races, downhill skiing, rock climbing, or any number of obviously dangerous activities nor should we. We also don't ban alcohol even though it's responsible for huge problems to users and many, many others and "health" is certainly not the reason pot is illegal. Heck, people can get prescription drugs for a high pretty easily and basically forever and the public concern about it is minimal. People that might frequent places to smoke are also not criminals or dangerous in the least so why should they be treated like lepers as opposed to everyone else?

I could be in favor of general bans if the issue of health were treated as the main concern and not simply the issue of smoking. In the end, it's simply now fashionable and accepted to ban, restrict and generally dump upon smokers. Obviously it's a public health concern but so are thousands of other issues that are ignored and in the end, the effects on people other than the smokers themselves are basically non-existent today.

The argument that smoke is invasive, etc seems solid in interior spaces so great keep it out of offices, malls, classrooms, etc. I don’t think anyone reasonable has much of a problem with that. I still don't see why that means an overall ban on every interior space is necessary and attempts to ban it on the street or in the home are based in nothing but fashion again as opposed to logic and reason and are completely unjustified.

[Nice Squirrel]

This isn't an argument for, but this morning bicycling near a bus stop, I inhaled a large cloud of tabacco smoke tasting the toxic flavor. I thought what trouble I would be in if I poured a lutefisk smmothie down that smoker's throat, just for a taste, but that's silly he didn't mean to smoke me, but that bus that almost ran me over did.

[Pavlov's Dog]

They ruled that Georgia's anti-sodomy laws were un-constitutional because of the right of privacy on a private residence. However your arguing it's public and they could say, "hey we are protecting you from getting AIDS".


Mike

Actually, that was Texas's anti-sodomy laws, but that is besides the point. And no that is not what I am saying. The point is that they were doing it for years, and they still do it in some places. For example, legal prostitution in Las Vegas. They have certain rules and restrictions that prevent the consumers from getting AIDS. I know in your imaginary world, the free market would just put prostitutes that spread diseases out of business, but in the real world we don't like to wait for people to die or be seriously injured while the market works itself out. When you open your "private property" up to the public and charge them money, it is no longer your "private property" to do whatever you wish with. If you want it to continue to be your private property, stop charging the public to use it.

[drewjmore]

Just chiming in with my characteristic unusual argument, barely skimmed what's already been said...


Humans emit a noxious toxic gas that, in concentrated form, can be used to euthanize animals. I propose a breathing ban to limit peoples exposure to exhaled Carbon Dioxide (and halitosis). ;-p

[enoch007]

why should smokers die alone?

[Jon Barleycorn]

We are not talking about banning smoking for individuals.

Umm, yes, you are, you are talking about enforcing a certain behaviour over one group of individuals by another because of the second group's intolerance.

So, in other words, all the patrons in a bar should pay for a filtering system made necessary by the patrons that smoke?

If the owner of said bar wishes to allow people to smoke & is happy to fit a filtering system, & clearly advertises that this is a smoking bar, where's the problem? As others have said, you are quite welcome to exercise your free choice in not going into that bar. Apparently though, that's not enough for you! :huh:

Damn straight I am intolerant of people who are recklessly indifferent in their imposition of second hand smoke onto me.

Well, yes, you certainly seem to be intolerant. No-one is "recklessly indifferent in their imposition of second-hand smoke" onto you - you don't have to go into the bar in the first place - in this world a bit of give & take can go a long way - no-ones objecting to no smoking bars, but why does it have to be 100% the way you want it & no-one allowed to smoke in, for instance, a private members club? Apart from the fact that the risk of so-called second-hand smoke doing you any serious harm is negligble!

As for the social engineering bogeyman, every time I read or hear the word social engineering, alarm bells signalling rightwing nutjob opinion go off in my head.

That just says more about you than it does me, I think. I try to keep an open mind about things myself & judge each case on it's merits & I am not exactly right-wing & as far as I am aware, nor is Joe Jackson!


Maybe you are nostalgic for the days when men and women could blithely smoke wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and the rest of the world be damned. Every time someone lights up near me, they are polluting the air I breathe. If second hand tobacco smoke is so alluring to you, smoke it continuously in your own private space.

Actually I've recently given up myself, but yes, in a way I am nostalgic for the days when freedom of choice & expression was something to strive for rather than trying to control everything to the unth degree in order to try & create some kind of risk-free utopian world. I personally don't drive so can I object to people's car fumes polluting my air? I don't travel by air so can I object to people who fly polluting my air? Or thick clouds of woman's perfumes or people using those foul tinned air-freshners? What about joss sticks or bonfires burning? Do you instantly object to those too? If so, where does it end?

All I'm saying is a bit of give & take & respect for different perspectives would be nice - No-one's saying there can be no no-smoking areas or bars but why must you insist on all bars & clubs being non-smoking? Why must your rights take precedence over the right of some poor old seventy year old who's one pleasure in life is going to his local for a pint & a ciggie particularly if the bar owner & everyone else in the bar is quite happy for him to do so?

[Metaphor]

Umm, yes, you are, you are talking about enforcing a certain behaviour over one group of individuals by another because of the second group's intolerance.

Utterly ridiculous. I am intolerant of rape too. I'm not going to let that happen if I can prevent it.


If the owner of said bar wishes to allow people to smoke & is happy to fit a filtering system, & clearly advertises that this is a smoking bar, where's the problem? As others have said, you are quite welcome to exercise your free choice in not going into that bar. Apparently though, that's not enough for you! :huh:

As I've said, I actually don't think I have as strong a case as a potential consumer. I'm concerned about the people that work there (ie they are economically dependent on the bar).


Well, yes, you certainly seem to be intolerant. No-one is "recklessly indifferent in their imposition of second-hand smoke" onto you - you don't have to go into the bar in the first place - in this world a bit of give & take can go a long way - no-ones objecting to no smoking bars, but why does it have to be 100% the way you want it & no-one allowed to smoke in, for instance, a private members club? Apart from the fact that the risk of so-called second-hand smoke doing you any serious harm is negligble!

First, what about other public places? Should there be smoking allowed at covered bus stops? Yes I'm choosing to stand there, but what's my alternative, really?

Second, the private members club - actually I agree that people should be allowed to smoke there in that it is not a public place the way I have defined it earlier. However, I'd still be concerned for the employees.

Third, my argument is independent of the medical harm I might get from passive smoking.



Actually I've recently given up myself, but yes, in a way I am nostalgic for the days when freedom of choice & expression was something to strive for rather than trying to control everything to the unth degree in order to try & create some kind of risk-free utopian world. I personally don't drive so can I object to people's car fumes polluting my air?

The case is not as strong as it would be against an individual smoker letting their acrid effluent encircle you. However, unless you have completely withdrawn from society (ie you don't for example eat or drink groceries), then you do use road transport indirectly every day).




I don't travel by air so can I object to people who fly polluting my air? Or thick clouds of woman's perfumes or people using those foul tinned air-freshners? What about joss sticks or bonfires burning? Do you instantly object to those too? If so, where does it end?

Perfume is not carcinogenic. As for bonfires, the smoke from bonfires is not repulsive, and nor do you get bonfire smoke in the same situations you get cigarette smoke.



All I'm saying is a bit of give & take & respect for different perspectives would be nice - No-one's saying there can be no no-smoking areas or bars but why must you insist on all bars & clubs being non-smoking? Why must your rights take precedence over the right of some poor old seventy year old who's one pleasure in life is going to his local for a pint & a ciggie particularly if the bar owner & everyone else in the bar is quite happy for him to do so?

Being in a bar does not mean you consent to all and any activities that go on there.

[Samhain]

I think an interesting point was brought up earlier that I want to explore. Let me ask a question to those who are in favor of smoking bans. If cigarette smoking was banned in all bars, restaurants, etc. but tobacco was replaced by cannabis instead, how would you feel about that? Remove tobacco smoke from bars, etc. and replace it with cannabis smoke. Would those who are in favor of the smoking bans have a problem with this?

[Metaphor]

I think an interesting point was brought up earlier that I want to explore. Let me ask a question to those who are in favor of smoking bans. If cigarette smoking was banned in all bars, restaurants, etc. but tobacco was replaced by cannabis instead, how would you feel about that? Remove tobacco smoke from bars, etc. and replace it with cannabis smoke. Would those who are in favor of the smoking bans have a problem with this?

I'd have a problem with it. No-one should be forced to inhale someone else's drugs. However, if you can consume tobacco or marijuana without smoking it (you can, although chewing tobacco is extremely rare, and gross), then you aren't imposing that on anyone else.

[McD]

Being in a bar does not mean you consent to all and any activities that go on there.

You either consent to any and all activities (provided they are legal), you tolerate them, or you find another bar.

[Bonniedundee]

I never said it ceases to be private property.Yes you did.

Stoping smoking in a private bar in opposition to the wishes of the owner is a negation of private property.


What alternative do I have? Walk to another bus stop because some dickhead wants to violate public space? Wait until everyone who smokes is gone from the busstop? Have you any idea how a bus stop actually works?
Why are you talking about bus stops? Is it because you realise that the idea of regulations in private bars is absurd.

If a bus stop belongs to the community they should have the power to ban smoking, if it is private property the owner should.
But the state is not the community. It is rather the opposite, it is anti-social.

[Bonniedundee]

Being in a bar does not mean you consent to all and any activities that go on there.Yes it does, as long as you informed of them and can leave at any time.

[Metaphor]

Yes it does, as long as you informed of them and can leave at any time.

That's the same as saying living in Bush's America means you approve of him and everything he does. After all, you could emigrate, couldn't you?

Jesus H. Christ.

[Metaphor]

Yes you did.

Stoping smoking in a private bar in opposition to the wishes of the owner is a negation of private property.
.

You are pretty fixated on private property, even though the strongest form of private property - freehold title - is still subject to restrictions (as it should be). Historically speaking, freehold title wasn't even the default kind of title.


Why are you talking about bus stops? Is it because you realise that the idea of regulations in private bars is absurd..

No. A bus stop is a public place and so is a bar. The reason I talked about bus stops is because there is no free market alternative that I can pursue.

As for the bar example, in large cities where there are many establishments clamoring for my business, I *can* easily go to another bar and I've never denied this. What my concern is about are people in rural/remote regions who are forced to endure whatever monopoly is there, and hospitality employees.


If a bus stop belongs to the community they should have the power to ban smoking, if it is private property the owner should.
But the state is not the community. It is rather the opposite, it is anti-social.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the State on this thread.

[Bonniedundee]

That's the same as saying living in Bush's America means you approve of him and everything he does. After all, you could emigrate, couldn't you?What the bloody hell are you talking about? This is their property, it is a bar, how do you not understand this, by inviting people onto their property it does not magically become "public property".

I don't agree representative democracy or democracy in general so I don't think you should be subject to Bush if you don't want to anyway. On your property anyway.

[Bonniedundee]

You are pretty fixated on private property, even though the strongest form of private property - freehold title - is still subject to restrictions (as it should be). Historically speaking, freehold title wasn't even the default kind of title.It should not be subject to restrictions. I'm not talking about legal theories, but theories like Locke's or Henry George's or Ingall's etc, I have little interest in state granted titles.

No. A bus stop is a public place and so is a bar. The reason I talked about bus stops is because there is no free market alternative that I can pursue.
A bar is not a public place, it is not community property and a private bus stop is neither.

Can you show me your theoretical basis for the claim of "public places" on private proeprty?

As for the bar example, in large cities where there are many establishments clamoring for my business, I *can* easily go to another bar and I've never denied this. What my concern is about are people in rural/remote regions who are forced to endure whatever monopoly is there, and hospitality employees.There is no difference, in a free society at least.

Don't work in a bar that allows smoking and don't eat there.
I'm not going to get into a debate about the State on this thread.Then we should avoid the topic of state "owned" bus stops.

[Metaphor]

What the bloody hell are you talking about? This is their property, it is a bar, how do you not understand this, by inviting people onto their property it does not magically become "public property".

Please, CONTINUE TO MISREPRESENT MY POSITION. It makes me feel all gooey.

I said it became a public PLACE. A library is a public place. A restaurant is a public place. A town square is a public place. We have rules for people engaging in commerce.

Now, most people (although not necessarily most people on this board), would agree that it is wrong for a business to discriminate against races in hiring or service (eg a firm that only hired Hispanics or a restaurant that only let in blacks). Now, granted, if you think these businesses should be able to discriminate on race as well, or on anything, there is little I can say.

But when you entreat the public to engage in commerce with you, you are doing more than simply enjoying your private property.

[Bonniedundee]

I said it became a public PLACE. A library is a public place. A restaurant is a public place. A town square is a public place. We have rules for people engaging in commerce.That's great, we shouldn't have, as long as they do not coerce anyone or defraud them.
Now, most people (although not necessarily most people on this board), would agree that it is wrong for a business to discriminate against races in hiring or service (eg a firm that only hired Hispanics or a restaurant that only let in blacks). Now, granted, if you think these businesses should be able to discriminate on race as well, or on anything, there is little I can say.
Of course I think they should be able to do what they want, otherwise it not private property.

And who is going to stop them doing this?
But when you entreat the public to engage in commerce with you, you are doing more than simply enjoying your private property.No you are not, this is just a vague statement you are making, you provide no sound basis for it.

[Matty]

Even were there no medical harm, why should I be subjected to the smell of filthy cigarette smoke in my face and later on my clothes, whilst I am at the motor registry?

This is a bullshit argument based on subjective bias. If i dont like your aftershave, deoderant, car air freshner, BO, or anything else subjectively taste based you care to name, should it be legislated that you cant subject me to it in a public place? Of course not that would be total bollocks right?

[Metaphor]

This is a bullshit argument based on subjective bias. If i dont like your aftershave, deoderant, car air freshner, BO, or anything else subjectively taste based you care to name, should it be legislated that you cant subject me to it in a public place? Of course not that would be total bollocks right?

Yeah, totally analogous. Just the other day I SMOKED A JOINT OF DEODORANT AT THE MOTOR REGISTRY. I sucked it into my lungs and then expelled it into the air of people around me.

Deodorant is generally a measure people take to REDUCE offensive smells to society. Smoking is done with reckless indifference to what the smell does.

[Metaphor]

And who is going to stop them doing this?


Well, even that bastion of conservatism the United States has anti-discrimination laws. There are channels set up to challenge businesses who HAVE been discriminatory.

Now, there is a separate debate about the EFFICACY of anti-discrimination laws (I am not naive enough to believe that in some cases businesses could cover up their discrimination).

[Pavlov's Dog]

This is their property, it is a bar, how do you not understand this, by inviting people onto their property it does not magically become "public property".

Because it does (although not magically). That is probably why he is having a difficult time understanding it.

[coloradoatheist]

Because it does. That is probably why he is having a difficult time understanding it.

And that's why I asked if I bring someone home from the bars does it now make it a public place and the govt the right to dictate whether or not I have sex with that person? Can you name any Founding Father who believed that a place of business was in fact different than private property?


Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Well, even that bastion of conservatism the United States has anti-discrimination laws. There are channels set up to challenge businesses who HAVE been discriminatory.

Now, there is a separate debate about the EFFICACY of anti-discrimination laws (I am not naive enough to believe that in some cases businesses could cover up their discrimination).In other words the state will enforce these regulations.

Well we have just opened up a whole other can of worms here.

[Pavlov's Dog]

This is a bullshit argument based on subjective bias. If i dont like your aftershave, deoderant, car air freshner, BO, or anything else subjectively taste based you care to name, should it be legislated that you cant subject me to it in a public place? Of course not that would be total bollocks right?

Deodorants, etc. are not as intrusive as smoke. Let's say you own a home, would it be cool for your neighbor to set up a chimney that blows smoke into your house? Then why is it okay for people to blow it into your face, or into your hair, or clothes?

[coloradoatheist]

Well, even that bastion of conservatism the United States has anti-discrimination laws. There are channels set up to challenge businesses who HAVE been discriminatory.

Now, there is a separate debate about the EFFICACY of anti-discrimination laws (I am not naive enough to believe that in some cases businesses could cover up their discrimination).


And anti-discrimination laws were a reach by Congress, abusing their powers. However pretty much now the Constitution means anything the govt wants to do.

Mike

[coloradoatheist]

Deodorants, etc. are not as intrusive as smoke. Let's say you own a home, would it be cool for your neighbor to set up a chimney that blows smoke into your house? Then why is it okay for people to blow it into your face, or into your hair, or clothes?

Perfumes can be irritants and allergy causing so yes they can have the same effect as smoke short term.

Mike

[Metaphor]

And that's why I asked if I bring someone home from the bars does it now make it a public place and the govt the right to dictate whether or not I have sex with that person? Can you name any Founding Father who believed that a place of business was in fact different than private property?


Mike

Your home is not being used as a general place to entreat commerce.

[Bonniedundee]

Because it does. That is probably why he is having a difficult time understanding it.Okay leaving aside your views on the validity of private property(I'm a mutualist and do not support, although I accept as legitimate, the lockean rights I'm championing for simplicities sake here.) how do you insert into property rights theory that private property becomes "public property" when commerce takes place there.

This doesn't fit into lockean or any other property rights theory I know.

[Metaphor]

Perfumes can be irritants and allergy causing so yes they can have the same effect as smoke short term.

Mike

No one sprays perfume on other people in public places, unless they are psychotic.

[coloradoatheist]

Your home is not being used as a general place to entreat commerce.

Can you name a FF who believed that?


Mike

[Metaphor]

Okay leaving aside your views on the validity of private property(I'm a mutualist and do not support, although I accept as legitimate, the lockean rights I'm championing for simplicities sake here.) how do you insert into property rights theory that private property becomes "public property" when commerce takes place there.

This doesn't fit into lockean or any other property rights theory I know.

Public property and a public place are different. A military barracks is public property (owned by the state) but it is not a public place.

[Metaphor]

Can you name a FF who believed that?


Mike

What?

[coloradoatheist]

No one sprays perfume on other people in public places, unless they are psychotic.

It's the odor from the perfume. Personally I'm not effected but I know several people who are.

Mike

[Pavlov's Dog]

And that's why I asked if I bring someone home from the bars does it now make it a public place and the govt the right to dictate whether or not I have sex with that person?

In most cases no, but that is because simply inviting someone into your home is not the same as opening your home to the public for business.

Can you name any Founding Father who believed that a place of business was in fact different than private property?

No. Can you name a Catholic Pope that believed that? Either way it is irrelevant.

[Bonniedundee]

Your home is not being used as a general place to entreat commerce.So, please enlighten us how using a place for commerce allows the community some powers over your property.

If you were talking about some system of communism or syndaclism devised by the local community and conducive with self-ownership I could see your point, but you are simply talking about the state slapping a regulation on private property.

[coloradoatheist]

What?

Can you name a Founding Father who believed that a business was considered a public place and private property didn't apply to them like a house?


Mike

[Metaphor]

And anti-discrimination laws were a reach by Congress, abusing their powers. However pretty much now the Constitution means anything the govt wants to do.

Mike

Well then there isn't much further I can say. Of course, the majority of the world actually lives somewhere OTHER than the United States.

[Metaphor]

Can you name a Founding Father who believed that a business was considered a public place and private property didn't apply to them like a house?


Mike

No, I'm not intimate with the musings of the Founding Fathers, nor am I aware that they ever addressed such an issue directly, or if there position can be implied.

But frankly they are neither alive nor infallible.

[coloradoatheist]

Well then there isn't much further I can say. Of course, the majority of the world actually lives somewhere OTHER than the United States.

That's fine, then under another countries rules they can dictate it, however the US is run by the Constitution.

Mike

[Bonniedundee]

Public property and a public place are different. A military barracks is public property (owned by the state) but it is not a public place.But how does your place of business suddenly become governed by the community(the fact you confuse the state with the community is another matter.) just by you having commerce done there.

Let's just take the basic lockean framework, how can you insert this into that?

[Metaphor]

It's the odor from the perfume. Personally I'm not effected but I know several people who are.

Mike

If there was a public health risk that would be a separate issue.

[coloradoatheist]

If there was a public health risk that would be a separate issue.

http://www.safety-council.org/info/OSH/perfume.html


Mike

[Pavlov's Dog]

Okay leaving aside your views on the validity of private property(I'm a mutualist and do not support, although I accept as legitimate, the lockean rights I'm championing for simplicities sake here.) how do you insert into property rights theory that private property becomes "public property" when commerce takes place there.

This doesn't fit into lockean or any other property rights theory I know.

So? It fits with current theory and practice of property rights in my country. I don't really care if it fits into a Lockean theory of property rights. When you open up your property to the public, it becomes public (at least partially). You can have a club, where you only allow specific members in and maintain your privacy. That probably won't be really good for most businesses.

[Bonniedundee]

So? It fits with current theory and practice of property rights in my country.The only theory is the state decides them. This principle is unjust, illogical and leads to the basest tyranny, you are simply saying the state should decide all property rights rules.

And then I'm sure you will about private property being evil and unjust when the only theory of property in your country is the state decides private property rules.

Do you believe the individual owns themself? Or do you belief some people own themselves and others? Or do you believe no one owns anyone, including themselves?

If you choose the first(and this is the only logical and just choice.) then the property rights theory that the state should decide all is unjust.

[Pavlov's Dog]

The only theory is the state decides them.

Actually, it is basically 5 people who decides them. Pretty crazy, huh? Makes me wonder how I have such a good life here with all this tyranny and oppression.

Do you believe the individual owns themself?

Basically, although you can sell yourself or parts of yourself (i.e. contract) to others in some capacity.

If you choose the first(and this is the only logical and just choice.) then the property rights theory that the state should decide all is unjust.

No it is not.

[Bonniedundee]

Actually, it is basically 5 people who decides them. Pretty crazy, huh? Makes me wonder how I have such a good life here with all this tyranny and oppression.That is great.
Basically, although you can sell yourself or parts of yourself (i.e. contract) to others in some capacity.Then you cannot believe the state can dictate any property rights it wants, what if it wants slavery, how can you own yourself then?

No it is not.Yes it is. If you own yourself, you own your labour which of course you can sell, any tampering with this right is a denial of self-ownership.

If there is enough land to go around and you mix your labour with unowned land you own that land, any tampering with this by the state, including granting unowned land to those who don't mix their labour with it, this is a violation of self-ownership.

Hence if the state intervenes in your property by regulating smoking it violates your ownership of yourself.

It makes you a slave to it.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Yes it is. If you own yourself, you own your labour which of course you can sell, any tampering with this right is a denial of self-ownership.

You sell part of it (i.e. contract) away in exchange for the protection of the state. Because you missed this part, the rest of your post does not follow.

[Bonniedundee]

You sell part of it (i.e. contract) away in exchange for the protection of the state. Because you missed this part, the rest of your post does not follow.I never made this agreement, did you?

I have signed no contract with the state. If you cannot take your consent away, and cut yourself and your legitimate property off from the state you cannot be said to have consented.

You are just reiterating the long dead social contract theory.

[Pavlov's Dog]

I never made this agreement, did you?

Yes, I did. But it is what occurs, whether I made the agreement or not.

I have signed no contract with the state.

No signature is required.

If you cannot take your consent away, and cut yourself and your legitimate property off from the state you cannot be said to have consented.

Yes, you can. You can take your consent away by leaving and taking your body that you own with you.

You are just reiterating the long dead social contract theory.

Maybe the theory is dead, but the practice continues. I am living in it, and so are you.

[Bonniedundee]

Yes, I did. But it is what occurs, whether I made the argument or not.No it is not, it is absurd to say you made an agreement in which you have no choice about.

No signature is required.A direct agreement is.

Yes, you can. You can take your consent away by leaving and taking your body that you own with you.If I can't take my legitimate property and land with me, I can't be said to consent nor to own my body.

Your argument is simply heads you win tails I lose.

[Pavlov's Dog]

No it is not, it is absurd to say you made an agreement in which you have no choice about.

I can leave, but other areas are not going to give me agreements that are as good. I can also attempt to change parts of the contract within the framework of the contract, or overthrow the government to get a whole new contract or no contract at all.

A direct agreement is.

Not really.

If I can't take my legitimate property and land with me, I can't be said to consent nor to own my body.

Your only legitimate property is yourself. You can take yourself. Your land is more complicated, and if I am correct about what you consider legitimate, then the land is not legitimate property.

Your argument is simply heads you win tails I lose.

No, my argument is my way is practical and yours is not.

[Bonniedundee]

I can leave, but other areas are not going to give me agreements that are as good. I can also attempt to change parts of the contract within the framework of the contract, or overthrow the government to get a whole new contract or no contract at all.
But you cannot take your legitimate property with you? Then you have no choice, you are really unfree.

Your only legitimate property is yourself. You can take yourself. Your land is more complicated, and if I am correct about what you consider legitimate, then the land is not legitimate property.
Are you a communist? If the local community were to choose communist property rights in their area, then I'm fine with that, but the way you seem to put it is a violation of self-ownership.

In your system you don't even legitimately own yourself, the state or what is the same thing, the ruling classes own you.

I can understand the idea that land is not created by your labour and therefore cannot be yours for ever and in some sense it still the communities, but the it is even less the states.

No, my argument is my way is practical and yours is not.What do you mean practical? My system is as workable as yours, however it is not very implementable at the moment as the state would send its goons after anyone who tried.

You seem just to be talking about social contract theory, this has been destroyed, I suggest you look up Herbert Spencer or Lysander Spooner's No treason.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm

That a man is free to abandon the benefits and throw off the burdens of citizenship, may indeed be inferred from the admissions of existing authorities and of current opinion. Unprepared as they probably are for so extreme a doctrine as the one here maintained, the radicals of our day yet unwittingly profess their belief in a maxim which obviously embodies this doctrine. Do we not continually hear them quote Blackstone's assertion that "no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defence of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament?" And what does this mean? It means, say they, that every man should have a vote. True: but it means much more. If there is any sense in words it is a distinct enunciation of the very right now contended for. In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed, is to cut all connection with the state. Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do, when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views — what them? The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted — whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A's consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!

It is for those who quote Blackstone to choose between this absurdity and the doctrine above set forth. Either his maxim implies the right to ignore the state, or it is sheer nonsense.

[Xrikcus]

If public laws cannot apply to restaurants because restaurants are private places, then why do we have food hygiene standards regulations? Why is a restaurant not allowed to serve food that's been left in the sun for a few weeks? Presumably to protect the safety of the public who are likely to use the restaurant, hence making it publicly regulated to some extent. Smoking regulation is an extension of the same idea. By advertising that you accept the public in and offering services to them, you are implicitly accepting government regulation relating to the way you deal with members of said public.


No one sprays perfume on other people in public places, unless they are psychotic.

I've been tempted to do it to smokers. It's only fair, afterall, and they're welcome to leave. Obviously it's only ever been a temptation, because I've always been too polite to do it, if only that were mutual. Not that there's likely to be much need in the near future, praise the god of health scares.

[McD]

If public laws cannot apply to restaurants because restaurants are private places, then why do we have food hygiene standards regulations? Why is a restaurant not allowed to serve food that's been left in the sun for a few weeks? Presumably to protect the safety of the public who are likely to use the restaurant, hence making it publicly regulated to some extent. Smoking regulation is an extension of the same idea.

No it isn't. Smoking is a legal activity. I guarantee you if your kid came over to my house and I intentionally served him rotten food I would go to jail.

[Pavlov's Dog]

No it isn't. Smoking is a legal activity. I guarantee you if your kid came over to my house and I intentionally served him rotten food I would go to jail.

If his kid came over to his house and you intentionally gave him food laced with nicotine and several other of the chemicals found in cigarettes you would go to jail as well.

[coloradoatheist]

If his kid came over to his house and you intentionally gave him food laced with nicotine and several other of the chemicals found in cigarettes you would go to jail as well.

Since as I kid you don't have authority to enter a contract......However as an adult if I said here is some nicotine do you want it you should be able to say yes.


Mike

[Pavlov's Dog]

You seem just to be talking about social contract theory, this has been destroyed, I suggest you look up Herbert Spencer or Lysander Spooner's No treason.

But it hasn't been destroyed. I am living in a version of it right now. So are you. A philosopher not liking a theory does not mean anything to me. Don't think of it as an agreed upon contract. Think of it as extortion if that makes it fit in with your ideas. I don't really care.

[Xrikcus]

Since as I kid you don't have authority to enter a contract......However as an adult if I said here is some nicotine do you want it you should be able to say yes.

I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to accept rotten food if you're told it's rotten, either. That would have to be done on an individual basis, though.

Anyway, that wasn't the point. I wasn't suggesting you intentionally make the food rotten, I was suggesting that through negligence it becomes so. Allowing smoking in a restaurant isn't intent either, you don't intend people to smoke, you just don't specify that they shouldn't. It's closer to negligence in that sense.

Now, given that you have negligently let food get rotten by not carefully putting procedures in place to keep it refrigerated, you could still be at the receiving end of legal action. It would be harder in the case of a friend giving you rotten food when visiting.

More importantly, of course, there are regulations applying to restaurants to ensure that they do not breach standards of hygiene and ensuring they meet certain standards for food, against which one could make a claim in a food poisoning case, or an inspector might randomly visit and request changes anyway. These are not the case for cooking at home. That would be the difference between a restaurant, with its obligation to make a certain effort to provide a safe service for paying customers, and a home, even though the restaurant is, indeed, private property.

[enoch007]

If you ban smoking I will be forced to kill your children. Sorry.

[general_koffi]

In private residences/cars etc: Screw that. People have the right to screw up their own bodies.

In restaurants/bars: Since so many people evidently don't want to be around second-hand smoke, such establishments would ban smoking, or have designated areas for smoking voluntarily. If that is not the case, then clearly there aren't enough people who care about second-hand smoke, and thus the laws are a loud minority forcing their morality onto the majority.

In public places: The negative health effects of second-hand smoke have been grossly exaggerated.

[Jimmy Higgins]

In restaurants/bars: Since so many people evidently don't want to be around second-hand smoke, such establishments would ban smoking, or have designated areas for smoking voluntarily. If that is not the case, then clearly there aren't enough people who care about second-hand smoke, and thus the laws are a loud minority forcing their morality onto the majority.You mean like the employees (possibly pregnant) who work there... say in a bar or maybe a casino, where it's either that or work for less at the gas station or what not?

[Xrikcus]

Since so many people evidently don't want to be around second-hand smoke, such establishments would ban smoking, or have designated areas for smoking voluntarily.

Polls I've seen here suggest that the majority of people would prefer bars to be smoke free. They don't feel strongly enough about it to not go in at all. Most are like me, I suppose. I would go to bars more if they were smoke free, and have a tendency to avoid them, but if I'm with a group who smoke, or there happens to be no other choice I'll go anyway. As there are NO smoke free pubs in my area, there's no noticeable market to balance and so it's never going to move. There are some with non smoking areas, and they seem to do pretty well with it. Unfortunately at my local, someone didn't put much thought into it and made the area with the proper dinner tables the smoking area...

If you ban smoking I will be forced to kill your children. Sorry.

Ah well, no great loss. You're on.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Argument against smoking bans?

Restaurants and bars are not actually public property, but are privately owned. Owners set the rules for the use of their property, and you set the rules for the use of your property. A smart restaurant owner will have non-smoking facilities because he still wants your money.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Restaurants and bars are not actually public property, but are privately owned.

As has already been stated, in the US this is not true. When you open your doors to the paying public, it is no longer purely private property.

[general_koffi]

You mean like the employees (possibly pregnant) who work there... say in a bar or maybe a casino, where it's either that or work for less at the gas station or what not?

No one is forcing you to work in a bar that allows smoking anymore than someone forces you to drive a dynamite truck or be a member of LAPD SWAT. You agree to the terms when you sign the contract, or you go somewhere else.

Polls I've seen here suggest that the majority of people would prefer bars to be smoke free. They don't feel strongly enough about it to not go in at all.

Well, it's not the government's job to second-guess citizens' choice and make up their mind for them.

If they don't feel strongly enough about it, then the government certainly has no place passing laws. In the order of drastic action, choosing not to patronize an establishment comes before passing a law.

[Xrikcus]

At their great inconvenience. The point is that you're asking the equivalent of people getting a small amount of extra income in the future if they are willing to pay out a very large sum now. That is it'll be nice to not smell after an evening out, but who's going to not socialise at all in the meantime until businesses get that message? It's not an opportunity to play the market because the smoke free places aren't on the menu.

[Jimmy Higgins]

No one is forcing you to work in a bar that allows smoking anymore than someone forces you to drive a dynamite truck or be a member of LAPD SWAT. You agree to the terms when you sign the contract, or you go somewhere else.You know, life isn't all big city you know. There are some that it's either the gas station or the bar. There aren't all these options. You starve working at the gas station or you risk lung cancer to make more money working at the bar.

[Autonemesis]

Actually, I do care, but I have two positions that work against the idea of the smoking bans. One of them is scientific, and the other is economic (based upon Libertarian ideals). Is it impossible for me to hold two different reasons for coming to the same conclusion?

The science position doesn't support the "libertarian" conclusion. The libertarian conclusion must ignore the science, or place economic interests ahead of public health interests.

Look, I live in California, a state that pioneered the smoking bans, but I have definite problems with bans on many things even if I'm not a smoker. I think the health risks have been exaggerated for the typical non-smoker,

Then you do not actually adhere to the scientific position, which explains why you think it doesn't contradict the libertarian position. You hold to some other position that is critical of the mainstream scientific view that passive smoking is a public health problem, and that many thousands of people get sick and die from it every year. That's fine of course, you can disagree with the scientific consensus, but claiming that such a position IS the scientific consensus is wrong.

[Samhain]

The science position doesn't support the "libertarian" conclusion. The libertarian conclusion must ignore the science, or place economic interests ahead of public health interests.

I would say that that is untrue. The libertarian conclusion does not have to ignore science, but has to allow that public health interest is best maintained within the public sphere and to typically let the market make it's own decisions. Economically there may have been some benefit to the smoking bans, but there are hundreds of examples in which it has hurt business. The amazing thing about the States is that there are typically many choices when it comes to the private sector as far as establishments you might be able to frequent, and smokers have dwindled over the years, which would suggest that if a state such as California were to lift the ban not all restaurants would reinstate smoking sections, but some would, places that are typically smoker frequented (i.e. certain bars, clubs, etc.).

Another question that I would ask, but I would maintain that I am attempting to avoid a slippery slope argument here, is that if one decides to smoke in his/her own backyard then does this cease to be private property since the smoke can, in theory, drift over into a neighbors backyard?

Then you do not actually adhere to the scientific position, which explains why you think it doesn't contradict the libertarian position. You hold to some other position that is critical of the mainstream scientific view that passive smoking is a public health problem, and that many thousands of people get sick and die from it every year. That's fine of course, you can disagree with the scientific consensus, but claiming that such a position IS the scientific consensus is wrong.

As I stated before, I am critical of the scientific consensus because it does not allow for other alternatives to be explored, it simply systematically bans all forms of public smoking without granting the possibility that there are other options that could possibly cater to both smokers and non-smokers alike (such as, but not limited to, the reduction of carcinogens within cigarettes, or the possibility of allowing for establishments to meet a certain air-exchange standard which would minimalize the effects of passive smoking, mostly for the sake of the employees that work at said establishments). It also does not present any conclusive data on the effects of passive smoke with limited exposure (i.e. what is it equitable to? if it's equitable to sitting in traffic and breathing in exhaust fumes from the car in front of you then is the potential health risk as serious as it's made out to be?). It would seem to me that many of the people here who support bans on smoking do so from an emotional standpoint...non-smokers are typically "disgusted" with the smell of cigarette smoke, but this is a subjective viewpoint; I've known many people who do not smoke who are comforted by the smell of cigarette, cigar or pipe tobacco smoke when they are around it...these cases may be limited, but it still shows that it is subjective.

[Metaphor]

In public places: The negative health effects of second-hand smoke have been grossly exaggerated.

So you think people should be able to smoke at the motor registry?

[McD]

I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to accept rotten food if you're told it's rotten, either. That would have to be done on an individual basis, though.

Anyway, that wasn't the point. I wasn't suggesting you intentionally make the food rotten, I was suggesting that through negligence it becomes so. Allowing smoking in a restaurant isn't intent either, you don't intend people to smoke, you just don't specify that they shouldn't. It's closer to negligence in that sense.

Now, given that you have negligently let food get rotten by not carefully putting procedures in place to keep it refrigerated, you could still be at the receiving end of legal action. It would be harder in the case of a friend giving you rotten f