2nd hand smokers can kill people who try to avoid them, more bannings are neccesary

[thomez]

why should people in bumfuck Ohio care how well New York City bars are doing and use that as some kind of reasoning that these laws are peachy?? ... nobody in New York City is sending the local bowling alley a check, I can promise you that

using NYC as an example is .... pathetic ... it is a circumstance unlike almost any other in the country

[Thorgrim]

If people in Ohio cared so much about the law, maybe they should vote on their lawmakers

I see no "right to poison others with second hand smoke" in the consitution...smoking is legal but so are fireworks, that doesn't mean everyone has a constitutional right to use loud fireworks at 4am every morning in a residential neighborhood

If state and local governments want to ban smoking, thats their right and if the people disagree they can vote them out, if this new evidence is brought before many city councils and state houses, I believe there will be a bigger effort to ban smoking more often...it's constitutional, its legal, and its also the right thing to do

Cancer causing agents fill up buildings, it's very hard to avoid when people are allowed to light up inside a lot of these public buildings and there's no law against it...what's next, the free market has to come in and produce an identical town next to it, one that's completely smoke free in all publically accessable buildings?

It's giving everything to smokers and punishing non-smokers, the most logical thing to do is to ban smoking if the city/state agrees and if the people think it's been great (as others here have seem to have approved of smokeless environments) then it's up to the smokers to do something for themselves and not try to ignore the law and force cancer on other people

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I disagree. I think it should be banned in public because I do not want to breath it. If you want to smoke in your car or in your house, fine but not in public. If an eating establishment is to have a smoking and a non smoking section they need to be completely seperate and filter the air.

if it is just smoking then I can choose not to eat there.

Can't we say the same thing about weed?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

Can't we say the same thing about weed?

... Yes?

[nbiggershaft]

1. Everyone knows about the danger of second hand smoke.
2. Unlike most things I argue with Libertarians, people have 100% choice over where they take the eating and drinking business. If enough people in an area want things to be smoke free, businesses will be smoke free.
3. Heart disease, for example, kills alot more people than cigarette smoke. Should we force restaurants to provide a healthy low fat menu, is that really necessary? Or do people just find businesses or cook for themselves to fit their needs?

[imind]

you've got a couple of good points, thor, that can be intelligently argued. for instance, employees should not be exposed to 'dangers to their health', as people need to work, but even this is a bit of a stretch. and hotels, as well, given the laws of denying rooms, which i think are somewhat reasonable, but not without intelligent arguements existing against them.

but you seem to suggest that people have a right to be entertained, and going to a club or restaurant is entertainment, regardless of the angle of your perspective. you mentioned only having a couple of restaurants/bars to go to in a particular town, and seem to suggest they have no place else to go. but its purely entertainment, they don't have to go there for any reason. its unfair, sure, but thats all it is and, frankly, i feel no sincere pity for those who have no restaurant/bar to go to, and i can think of no intelligent reasoning to suggest they have some right to entertainment.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

1. Everyone knows about the danger of second hand smoke.
2. Unlike most things I argue with Libertarians, people have 100% choice over where they take the eating and drinking business. If enough people in an area want things to be smoke free, businesses will be smoke free.
3. Heart disease, for example, kills alot more people than cigarette smoke. Should we force restaurants to provide a healthy low fat menu, is that really necessary? Or do people just find businesses or cook for themselves to fit their needs?

There's a big difference between forcing someone to eat a meal, and sitting down to dinner...seeing no smoke and then all of a sudden in the middle of it being poisoned by cancerous-causing agents

What, you think they have the right to get up and leave in the middle of the meal, without paying? That everyone needs to phone the owner several days in advance of going to restaurant to know exactly how they handle smoking and possible non-smoking sections?

Also, you think a 16 year old who has all his friends goes to a club really has the maturity and knowledge to forsake all his friday night plans and weigh the options of 2nd hand smoking?

There are too many examples where people can go out of their way to avoid cancer agents from smoking and still get them because smokers come in and start poisoning the building or their kids sneak out and go to places where they, in their very small teenage minds, think 2nd hand smoke is no big deal

After all there are still tobacco scientists who raise "doubts" about second hand smoke, why shouldn't any teenager believe them?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by imind

you've got a couple of good points, thor, that can be intelligently argued. for instance, employees should not be exposed to 'dangers to their health', as people need to work, but even this is a bit of a stretch. and hotels, as well, given the laws of denying rooms, which i think are somewhat reasonable, but not without intelligent arguements existing against them.

but you seem to suggest that people have a right to be entertained, and going to a club or restaurant is entertainment, regardless of the angle of your perspective. you mentioned only having a couple of restaurants/bars to go to in a particular town, and seem to suggest they have no place else to go. but its purely entertainment, they don't have to go there for any reason. its unfair, sure, but thats all it is and, frankly, i feel no sincere pity for those who have no restaurant/bar to go to, and i can think of no intelligent reasoning to suggest they have some right to entertainment.

when you get to strict rights...workers have the RIGHT to work in an environment that does not cause cancer, unless they accept a hazard contract with hazard pay (which no one has suggested...that bartenders get hazard pay and sign special contracts)

And people should have the RIGHT to eat when they are hungry and the only close place to get a decent meal seems smoke free...until they start eating (ibThe17yearOldWaitressShouldKnowAllTheAnswers)

[imind]

when you get to strict rights...workers have the RIGHT to work in an environment that does not cause cancer, unless they accept a hazard contract with hazard pay (which no one has suggested...that bartenders get hazard pay and sign special contracts)

as i said before, this arguement has some merit, but...

And people should have the RIGHT to eat when they are hungry and the only close place to get a decent meal seems smoke free...until they start eating (ibThe17yearOldWaitressShouldKnowAllTheAnswers)

so the owners advertise that its not smoke free. does this solve this dilemma?

nobody forced these people to leave home, and nobody is preventing them from going to a grocery store for food. under no circumstances, even if its the only restaurant for 500 miles, do these people have to be there.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by imind

as i said before, this arguement has some merit, but...
so the owners advertise that its not smoke free. does this solve this dilemma?

nobody forced these people to leave home, and nobody is preventing them from going to a grocery store for food. under no circumstances, even if its the only restaurant for 500 miles, do these people have to be there.

People don't HAVE TO HAVE or NEED homes, they could always live in homeless shelters or move to a warm place like miami and find a spot in the shade

People don't HAVE TO HAVE or NEED clothes, the salvation army always has some

People don't HAVE TO HAVE or NEED grocery stores or restaurants, food kitchens always hand out as much white bread as you can eat

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by motivez

I never said it was. I'm talking about in public, why should we allow someone to poison me?

there is more pollution from car exhaust and industry then from cigarettes

[imind]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

People don't HAVE TO HAVE or NEED homes, they could always live in homeless shelters or move to a warm place like miami and find a spot in the shade

People don't HAVE TO HAVE or NEED clothes, the salvation army always has some

People don't HAVE TO HAVE or NEED grocery stores or restaurants, food kitchens always hand out as much white bread as you can eat

and its great that they can be provided, and in abudance. but none of the above are fundamental rights beyond being given enough for survival and good health.

restaurants/bars are necessary for neither.

Originally Posted by diesel

there is more pollution from car exhaust and industry then from cigarettes

it could be argued that these pollutants are necessary (temporary) evils.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by imind

and its great that they can be provided, and in abudance. but none of the above are fundamental rights beyond being given enough for survival and good health.

restaurants/bars are necessary for neither.

it could be argued that these pollutants are necessary (temporary) evils.

why are they fundamental rights...because you said so? I don't see "food, clothing and shelter" requirements in the constitution

[imind]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

why are they fundamental rights...because you said so? I don't see "food, clothing and shelter" requirements in the constitution

we seem to be coming back to this question in many threads. its a valid question, and worthy of its own thread, IMO

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by imind

we seem to be coming back to this question in many threads. its a valid question, and worthy of its own thread, IMO

I wouldn't really like that thread, philosophers have been debating rights for thousands of years, what do you honestly think is going to get accomplished in a thread on a partisan board?

The point of this thread however, is that banning smoking is gaining momentum, and now more science supports the foundation for banning smoking in public places

[imind]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I wouldn't really like that thread, philosophers have been debating rights for thousands of years, what do you honestly think is going to get accomplished in a thread on a partisan board?

probably not much, but its discussion is unavoidable to this topic

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The point of this thread however, is that banning smoking is gaining momentum, and now more science supports the foundation for banning smoking in public places

i disagree. more science supports that second hand smoke is bad. scientists will not decide whether its 'right' to ban it, though, 'philosophers' will.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

And people should have the RIGHT to eat when they are hungry and the only close place to get a decent meal seems smoke free...until they start eating (ibThe17yearOldWaitressShouldKnowAllTheAnswers)

No they shouldn't, no more then they have the right to be provided healthy foods. Leave people some amount of responsibility of their lives, I don't go to mcdonalds because it is bad for me. People can not go to a smoking bar because it is bad for them. Or they can, they can choose to do something that is bad for them. Smoking bans are prime example of choosing popular hysteria over liberty.

[nbiggershaft]

why does southpark say everything perfectly
Video ©hris BREB4N 5555 - Butt, Out, Smoke, Cricket, Amazing - Dailymotion Share Your Videos

[Linzyhop]

I don't smoke and yes I agree it's awesome living in Mass and RI since the smoking ban went into effect. i can go out to a bar and not come home smelling like an ashtray.

Guess Thorgrim isn't going to be vacationing in smoke-filled Europe any time soon....