Smoking Ban : A Libertarian Nightmare?
- Thread starter Kludge
- Start date
andrewh817
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2008
- Messages
- 674
Government bans are out of the question, business owners I think should have the right to make smokers go outside, but certainly have no authority outside their property
I am personally for banning smoking. I dont smoke myself and I absolutely hate the smell and the smoke makes me cough A LOT. I just hate it.
But self-interest aside, person A is correct. I personally object it but I cant object it on a society-level, people have the right to smoke if they want. IMO smoking is not so cool anymore, a lot less people smoke these days so there is no reason to ban it.
But self-interest aside, person A is correct. I personally object it but I cant object it on a society-level, people have the right to smoke if they want. IMO smoking is not so cool anymore, a lot less people smoke these days so there is no reason to ban it.
mellamojuana
Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2008
- Messages
- 157
We're still fighting for the right to kill ourselves & one another
Someone who smokes made the point that people are interested only in their own immediate gratification.
Before government bans, I couldn't go to public libraries in my state, a very big tobacco state, without breathing cadmium, tar, nicotine, and all the particulate matter of other readers' personal smoke. I was also allowed to inhale hydrogen cyanide from the same source. That particular chemical is used in state-sanctioned executions, aka "the gas chamber."
I avoid places and people who smoke. I have to. My father has emphysema because of his job (not a smoker, not around smokers); three other family members have asthma. They have to avoid tobacco smoke, also.
It's wonderful for people to have absolute liberty; however, in my tiny rural area, I have few choices in places to go to buy. I can't just go to the one that might say, "No Smoking Please" because it likely doesn't exist. After all, as one smoker says, interest lies in immediate gratification.
If a business owner must post signs in order for the public to know whether his/her place is smoke-free, what happens to the liberties of the businessperson? Who will insure that highly sensitive people don't go into a building unwarned that it is full of smoke, if business folk don't bother to have their freedoms infringed on to post signs? How many signs? And where? Is the businessperson liable if a patron goes out on a stretcher to the Emergency Room because business was just that--busy-ness--and too busy and too free to have to post warning signs?
I dnk. I breathed stinky smoke for many, many decades, and thought that ASH and GASP and other non-smokers' rights groups had made some inroads into the entrenched thinking that "It's my pleasure; I'll have it anywhere I please, anytime I please, to heqq with you."
I guess we're back to Square One. I always pushed for a higher tax on tobacco. I'm not even coming back to this thread because I believe, by now, I have heard it all basically, about why "Smokers have rights." Please don't exercise them in my and my family's air. Thanks.
Gasp.
Someone who smokes made the point that people are interested only in their own immediate gratification.
Before government bans, I couldn't go to public libraries in my state, a very big tobacco state, without breathing cadmium, tar, nicotine, and all the particulate matter of other readers' personal smoke. I was also allowed to inhale hydrogen cyanide from the same source. That particular chemical is used in state-sanctioned executions, aka "the gas chamber."
I avoid places and people who smoke. I have to. My father has emphysema because of his job (not a smoker, not around smokers); three other family members have asthma. They have to avoid tobacco smoke, also.
It's wonderful for people to have absolute liberty; however, in my tiny rural area, I have few choices in places to go to buy. I can't just go to the one that might say, "No Smoking Please" because it likely doesn't exist. After all, as one smoker says, interest lies in immediate gratification.
If a business owner must post signs in order for the public to know whether his/her place is smoke-free, what happens to the liberties of the businessperson? Who will insure that highly sensitive people don't go into a building unwarned that it is full of smoke, if business folk don't bother to have their freedoms infringed on to post signs? How many signs? And where? Is the businessperson liable if a patron goes out on a stretcher to the Emergency Room because business was just that--busy-ness--and too busy and too free to have to post warning signs?
I dnk. I breathed stinky smoke for many, many decades, and thought that ASH and GASP and other non-smokers' rights groups had made some inroads into the entrenched thinking that "It's my pleasure; I'll have it anywhere I please, anytime I please, to heqq with you."
I guess we're back to Square One. I always pushed for a higher tax on tobacco. I'm not even coming back to this thread because I believe, by now, I have heard it all basically, about why "Smokers have rights." Please don't exercise them in my and my family's air. Thanks.
Gasp.The constitution states that rights may not be infringed upon - UNLESS they infringe upon someone elses right. I used to smoke but stopped right after I left the US Air Force - it just wasnt good for me to ingest 4000 chemicals
Now if I didnt like people smoking around me - I left - no biggie. Where does one persons liberty start and one persons gets restricted?
Now if I didnt like people smoking around me - I left - no biggie. Where does one persons liberty start and one persons gets restricted?
Live_Free_Or_Die
Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 5,852
nt
Last edited:
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
Its not really about smoking, its a foot in the door to enforcing ANYTHING that is unhealthy. Thing is about a situation like this is that its a popular excuse since people are unequally divided. But what this will be an open door for is to come into your house and monitor your salt intake because insurance companies have to pay for your health problems, they will claim the same thing as "victims of second hand smoke" in a less round a bout way. Now granted there is no such thing as Second Hand Salt (not smoke, SALT) and Im the victim because I have to pay more for my insurance premiums because of your unhealthy habits.
Theres no nightmare. Its the property owners / business owners right to declare what he / she will or will not allow on their property. But these rights that people have stand between big businesses and larger profits so they need to get those pesky rights out of the way. The government solution to any problem is usually worse than the problem itself.
Theres no nightmare. Its the property owners / business owners right to declare what he / she will or will not allow on their property. But these rights that people have stand between big businesses and larger profits so they need to get those pesky rights out of the way. The government solution to any problem is usually worse than the problem itself.
Similar threads
