Smoking Ban : A Libertarian Nightmare?

[Kludge]

**THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION I POSED TO THE PEOPLE RESIDING WITHIN MY MIND.**

Congress introduces a bill that bans smoking within 200 meters of any place which the public has access to (including privately-owned businesses)

Person A: This bill is ridiculous. Firstly, the government would be impeding on the person's civil liberty to smoke. This would be like saying we're required to wear a seatbelt in order to operate their vehicle in accordance to law (Yes, I know it's a law...). Secondly, how could you enforce this "200 meter" limit? Unless you withdrew smokers' rights to due process, police would need to devise a way to accurately record the suspect's distance that couldn't be easily falsified at the time of the crime, while recording the crime being committed."

Person B: Life trumps freedom. You are being aggressive when you force the other person to breathe in the toxic fumes of a cigarette.

A: No one told them to breathe. Moreover, no one told them to go to Generic Business Q where they don't have a smoking ban in place.

B: ... What about people with asthma or those who can have migraines triggered by cigarette smoke? It's an obviously aggressive action! The only reason government is in place is to prevent aggression. They didn't give the victim a reasonable amount of time to vacate the vicinity, not that they should have to anyways. This would be like saying that punching someone is okay, because they shouldn't have nerves to begin with!

A: Look, this just isn't a place where government should be involved. If a business-owner wants a smoking ban, that's his business. He has the right to restrict entry into his store, not the government. It's anti-capitalism.




So... based on libertarian philosophy, who's right? Person A, who argues that government has no right to regulate who can and cannot do what, and that, moreover, they have no authority to dictate that people can't come within 200m of their store, or Person B, who argues that smoking is an act of aggression and should thus be made illegal?

 

[dblee]

A.

Generally it's accepted amongst libertarian circles that if you don't like cigarette smoke you can vote with your feet and GTFO.

What's next, banning farting? The danger of second hand smoke is overblown.

 

[joffe]

No libertarians are for smoking laws.

I used to be for smoking laws, but then again I'm a European and I used to be for a lot of things until common sense reached me and gave me a good slap in the face.

Smoking laws are not really a point of contention. If you want libertarian nightmares you can look at abortion, intellectual property and for some, the death penalty (although how one can support arbitrary post facto state homicide and call oneself a libertarian is beyond me).

 

[tcindie]

A.

Generally it's accepted amongst libertarian circles that if you don't like cigarette smoke you can vote with your feet and GTFO.

What's next, banning farting? The danger of second hand smoke is overblown.

Actually.. very sadly.. next is swearing.

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/01/09/wtf/doc4783f68baf81f940833619.txt

The line that really gets me is the 4th paragraph...
"But some bar owners worry the bill is too vague and restrictive, saying it may be a violation of their civil rights."

MAY BE A VIOALITION?!?!?!!

 

[asgardshill]

Al Gore's SUV will emit more toxins into the air the first 3 seconds after he turns the key and starts it than every cigarette I will ever smoke in my lifetime.

(Nice product placement, Ronpaulforums - there's a "Linkman" smoking cessation ad staring me in the face as I post this).

 

[FreeTraveler]

A.

Generally it's accepted amongst libertarian circles that if you don't like cigarette smoke you can vote with your feet and GTFO.

What's next, banning farting? The danger of second hand smoke is overblown.

QFMFT!

 

[Doji]

A. Definitely A. The libertarian way of thinking is that if enough people don't want to breathe second hand smoke, a market will develop for it and various public places will ban smoking. At the same time, a business owner can still allow smoking and market his product to the smokers.

Besides, the carcinogenic effects of second hand smoke are greatly exaggerated. Really, the only risk is that it'll be uncomfortable. (For the record, I'm a nonsmoker)

 

[Zavoi]

Both people are being unreasonable, and although the knee-jerk libertarian reaction would be to automatically agree with person A, person B has some valid points as well.

Person B: [...] You are being aggressive when you force the other person to breathe in the toxic fumes of a cigarette.

While correct, this does not imply that Congress should pass a law "that bans smoking within 200 meters of any place which the public has access to (including privately-owned businesses)."

A: No one told them to breathe. Moreover, no one told them to go to Generic Business Q where they don't have a smoking ban in place.

The first statement is ridiculous. It's impossible to not breathe. It's like saying "No one told you to incorporate this radioactive matter into your somatic cells, so I can dump it all around you and if you get cancer it's your fault." The second statement is valid, in that no one has a "right" to go to Generic Business Q.

A: [...] If a business-owner wants a smoking ban, that's his business.

It would be better to say "If a business-owner wants to allow smoking, that's his business."

The analogy that person B makes to punching someone is enlightening. Suppose that A and B enter the premises of Generic Business Q. Then, B punches A out of the blue. We would not say that B had the right to do this, because the act is an act of agression unless it is by consent. And A has not consented to being punched unless Generic Business Owner Q has informed A that if he/she does not consent to being punched, then he/she is denied permission to be on Q's property.

We therefore conclude that, although it is obviously none of the government's business to prohibit smoking on private property outright, the assumed default state should be that smoking is prohibited on private property unless the owner declares otherwise; rather than the strange situation we have now wherein smoking is allowed by default unless the owner puts up a "no smoking" sign. Under a libertarian system of law, we would instead expect business owners to put up "yes smoking" signs if they wanted to.

All of this, of course, assumes that second-hand smoke is in fact harmful. If it is not harmful at all, then the issue is moot. I am unknowledgeable on this matter.

 

[MortaLiberty]

Yeah, I think the most rational approach to smoking is letting the market work it out. In West Virginia, especially my county, I have been trying to fight smoking bans in the area.

One of the arguments from the main proponent of a smoking ban attempt was that there was growing sentiment among non-smokers in the county. My response was that if there was that much support for a smoking ban, then there is plenty of market to reach with a non-smoking bar or club marketed as such. All the restaurants, public buildings, etc are already covered by the existing ban.

I don't see a lot of christian conservatives in a strip clubs, and if I do, they usually don't care about their religion so ardently. I don't see a lot of non-smokers in bars, and when I do, they usually don't care about their body so ardently.

 

[gaazn]

it depends on what business, fs it a gas station or any place where smoking is a hazard. the government can set standards such as having standard signage for use of understanding or provide education on the signage, but it should be up to the businesses to decide whether to put up the signs or not. the market decides pretty well on both the business owner's side and consumer's side. and if people still want to go to a place with smoke, it may someday be fashionable to wear something over your nose to minimize second-hand smoke so that you can go in and out of a business with peace of mind.

 

[Fields]

I live in Calabasas. They have started handing out tickets for not smoking in designated areas. Smoking in your property is illegal if your smoke is smelled by someone who is opposed to smoke too.

 

[marm1890]

I have been a smoker for 47 years.
when the hoopla began over smoking, it was first banned on airlines only. All the sheeple heralded this as a good thing. I kept saying it would lead to more restrictions. Then it was expanded to other areas, and the sheeple were ecstatic. I kept warning it would open the door to other abuses of your rights. No one listened then, and they aren't listening now. The majority of people in our world are not intelligent enough to see anything beyond their immediate gratification. I hear the phrase "there otta be a law against that" all the time. There is no hope for these people.

 

[swirling_vortex]

I'm actually going to make the case for person B. Some may claim that it's their right or that the market will take care of it. But there are problems with that:

-Air is not owned by one person or group. You can smoke on your own private property so that it won't affect me, but in public places, you're contaminating my air.
-By smoking in public, you're also filling my lungs with a toxic substance, so in a way you're hurting my life span.
-Businesses are afraid to lose business. Unless an overwhelmingly large amount of people demand for a smoking ban, most aren't going to garnish enough support for a ban.

If it were up to Ron Paul or a libertarian president, I'd say that person would leave it up to the states to more accurately reflect people's views. But I must say, Pennsylvania implemented a smoking ban recently and it's wonderful not having to smell that crap all the time when I go to a restaurant.

 

[Kludge]

I was actually considering bumping this thread a month ago...

 

[SeanEdwards]

I live in the only town in America where it is illegal to smoke inside your own home.

 

[swirling_vortex]

I live in the only town in America where it is illegal to smoke inside your own home.

Of course, that's the other side of the coin to smoking ban and regulation in general. It never shrinks, it always keeps growing. 5,000 years of history is enough proof for that.

 

[Freedom 4 all]

Not sure about 200 meters but smoking in a public place is already completely illegal where I live

 

[D.H.]

Rather than leaving it up to individual businesses to decide, the non smokers want to make it a law for "everybody".

What I hate is their false claims and scare tactics to those ends. Others mentioned second hand smoke effects being overblown.

I feel I can "prove" this at least for my own piece of mind; I have smoked for 20 years and have had pets in my home and none of them have any ill effects from second hand smoke. I try to limit my smoking to one room (making it all the more concentrated) and my dogs and cats follow me in there.

I spoke to my vet about this and they can certainly get lung cancer and haven't. Other ill effects; upper respiratory infections and allergies - again they have none of these.

So...I feel like I have had a 20 year case study going on with various breeds of both dogs and cats and no ill effects so far. In fact my German Shepherd is 15 and only suffers from arthritis. My vet is amazed as the average life span for a Shepherd is 10.

 

[pahs1994]

PA just stared its smoking ban on the 15th. The warehouse that I work at has seperate breakrooms for smoking and non-smoking all around the building. The smoking breakrooms are now useless since the law says that you cannot smoke inside the building and Walmart was willing to build new breakrooms outside but since the law says you have to smoke 50 feet from the entrace they decided not to build them because of saftey issues it would bring up with crossing into the yard to have a smoke while trucks are moving back and forth.

I am not a smoker, I view it as a filthy habbit. But the day that my state government started to tell people and buisnesses what they can or can not do on their own property is a really sad day. Especially when the company actually invested in having clean air for people who don't smoke with the seperate designated rooms and air filtration.

And what makes it even worse is that alot of people i work with think this is a good thing. I just keep reminding them that if they can tell a private company to do something than the next step is telling them what to do in their own homes or that one day the state will take away one of their libertys that they enjoy and they will be singing a different tune.

 

[Feenix566]

I live in New Jersey, near Philadelphia. Indoor smoking has been banned in both places for a couple years now. At first, I was really angry about it. As it turns out, it's actually a lot nicer to be able to go to a bar and not come home with the stench of cigarette smoke in all my clothes and my hair.

HOWEVER, that doesn't make it right to ban it! I've voiced my concern to a lot of people, saying I don't understand why we have to have smoking banned in every single bar in the state! Why not have some smoking bars and some non-smoking bars? No one has ever been able to give me an answer to that question.

I like the idea of setting up a policy whereby a bar is non-smoking unless the owner puts up signs explicitly stating that smoking is allowed. That way, the smokers can hang out in their smoking bars and the non-smokers can have theirs, too. Let the free market decide. That seems a whole lot more fair to me.