Legislation: What's your view on smoking bans inside public restaurants?

[brandon]

If I own a bar, I should be allowed to make the cover charge me punching you in the face. It's entirely up to you if you want to drink in my bar.

Well said

 

[parke]

I live in Ocean Springs, MS.. the most smoking state (and fattest) in the union. Most of the restaurants here are smoke free with no smoking ban.

It works well here. I say leave it up to the owners. What if the owners smoke? Where is their freedom of choice?

Screw the government. I dont need big brothers hand to tell me where to eat.

 

[werdd]

Perhaps they ought to consider more restrictive pollution regulations.

Amazing

If you put man initiated harmful polution(cigarettes)

and man initiated harmful pollution(carbon emissions) in the same logical harmful pollution category then it would seem you are the one arguing that point.

 

[misterx]

It's private property. If you are not even allowed to decide who you let on your property and what they do on it, you are not free. This is coming from someone who hates smoke, but it's not my right to tell others how they run their business. I can vote with my money, but using thf government to force my morals on you is tyranny. That goer for all your other examples too.

 

[Roxi]

i have several friends that own bars/restaurants, when smoking was banned inside buildings here some of them (continue to) choose to pay the associated fines and continue to allow smoking. one other restaurant built a twin restaurant across the street exclusively for smokers (the original is called Ziggy's, the twin is called Ciggie's)

are there any "public" restaurants? aren't all restaurants owned by individuals or corporations? there aren't any government run restaurants that i know of.

 

[BIG_J]

Smoking is fucking annoying. Having someone's lung pee all over you is fucking sick.

 

[qh4dotcom]

bump

 

[qh4dotcom]

It's private property. If you are not even allowed to decide who you let on your property and what they do on it, you are not free. This is coming from someone who hates smoke, but it's not my right to tell others how they run their business. I can vote with my money, but using thf government to force my morals on you is tyranny. That goer for all your other examples too.

Smoking should be like loud noises...you don't have the right to make loud noises after 11pm in your private property because then you violate the rights of your neighbors...so if you live in a condo and the smoke somehow creeps out of your condo into a hallway then you should not be doing it.

 

[driller80545]

I want everyone of you to stop driving your cars. Your cars lung pee is killing the entire atmosphere of the planet. Driving can no longer be an option. This is for your own good. Thank you.

This is to go into effect immediately.

 

[Kludge]

I want everyone of you to stop driving your cars. Your cars lung pee is killing the entire atmosphere of the planet. Driving can no longer be an option. This is for your own good. Thank you.

This is to go into effect immediately.

Car emissions are already regulated via taxes and mandates.

Does the increased productivity of automobiles justify a decline in person/planet health? Probably not. It's something worth studying, for sure.

No one has a right to pollute, it is aggression. The privilege is entirely dependent on how much aggression we as a society will tolerate.

 

[powerofreason]

Can't physically aggress upon someone. Don't matter where you are... If a friend were shot, yeh can't say "Why didn't you just go to a gun-free restaurant??!" "You didn't HAVE to be in the way of the bullet." It's unreasonable.


If it were to be outlawed, I would only be upset if police enforced it outside of reported complaints from those directly affected by the smoke. The problem is that if someone is directly harmed (perhaps it triggered someone's asthma) from second-hand smoke, and they have a successful suit in civil court, it must be illegal. It's different from something like speeding, in which you aren't always harming someone. Smoking is always harmful for everyone inhaling it.

There's something called assumption of the risk.... If you go into a restaurant where smoking is allowed you cannot have a reasonable expectation of not breathing in cigarette smoke. My suggestion is to stop being a fag and breathe a little smoke.

If you have asthma and you're in a smoking restaurant, what the hell are you doing there? Its that persons own fault. Get the hell out. You're entitled to jack shit. Private property rights are complete and total. And necessarily so.

And yes, you can physically harm someone in a non-defensive way without it being morally unacceptable. Ever hear of boxing? Or a duel?

If you're not upset about smoking bans, you're not pro-liberty. Comon man, theres too few of us as it is.

 

[powerofreason]

Just to elaborate a bit:

A right is simply a claim to use morally justified violence. Since they are yours, you can sign them away with a pen or you can violate someone elses rights and thus lose your own. For example, if I steal $10,000 from you, I have lost my right to $10,000 of my own money. You are justified in using violence to get your money back and also in taking $10,000 of my money as I have given up my right to it. Retribution is real justice.

So, when you enter someone else's private property you must follow all the rules and restrictions that the owner sets, because he/she does not have to allow you on his/her property at all. So basically, by walking onto the private property you enter into an agreement to abide by all rules and restrictions and "sign away" your natural rights.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

should be up to the guy who owns it. government should stay out of it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The old smoking debate...

 

[rockandrollsouls]

The old smoking debate...

Smoking isn't even conclusively linked to severe health problems. Maybe I should push for legislation that calls for arbitrary bans on individuals that engage in something that hasn't been scientifically proven to cause bodily harm or damage.

Hmmm, no cell phones in my place of business because it could cause brain cancer. Actually, I don't want anyone with germs in my business because I could get a cold.

It's all ludicrous

 

[GBurr]

There is a restaurant near me where they serve complimentary peanuts in the lobby. The shells are thrown on the floor to be swept up later. Does this violate a person with a peanut allergy's rights? I say absolutely not. Your establishment your rules. The restaurant in question does post large warning outside warning of the peanuts. That is what freedom looks like. Restaurants are private. Owners of private establishments should not be forced by government to supply their product to anyone. They should also not be forced to ban actions in their restaurants such as smoking.

 

[GBurr]

There's something called assumption of the risk.... If you go into a restaurant where smoking is allowed you cannot have a reasonable expectation of not breathing in cigarette smoke. My suggestion is to stop being a fag and breathe a little smoke.

If you have asthma and you're in a smoking restaurant, what the hell are you doing there? Its that persons own fault. Get the hell out. You're entitled to jack shit. Private property rights are complete and total. And necessarily so.

And yes, you can physically harm someone in a non-defensive way without it being morally unacceptable. Ever hear of boxing? Or a duel?

If you're not upset about smoking bans, you're not pro-liberty. Comon man, theres too few of us as it is.

Preach it brother.