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

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Thrashertm]

Wow, looks great!


Product Warning

Warning: Nicotine is an addictive substance. This product has not been approved by the U.S. FDA as a cessation device and therefore should not be used to quit smoking. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or mitigate any disease or medical condition. Do not use this product if you are under the legal age of smoking or if you are sensitive to nicotine or inhalants. Do not use this product if you have or if you are at risk of having any respiratory conditions, heart disease, high blood pressure or diabetes. Consult your doctor before use if you have any medical conditions. Do not use this product if you are pregnant or nursing. Discontinue use of this product immediately if you experience symptoms such as nausea, dizziness, a weak or rapid heartbeat, vomiting, diarrhea or any other negative physical symptom. If any of the aforementioned symptoms occur, seek medical attention immediately. KEEP THIS PRODUCT AWAY FROM CHILDREN AND PETS

:o

Non-filter Camels might be better for ya.

Whatever is in it - it cannot be as bad as the poisons in cigarettes Supposedly it's just nicotine taken from potatoes and water vapor.

 

[Kludge]

I do not care as long as it is not criminalized or legalized. Both create a mechanism by which government regulates the property rights of property owners.

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.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Is the US Federal government STILL subsidizing the tobacco growers? How many "addicts" ( so called ) did they create by providing FREE cigarettes to the troops in WWI, WWII, etc.?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It seems to me to be a simple concept. Your right to be free from potentially harmful smoke ends at the door of the private establishment you CHOOSE to enter. That you think it has worked out "pretty good" (I'm sure there are plenty who would beg to differ) is beside the point. Neither does your analogy apply in the least. It's much closer to you owning a club and playing loud music in it that can't be heard outside the confines of the building, yet the government says you have to stop because some of the people who voluntarily chose to enter your club prefer it quiet.

Your analogy is not the same. A restuarant owner is not running a huge cigarette smoke machine, it is the other patrons.

As for noise pollution, boomboxes are obviously banned, but we are also banning cell phone use in a lot places. Granted, rules about rude behaviour should not be necessary, but we have been over-run with rude people. We can get rid of those rules, but then we should also allow no fault fist fights.

 

[gls]

Your analogy is not the same. A restuarant owner is not running a huge cigarette smoke machine, it is the other patrons.

What does this have to do with a private property owners inherent right to run his/her establishment as he or she sees fit? You're still choosing whether or not to enter or leave at your own free will.

As for noise pollution, boomboxes are obviously banned, but we are also banning cell phone use in a lot places.

I don't see how pointing out the existance of additional unnecessary nanny-state laws defends smoking bans from a liberty perspective.

Granted, rules about rude behaviour should not be necessary, but we have been over-run with rude people.

A matter of perspective but hardly the place for government. There's no right not to be offended; this isn't Canada.

We can get rid of those rules, but then we should also allow no fault fist fights.

I don't know where you're going with this. The solution is to restrain from using the coercive arm of government in areas where private property and voluntary association should take precedence.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't know where you're going with this. The solution is to restrain from using the coercive arm of government in areas where private property and voluntary association should take precedence.

There is an old saying to the effect that your freedom to swing your hands ends where my face begins. Smoking and boomboxes also fit in that category. They effect other people. To be consistent, ban all or none. Out of all the Federal, State and Local laws that exist, banning cigarette smoke in public places makes a little bit of sense in that it defends the freedom of non-smokers.

Eating cigarettes is an entirely different matter. It doesn't effect others. Eat 'em if got 'em, wherever you are.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

To add to how it works in California, people can still smoke outside, and most bars have large and comfortable places to smoke. Businesses whose primary product is tobacco have smoking (smoke/cigar shops, huka bars), and a lot of dive bars have smoking and no one cares.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

 

[Brian4Liberty]

A matter of perspective but hardly the place for government. There's no right not to be offended; this isn't Canada.

No kidding. Cigarette smoking is banned in public, but it's a sacred right for drunk, diseased, schizo, TB blowing, genital exposing, feces, urine and vomit covered bums to croak "spare change" in your face or over your meal. It's bizarro world.

 

[Philmanoman]

If you are against second hand smoke and the negative effects it may have on other people...

Should you be against guns and the negative effects they may have on other people?

Should you be against all religions and the negative effects they may have on
other people?

 

[AJ Antimony]

That's the free market. You let the private restaurant owners decide what to do. If they allow smoking, but the public doesn't like it, then he won't get business. If they segregate but the public doesn't like it, then they won't get business.

If we had a free market today with no segregation or smoking laws, you wouldn't see a ton of shops open that segregated and allowed smoking. Since the public looks down on smoking and segregation, those shops wouldn't get any business.

 

[Kludge]

If you are against second hand smoke and the negative effects it may have on other people...

Should you be against guns and the negative effects they may have on other people?

Should you be against all religions and the negative effects they may have on
other people?

Guns and others' religious affiliation (or lack thereof) do not always have negative effects on others. Smoke inhalation does. Just as shooting someone or harassment is illegal, also should be smoking in the presence of others without consent.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If you are against second hand smoke and the negative effects it may have on other people...

Should you be against guns and the negative effects they may have on other people?

It's not the guns, it's the random second hand bullets...

 

[Philmanoman]

Sorry Kludge I dont think there is conclusive evidence that SHS always,100% of the time,causes negative effects on others.The chemicals that come off of cigarettes are measured in nanograms.1/1,000,000,000 of a gram.For example that is like folding a paper clip 1 billion times and just one of those folded segments is a nanogram.

 

[werdd]

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.

I guarantee if you live in a big city like LA or NYC, you are breathing in worse shit than second hand or even first hand smoke everyday.

 

[werdd]

That being said it is my beleif that the owners of private restaurants have the discretion to allow smoking or not allow smoking. The local or central goverment has no right to ban smoking within private property.

Ron Paul once said, in order to love and embrace liberty, you have to put up with things you don't like.

 

[Kludge]

I guarantee if you live in a big city like LA or NYC, you are breathing in worse shit than second hand or even first hand smoke everyday.

Perhaps they ought to consider more restrictive pollution regulations.

 

[BIG_J]

Yeah but I don't like breathing in exhaled smoke that has been a part of someones body...that is like drinking their pee....

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I don't know if this is true all across the board, but at least in the People's Republic of Illinoistan, restaurant's can allow smoking...so long as they pay a several-thousand dollar stipend to the state