Smoking in public places.

[The ClayTaurus]

You have the same choices at your disposal that the rest of us have.. You can choose which establishments to frequent based upon their decisions.

It appears as though you missed my point. The libertarian view is valid to a certain extent, but there is a threshold where it goes beyond being simply choice. Is it fair that asthmatics or other respiratory-problem-afflicted people have a drastically reduced choice of business to support? Where does the personal freedom stop for the smoker and begin for the non-smoker?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Who are you over on the other site? I can't figure it out yet by your posts.

Same name, though a bit more of a lurker there. (and my post was not to be taken all that seriously, i got love for other rotarians )

 

[Mr. P]

... Where does the personal freedom stop for the smoker and begin for the non-smoker?

With individual choice by both..Not control by outside forces.

 

[CSM]

It appears as though you missed my point. The libertarian view is valid to a certain extent, but there is a threshold where it goes beyond being simply choice. Is it fair that asthmatics or other respiratory-problem-afflicted people have a drastically reduced choice of business to support? Where does the personal freedom stop for the smoker and begin for the non-smoker?

Good question. I submit that the choice is the same for both. Smokers may choose to frequent businesses that allow smoking....non-smokers are free to patronize those that don't. I do not think it is fair to limit my freedoms because you have a physical disability. Because a person cannot swim does not mean that all swimming pools should only be 2 feet deep.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Well, I have to put up with annoying drunken slobs in public places (like the same bar you want to ban smoking in) and their nasty drinking habits sometimes leads to either self inflicted injuries, or worse, injuries to other persons when they wreck their cars. I have to pay for that either indirectly or directly. Same with folks who drive motorcycles without wearing a helmet.
I wont even get into the whole drug thing, firearm thing or even the sexually transmitted diseases.

The point is, folks have choices. You dont like my smoking...go someplace I am not. On the other hand, I pay for roadway use, cannot avoid using roads, etc. Medical and insurance costs are through the roof because of idiots who drink and drive, drug users who spread HIV etc. Why single out smokers per say? The argument could be made that your right to drink is debilitating to me. Even folks who eat to excess (asthmatic or not) has an economic impact on me.

I guess the bottom line is that if we try to regulate individual actions beyond a reasonable limit, no one will be allowed to do anything....

You make a good point.

However:

The drunken slob isn't causing you any health problems, and if they are, you can have them thrown out, because now their choice of being a drunken slob is threatening your well-being. You're comparing something that's annoying with something that's debilitating.

Drunken driving is illegal. Driving a motorcycle without a helmet is illegal in most states. Drugs are illegal. I'm not sure what "the firearm thing is" but any harm you cause with a firearm is usually illegal. Having a handgun and having a pack of cigarettes are the same thing: possession doesn't harm anyone; use, or perhaps certain types of use, does (or do).

Actually the only portion of your post that wasn't illegal was over-eating. I have my own thoughts on that, namely that I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's slothyness (if that's a word).

You're right, there is a limit to how much you can regulate things. But it would be nice if you would at least admit that at some point your right to smoke anywhere you please, which is a choice, infringes on the freedom of an asthmatic to go wherever they please.

They didn't get to choose that they had asthma. You choose to smoke. I'm wondering if this makes sense to anyone else other than me.

 

[CSM]

You make a good point.

However:

The drunken slob isn't causing you any health problems, and if they are, you can have them thrown out, because now their choice of being a drunken slob is threatening your well-being. You're comparing something that's annoying with something that's debilitating.

Drunken driving is illegal. Driving a motorcycle without a helmet is illegal in most states. Drugs are illegal. I'm not sure what "the firearm thing is" but any harm you cause with a firearm is usually illegal. Having a handgun and having a pack of cigarettes are the same thing: possession doesn't harm anyone; use, or perhaps certain types of use, does (or do).

Actually the only portion of your post that wasn't illegal was over-eating. I have my own thoughts on that, namely that I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's slothyness (if that's a word).

You're right, there is a limit to how much you can regulate things. But it would be nice if you would at least admit that at some point your right to smoke anywhere you please, which is a choice, infringes on the freedom of an asthmatic to go wherever they please.

They didn't get to choose that they had asthma. You choose to smoke. I'm wondering if this makes sense to anyone else other than me.

I guess what I don't understand is why you think the asthmatic (in this case) has a right to infringe on MY freedoms. I did not create the debilitating condition; why must I bear responsibility for it unless I CHOOSE to?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Good question. I submit that the choice is the same for both. Smokers may choose to frequent businesses that allow smoking....non-smokers are free to patronize those that don't.

This is true if and only if, in the example of a restaurant, the financial impact of smokers and asthmatics is equal, which it is not. The advantage is for smokers, because there are more of them, and so now the scales favor the group who are making a choice to smoke, and penalizes those who have no control over their health situation.

I do not think it is fair to limit my freedoms because you have a physical disability. Because a person cannot swim does not mean that all swimming pools should only be 2 feet deep.

Excellent point. I submit to you, however, that you are limiting the personal freedoms of an asthmatic, and so now it is 2 personal freedoms for you, 0 for the asthmatic (not to be taken as an absolute, that is, that I am implying asthmatics have no personal freedom, which I'm not)

The arguement that the asthmatic can just take their business elsewhere ties in to my first point in this post.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The first thing I do, in ANY hotel room, is take the spread off the bed and hurl it with one hand into some dark corner of the closet. Then I wash said hand under hot water andlots of soap. And there the thing will stay until I check out and the maid puts it back on the bed. Anyone who actually sleeps under or even sits on the spread is crazy.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I guess what I don't understand is why you think the asthmatic (in this case) has a right to infringe on MY freedoms. I did not create the debilitating condition; why must I bear responsibility for it unless I CHOOSE to?

That is exactly my point. The person who's condition is completely involuntary is being trumped by the person who's condition is completely voluntary.

Should we have autistic people thrown out of a movie because their random outbursts infringe upon my right to a quiet movie watching experience?

I'm all for personal freedom, believe me, but when it's at the cost of someone who has no choice in the way they are, it seems a bit cold to me.

 

[CSM]

That is exactly my point. The person who's condition is completely involuntary is being trumped by the person who's condition is completely voluntary.

Should we have autistic people thrown out of a movie because their random outbursts infringe upon my right to a quiet movie watching experience?

I'm all for personal freedom, believe me, but when it's at the cost of someone who has no choice in the way they are, it seems a bit cold to me.

In answer to your question...YES, throw them out! If that sounds cold, it is...have a special viewing for the autistic if you want.

I am vehemently opposed to the idea that economic status/impact (or lack thereof) should determine that amount of individual freedom a person has or does not have. Very dangerous ground when you set that precedent.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

In answer to your question...YES, throw them out! If that sounds cold, it is...have a special viewing for the autistic if you want.

I am vehemently opposed to the idea that economic status/impact (or lack thereof) should determine that amount of individual freedom a person has or does not have. Very dangerous ground when you set that precedent.

Well, I suppose then that we have reduced this down to a fundamental disagreeance of personal philosophy. Thanks for the discussion, though. It's always interesting to try and follow the logic path of someone from a different school of thought.

Cheers.

 

[CSM]

One last illustrative example and then I wont comment anymore as it is obvious that no one is going to convince anyone of anything here.

Certain individuals are allergic to pets (dogs, cats, etc.). Should such pets be banned from public places? The animals, afterall, have an impact on another person's well being. They (the allergic ones) are not responsible for their condition and since there are far fewer allergic persons than pet owners, far less economic impact. Your argument leads me to believe that pets should not be allowed in public places as they infringe on the rights of the allergic persons to go where they please.

 

[Trigg]

The problem is, your nasty habit hurts other people. I would be perfectly ok with letting establishments decide, but the problem is that those who are unwilling or, for health reasons, unable to sit in a smoky restaurant get penalized by your right to light up.

You can still eat your steak (or tofu) at the restaurant without smoking. Someone with Asthma can not. There is a difference between a nasty habit that is just annoying to someone else, and one which is debilitating.


On a side note, do you think non-smoking citizens (or even other healthy smokers) should have to shoulder the costs of a smoker with lung cancer or whatever other sicknesses they develop? That's not meant as an affront, but rather a question out of my own curiousity.

As long as I can remember restaurants have had smoking and non-smoking areas. People can choose to sit where they are comfortable and if it's to close to the smoking section they can request to move farther away. In my state restaurants completely enclose the smoking area, the only places that don't have to do this are sports bars and clubs.

As far as shouldering the cost of lung cancer, it isn't always caused by smoking. I do completely disagree with smokers sueing the tobacco companies because "they didn't know smoking was bad", call me crazy but they're called coffin nails for a reason. They're bad for you everyone knows that.

 

[Zhukov]

I used to smoke. Smoked for about seven years, and quit about 6 years ago. I can't stand second hand smoke. I hate it, with a passion.

I think a restaurant or bar or any establishment should decide for themselves when and where they wish to allow or prohibit smoking. If they want to allow it everywhere or nowhere that should be completely their perogative. Government intrusiveness that takes this decision out of their hands is wrong.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

As long as I can remember restaurants have had smoking and non-smoking areas. People can choose to sit where they are comfortable and if it's to close to the smoking section they can request to move farther away. In my state restaurants completely enclose the smoking area, the only places that don't have to do this are sports bars and clubs.

Agreed. I don't think I said (or meant to imply) that I don't like smoking and non-smoking sections. If I did, my bad. All I ask is that someone be able to frequent an establishment with the choice to expose or not expose themselves to other's smoke. I wish they'd do that at bars, but they won't because so many people only smoke when they drink. The financial impact is much greater. I just feel like my personal freedom to be smoke free should be superceded by someone's personal freedom to smoke.

To that extent, however, it just becomes an argument of "If you don't like me smoking, go somewhere else" vs. "If you don't like not smoking here, go somewhere else".

As far as shouldering the cost of lung cancer, it isn't always caused by smoking.

You are absolutely correct. In fact, because of the incorrect stigma that all lung cancer victims are smokers, lung cancer is by far the least funded cancer research. Most might be smokers, but some are not, and they are getting screwed because research money is rarely appropriated to lung cancer research.

I do completely disagree with smokers sueing the tobacco companies because "they didn't know smoking was bad", call me crazy but they're called coffin nails for a reason. They're bad for you everyone knows that.

Everyone knows that now. Back in the 60's, they didn't. In fact, tobacco companies systematically covered up that their product was not only harmful, but addictive.

Anyone who started smoking within the last 20 years or so (or however long the industry has been outed) has no right to sue. Agreed. But there is a segment of the population who were lied to. You can't white wash everyone the same.

 

[CSM]

Agreed. I don't think I said (or meant to imply) that I don't like smoking and non-smoking sections. If I did, my bad. All I ask is that someone be able to frequent an establishment with the choice to expose or not expose themselves to other's smoke. I wish they'd do that at bars, but they won't because so many people only smoke when they drink. The financial impact is much greater. I just feel like my personal freedom to be smoke free should be superceded by someone's personal freedom to smoke.

To that extent, however, it just becomes an argument of "If you don't like me smoking, go somewhere else" vs. "If you don't like not smoking here, go somewhere else".



You are absolutely correct. In fact, because of the incorrect stigma that all lung cancer victims are smokers, lung cancer is by far the least funded cancer research. Most might be smokers, but some are not, and they are getting screwed because research money is rarely appropriated to lung cancer research.



Everyone knows that now. Back in the 60's, they didn't. In fact, tobacco companies systematically covered up that their product was not only harmful, but addictive.

Anyone who started smoking within the last 20 years or so (or however long the industry has been outed) has no right to sue. Agreed. But there is a segment of the population who were lied to. You can't white wash everyone the same.

I find it really ironic that the US military used to put cigarettes in C-rations. Now the VA will not treat veterans who have any disorder related to smoking. Hypocrits.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

One last illustrative example and then I wont comment anymore as it is obvious that no one is going to convince anyone of anything here.

Certain individuals are allergic to pets (dogs, cats, etc.). Should such pets be banned from public places? The animals, afterall, have an impact on another person's well being. They (the allergic ones) are not responsible for their condition and since there are far fewer allergic persons than pet owners, far less economic impact. Your argument leads me to believe that pets should not be allowed in public places as they infringe on the rights of the allergic persons to go where they please.

Pets often are banned in many indoor public venues. Be it for allergic of behavioral/safety reasons, who knows. Probably more the latter.

But an outdoor park and a steakhouse are different. I see the point you are trying to make, and as I mentioned previously, I just don't agree with your line of thought on this issue. I can continue to counter your logic with mine, and you vice versa, but it might be in our best interests to just agree to disagree

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I find it really ironic that the US military used to put cigarettes in C-rations. Now the VA will not treat veterans who have any disorder related to smoking. Hypocrits.

VA treatment, from what I've heard, leaves a little to be desired, sadly...

 

[CSM]

VA treatment, from what I've heard, leaves a little to be desired, sadly...

Haven't had to deal with them much...yet. hear lots of stories though. Some good and more bad.

 

[speederdoc]

The first thing I do, in ANY hotel room, is take the spread off the bed and hurl it with one hand into some dark corner of the closet. Then I wash said hand under hot water andlots of soap. And there the thing will stay until I check out and the maid puts it back on the bed. Anyone who actually sleeps under or even sits on the spread is crazy.

The first thing I do is strip naked, roll around on the bedspread, check out the porn selection on the TV, then ejaculate as many times as I can all over everything.

Then I light up a Marlboro. :funnyface