Haha. Smokers OWNED by Mankato

[John Dibble]

Well, I just have to point to my signature to let you know how I feel about this. What? No, not the Cinnabon damnit - I know it looks delicious, but look to the left, douchebag!

Anywho, I'm with the stance that a restaraunt is NOT a public place. It is private property that is open to the public, thusly going in the restaraunt is not a right but a privilege granted by the owner. If you disagree with the conditions set forth by said owner you are within your rights to just not go there. Thusly I find a ban coercive beyond what government should be allowed to do. However, I am willing to admit a restaraunt is different from a house in that it is selling a product to the public(atmosphere is arguably inclusive in this), so I wouldn't be against slapping a moderately sized sticker on the door that says the establishment allows smoking and that some studies indicate second-hand smoking may increase cancer risks. If that was the case those who enter would be educated to the risk and thusly would have nobody to blame but themselves.

Bans in actual public places, such as courthouses or other government owned facilities, would legitimately be subject to smoking bans in my view since the government is basically owned by the public.

[John Dibble]

The justification given to ban smoking in public places is that secondhand smoke has been shown to be just as effective at causing cancer than inhaling smoke directly from a cigarette, and hence, that the smokers are adversely affecting the health of everyone around them against the will of those in the smokers' vicinity.  No attention is paid to the smokers' health.

Depends on the particular anti-smoking campaign - seen a 'Truth' commercial lately? They seem to be concerned about more than just the second-hand smoke. I'm pretty sure if they had their way they'd ban all tobacco period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sometimes it is - if a person gets heart problems due to eating too much junk food, it might result in them having to get the government to front some of their health costs. This does affect other people as they are paying the taxes that pay for this, and some health advocates do note this in their campaigns. Or what if the person dies of a heart attack, who will take care of his kids? Just examples, but such logic is used by some people.

Still, regardless of the logic here the primary objection we have to these types of bans remains the same - these types of bans are people shoving their wills down the throats of others when they have no business doing so.

[John Dibble]

I don't think you'd find any political policy in the world that doesn't shove the wills of those enacting it down the throats of those who oppose it in some form or another.  Any policy you enact will affect people's lives.  If you ban smoking in restaurants, smokers will be inconvenienced by not being able to smoke in restaurants.  If you don't, non-smokers will be inconvenienced by having a harder time finding a restaurant in which they don't have to gag on second-hand smoke.  Which option you support entirely depends on what you think is best for society (or for yourself, if you have a Machiavellian streak).

Of course every government policy demands a degree of coercion - that's not news to me. Some policies are absolutely necessary if we don't want to collapse into chaos. My point was that certain policies infringe upon rights when it is absolutely unnecessary to do so in order to maintain civilized society, and thusly those policies are not justifiable. Since a restaraunt is private property going there is a privilege, not a right. You have no right to convenience, but the property owner does have a right to set policies concerning what goes on at his establishment. Since the non-smoker does not have a right to enter the restaraunt, his or her inconvenience in finding a smoke free restaraunt is not the concern of the government. If smokers were the majority and they made allowing smoking mandatory I'd be just as opposed to it as this because the only people whose rights are violated by either policy are the establishment owners.

Again, neither the smokers or the non-smokers have any rights in this issue. The most the government should be able to do in this is slap a warning label on the restaraunt door and let people, who are then educated of the risks and thusly without excuse, take personal responsibility for their choices.

[John Dibble]

Smokers are awful people why don't we just ban cigs in all areas including homes?

Superman, why do you hate freedom?