Haha. Smokers OWNED by Mankato

[Speed of Sound]

Certainly the idea of a bar without smoking is ridiculous.  Who would go to such a place?  Not I.

Now thats a compelling to ban smoking in bars on its own.

[adam]

I strongly disagree with BRTD on this issue.  Smoking bans are needless oppression.

Besides, smoking is cool - while I don't smoke myself, I do like to hang out with smokers.  They are generally cooler than non-smokers.  Certainly the idea of a bar without smoking is ridiculous.  Who would go to such a place?  Not I.

Well, I'll be damned. We agree.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

BRTD, Dazzleman, are on the same side of a debate

*thud*

[FerrisBueller86]

Opebo and Flyers, you shouldn't smoke.  In fact, Democrats should boycott the tobacco industry:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1996/05/saletan1.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1996/05/saletan2.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1996/05/stone1.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1996/05/stone2.html

There's one more argument for a smoking ban: The people who work in places that allow smoking are subjected to secondhand smoke.

That said, I think it is EXTREMELY immoral for parents to smoke INSIDE the house, because it forces secondhand smoke on the children.

[adam]

BRTD, Dazzleman, LiberalPA, ILV and I are on the same side of a debate opposite Opebo, Bono, Adam,  David S and Kemp... This is crazy...

I think it just proves that it's less a political issue and more an issue of one's values.

[RBH]

I voted to raise the tobacco tax in Missouri, while voting against banning smoking in restaurants in my city.

So, where did I put myself on the scale by doing that?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

BRTD, Dazzleman, LiberalPA, ILV and I are on the same side of a debate opposite Opebo, Bono, Adam,  David S and Kemp... This is crazy...

You forgot me lumped in with the other people who don't hate freedom(as in against BRTD, Dazzleman and LbieralPA)

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

How is "hating freedom" to support the right of business owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking? I would say since its the opposite of hating freedom.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

As far as I'm concerned its not the government's business who smokes where. Too many people in the left and right believe that too many elements of people's private lives are things that need government regulation.

[Everett]

I'm for this because personally I rather have the freedom to choose what restaurant I go to without worrying that I'm going to have an asthma attack than give people the right to slowly kill myself and others, as well as themselves, as they smoke.

Same here. I realise that some people enjoy smoking but it's extremely difficult for me to still believe that their "right" to smoke is somehow greater than my "right" to be able to dine without suffeirng through a debilitating asthma attack.

[Gabu]

As far as I'm concerned its not the government's business who smokes where. Too many people in the left and right believe that too many elements of people's private lives are things that need government regulation.

Smoking in a public restaurant is not what I'd consider part of someone's "private life".

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Yes it is. The establishment is owned by a private individual so it is up to the owner what goes on in there in terms of smoking.

[dazzleman]

There are two competing principles here, and neither one is wrong. 

That's just plain ridiculous. If you really believe something like this, you need to learn some basic principles of sound thinking, such as the Law of Noncontradiction.

The world is full of contradictions and competing priorities.  We have to decide which is more important.

[A18]

How is "hating freedom" to support the right of business owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking? I would say since its the opposite of hating freedom.

No you are correct, but I also would not call those who are for smoking bans freedom haters either. I'm for this because personally I rather have the freedom to choose what restaurant I go to without worrying that I'm going to have an asthma attack than give people the right to slowly kill myself and others, as well as themselves, as they smoke.

This (abstractly phrased) 'freedom' of yours extends well beyond the use of your own person and property as you see fit, and into the realm of coercing others. When we apply property rights--that inconvenient institution that converts 'freedom' from an abstract phrase with zero practical content into a viable social order--we see plainly that we have here not two freedoms, but an exercise of liberty and an exercise of power.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here in California, the $2.50 a pack cigarette tax proposition was the closest Prop., narrowly failing.

[A18]

The property owner is exercising his liberty to set rules concerning his property. It is not yours, and if libertarian theory is to be respected, you have no right to use it except on his terms.

I might as well speak of my 'freedom' to not encounter views I don't like on this forum.

[MaC]

Bar owners should be able to say my property, my rules and if the likes of Everett and Wildcard wish not to do business with them it's their loss because of the potential profits gained.  No need to force a bar owner through legislation.  If the bar owner is truly concerned with their business it would benefit them to build separate rooms for the smokers and non-smokers, although doing this would cost them money too.

Please take your statism elsewhere

[MaC]

The property owner is exercising his liberty to set rules concerning his property. It is not yours, and if libertarian theory is to be respected, you have no right to use it except on his terms.

I might as well speak of my 'freedom' to not encounter views I don't like on this forum.

Ah okay so if the owner wants to let people shoot off guns in his establishment he should be free to do so correct?

As long as it's not at a customer because that would infringe upon his "life" right.  Now if he wants to shoot off guns, not aimed at people he's welcome to do so and have his profits lost because of the public's veiw of him as a 'crazy man'.

[A18]

The property owner is exercising his liberty to set rules concerning his property. It is not yours, and if libertarian theory is to be respected, you have no right to use it except on his terms.

I might as well speak of my 'freedom' to not encounter views I don't like on this forum.

Ah okay so if the owner wants to let people shoot off guns in his establishment he should be free to do so correct?

I personally would say of course, provided that each person is aware of the rules.

You might disagree. But the point is that each of these things is a curtailment of freedom. Whether that curtailment of freedom is a good or bad idea is another matter.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Seems we have

For ban: BRTD, dazzleman, Speedy, TheWildCard, Everett, Ilikeverin, HamRadioRocks, Gabu, jfern

Against: adam, MaC, Bono, Kemperor, Alcon, Yak's Hairbrush, David S, Flyer's, Straha, Opebo, RBH, A18

Interesting splits.

[MaC]

Seems we have

For ban: BRTD, dazzleman, Speedy, TheWildCard, Everett, Ilikeverin, HamRadioRocks, Gabu, jfern

Against: adam, MaC, Bono, Kemperor, Alcon, Yak's Hairbrush, David S, Flyer's, Straha, Opebo, RBH, A18

Interesting splits.

That's how you know it's a good topic

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

If you can't take smoking eat elsewhere.

[2952-0-0]

There should be concern about those who are forced to work in smoky environments. What's going to happen if a single mother is forced to work as a waiter in a smoky restaurant just to have food and not slump into a dependence of welfare/charity? I don't think it's worth forcing people to spend hours every day in fuming environments. Customers have the right to harm themselves, but workers should not be subject to such dangerous working conditions. Otherwise, there's apparently a "right" not to wear a helmet in a construction site, a "right" not to wear safety goggles in chemical labs, and a "right" to work on dangerous equipment without training. Perhaps smoking in restaurants should be allowed, but only if, say, waiters wear gas masks. How will that look?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

They freely chose to work there so its their problem.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Such a wonderful topic!

It exposes the problems with both unrestricted libertarianism and statism.

The problem with the libertarian position is that it assumes people are able to be fully informed so as to make a rational choice about the risks/costs/benefits of being exposed to second hand smoke.  However, this neglects the cost of acquiring such information and the difficulties most people have in accurately assessing risks, although the second point can be ignored if one assumes that the skill of accurate risk assessment is merely a comparative marketplace advantage that the government should not interfere with.

The problem with the statist position is, if one is going to ban public smoking, why not go to the next logical step of banning private smoking?

Let's consider a third way.  In theory at least, one can assess the economic harm done by second-hand smoke in public venues.  (The accuracy of that assessment is subject to debate, but that it could be done is not.)  Then the solution is simple, tax business owners who allowing smoking in their facilities at a sufficient rate to compensate society for the harm done by the second-hand smoke.  This ensures that those who allow the harm of second-hand smoke to occur to have to pay for the harm done, while freeing individuals from each having to expend the effort necessary to calculate that harm for themselves.  (That's the main value of government, it allows for collective actions to be undertaken at a lower cost than the sum of all the individual actions it replaces.) The main problem with this approach is that it is hopelessly complicated, especially if the tax level is constanty subject to adjustment to refelect the estimated costs, but rounding up to a higher value does simplify things and provides the justification for sin taxes.

So that's my idea, no ban, but a tax based on the seating capacity of a public venue that is imposed if the business owner allows smoking.