Smoking bans?

[barfbag]

I don't smoke, but I enjoy smokers and being in smokey places.  Certainly it should be allowed in bars, coffeehouses, etc, and restaurants in designated ares would be OK too.

Your list is reasonable baggy, but I would allow it a bit more generally than that.

Do you mean my list of places where it's ok?

The one in your post exactly one post above the post where I said that.

What do you mean by baggy?

[Gass3268]

Smoking bans are awesome! I don't want to smell like crap after leaving a bar. Go destroy your lungs in your own space. What I'm really happy to see is University's banning smoking on their property, even outdoors. A true freedom fighter move there!

[Sopranos Republican]

Ideally, I support the right to smoke in public. However, I would settle for just allowing businesses to make that decision on their own/states rights on this issue.

[politicallefty]

I don't support making smoking illegal. That's contrary to my position on illegal drugs in that one should generally be free to do with one's own body as one chooses. However, I am a very strong supporter of public smoking bans. If you choose to smoke in the privacy of your own home, so be it. That doesn't mean you should be contaminating everyone else's air.

[traininthedistance]

I don't really agree with smoking bans in public parks, sidewalks, etc.  in restaurants and bars I've no problem with it, not out of consideration for the nonsmoking consumer (who you can reasonably say is free to leave), but for the employee (who, despite lassiez-faire mythology, is not free to leave).

I can't believe I'm about to say something more scornful of "free market" thought than effing Tweed... but the bolded part is de facto false.  Before smoking bans in restaurants/bars started going into effect (and after the period of time in the more distant past where most people smoked), there was a significant period of time where a) most people were non-smokers, b) most non-smokers preferred to be in a non-smoking area for their health and comfort, so c) you would expect that at least some businesses would cater to them by going non-smoking, but d) they didn't.  Well, you had non-smoking sections in restaurants*, but bar-goers that didn't want choke were SOL.  

Why?  

Well, several reasons, but several explanations could be the "stickiness" of the previous situation, leaning on inertia/tradition rather than economic rationality, the smoking minority being louder and more apt to complain, thereby securing their narrow incumbent advantages to the expense of everyone's well-being, etc etc etc.  If you were in the silent majority that wanted to poison your liver but not your lungs (and this a number I proudly count myself in), either you suffered in silence or you just didn't go out.  

Basically, it was a classic market failure/collective action problem, and the only solution was regulation in the form of smoking bans.  (The Jim Crow parallels should be obvious, btw, not saying that smokers are the moral equivalent of racists, but that the mechanism of how "the market" was unable to serve those with other preferences is similar.)  Now, I don't think that we should always presume that the market will fail and we need to regulate!  But there was ample evidence, and when that evidence is in force we need to heed it.

I know that, nowadays, I am comfortable going to a bar and drinking, whereas I would have just stayed home in the bad old days.  Thankfully, these smoking bans started going into effect just as I was turning 21.

*which, though a step in the right direction, still didn't totally shield patrons from smoke, to say nothing of the workplace safety issue that I'm just taking as a given.

[© tweed]

I don't think it's a particularly material difference.  we both end up in the same place.  by "free to leave" I did not necessarily mean "free to leave and hightail over to a competing business that caters to the consumer's preference for a nonsmoking environment".  I don't see the ability to go to a restaurant that caters to the antismoking consumer as a right that needs to be protected.  however I do see the ability to work in a nonsmoking environment as a right that should be protected.

[traininthedistance]

I don't think it's a particularly material difference.  we both end up in the same place.  by "free to leave" I did not necessarily mean "free to leave and hightail over to a competing business that caters to the consumer's preference for a nonsmoking environment".  I don't see the ability to go to a restaurant that caters to the antismoking consumer as a right that needs to be protected.  however I do see the ability to work in a nonsmoking environment as a right that should be protected.

I think of it more in terms of positive freedom rather than "rights" fwiw.  Metaphysically, sure, the ability to patronize the local watering hole without getting assaulted by carcinogens isn't remotely on the same level as the guarantee of a jury trial or anything.  But it is the sort of utility-maximizing salubrious thing that one should expect out of an open society.

(As an aside, while I'm not sure I'd go so far as Bentham to declare the entire idea of natural rights as "nonsense on stilts", I do have some sympathy with what he was trying to say, and much prefer formulations grounded in positive freedom for most things.)

[7,052,770]

If second-hand smoke weren't deadly, it would be tough to justify public bans.  But no one has the "freedom" to give others cancer.

[barfbag]

If second-hand smoke weren't deadly, it would be tough to justify public bans.  But no one has the "freedom" to give others cancer.

This is an interesting way to look at it. Libertarians might agree with you on the premise that one has the liberty to do something as long as their liberty doesn't effect someone else's liberty and smoking would do just that.

[© tweed]

If second-hand smoke weren't deadly, it would be tough to justify public bans.  But no one has the "freedom" to give others cancer.

so you support banning cars?

[Flake]

I think it should not be allowed inn public areas.

[Oak Hills]

If second-hand smoke weren't deadly, it would be tough to justify public bans.  But no one has the "freedom" to give others cancer.

No it wouldn't. Even if smoking had no harmful effects, I would have no sympathy for someone insisting on their "right" to make me smell those nausea-inducing fumes.

[Leftbehind]

"Letting business decide" in reality is ensuring the catering sector is overwhelmingly dominated by establishments that allow smoking (why narrow your customer base; non-smokers aren't that militant, whereas smokers will be) - and in doing so - ensuring the vast majority of workers in that sector get to enjoy second-hand smoking for as long as they remain there (many all their working life) - and as Tweed's noted, we're back to this fanciful idea that workers that are usually paid so little they need to be topped up, amidst an environment of mass employment, and increasingly draconian social security system (where refusing a job can see your unemployment benefit stopped) has a choice where they work, and can and will just upsticks if they are unhappy.

As someone who's breathed second-hand smoke all his life, I'm not that bothered myself but don't think others - mostly working class people - should be forced to sacrifice their statistically poorer health for employment. Coincides with my point about positive liberty in the other thread perfectly.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

So smoke inside your disgusting-smelling house. The rest of us don't want to inhale that sh[inks].

Every business and dining establishment should have a right to choose if smoking is allowed. If you don't want to be around it, go to another place.

[DC Al Fine]

"Letting business decide" in reality is ensuring the catering sector is overwhelmingly dominated by establishments that allow smoking (why narrow your customer base; non-smokers aren't that militant, whereas smokers will be) - and in doing so - ensuring the vast majority of workers in that sector get to enjoy second-hand smoking for as long as they remain there (many all their working life) - and as Tweed's noted, we're back to this fanciful idea that workers that are usually paid so little they need to be topped up, amidst an environment of mass employment, and increasingly draconian social security system (where refusing a job can see your unemployment benefit stopped) has a choice where they work, and can and will just upsticks if they are unhappy.

As someone who's breathed second-hand smoke all his life, I'm not that bothered myself but don't think others - mostly working class people - should be forced to sacrifice their statistically poorer health for employment. Coincides with my point about positive liberty in the other thread perfectly.

I dispute that.

Here's an example. My university recently banned smoking on campus. As in you cannot smoke, even outside, fifty feet from buildings etc. Does that sound like the work of non-militants to you?

[RogueBeaver]

So smoke inside your disgusting-smelling house. The rest of us don't want to inhale that sh[inks].

Every business and dining establishment should have a right to choose if smoking is allowed. If you don't want to be around it, go to another place.

[Vosem]

Yes -- probably contrary to most people's expectation of my vote. People may have the right to poison themselves if they so choose, but they don't have the right to put carcinogens in other people's air. This sort of thing is a legitimate government function.

[Oakvale]

I'm in favour of them despite having a nicotine dependency. People shouldn't have to inhale my smoke.

[Associate Justice PiT]

So smoke inside your disgusting-smelling house. The rest of us don't want to inhale that sh[inks].

Every business and dining establishment should have a right to choose if smoking is allowed. If you don't want to be around it, go to another place.

[Goldwater]

So smoke inside your disgusting-smelling house. The rest of us don't want to inhale that sh[inks].

Every business and dining establishment should have a right to choose if smoking is allowed. If you don't want to be around it, go to another place.

[ElectionsGuy]

So smoke inside your disgusting-smelling house. The rest of us don't want to inhale that sh[inks].

Every business and dining establishment should have a right to choose if smoking is allowed. If you don't want to be around it, go to another place.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So smoke inside your disgusting-smelling house. The rest of us don't want to inhale that sh[inks].

[7,052,770]

If second-hand smoke weren't deadly, it would be tough to justify public bans.  But no one has the "freedom" to give others cancer.

so you support banning cars?

That's just as dumb as bringing up cars in a gun control argument.

Our society cannot function without cars.  Yes, it would be preferable to move to a post-car society, but it's just not a viable option right now.

[Leftbehind]

"Letting business decide" in reality is ensuring the catering sector is overwhelmingly dominated by establishments that allow smoking (why narrow your customer base; non-smokers aren't that militant, whereas smokers will be) - and in doing so - ensuring the vast majority of workers in that sector get to enjoy second-hand smoking for as long as they remain there (many all their working life) - and as Tweed's noted, we're back to this fanciful idea that workers that are usually paid so little they need to be topped up, amidst an environment of mass employment, and increasingly draconian social security system (where refusing a job can see your unemployment benefit stopped) has a choice where they work, and can and will just upsticks if they are unhappy.

As someone who's breathed second-hand smoke all his life, I'm not that bothered myself but don't think others - mostly working class people - should be forced to sacrifice their statistically poorer health for employment. Coincides with my point about positive liberty in the other thread perfectly.

I dispute that.

Here's an example. My university recently banned smoking on campus. As in you cannot smoke, even outside, fifty feet from buildings etc. Does that sound like the work of non-militants to you?

I'm talking about discerning customers, not student activists - their counterpart in that scenario would've already decided to waver their ability to ban it. Most people who agree with a smoking ban also tend to want to accommodate the smokers in their group.