Is John Dibble correct?

[A18]

That is not a detail.

The founders gave us a way to amend the Constitution. Two, actually. Just overlooking "details" in order to fundamentally reshape its form was and is not one of them.

[Trilobyte]

Let me answer this bit-by-bit:

Your questions are ridiculous, and have very little to do with the topic. It's never legal to murder someone, under any consequences. I find it silly to equate the negative health effects of smoking to a bullet in the head.

Secondhand smoke is damaging to your long-term health at best and lethal at worst. I deliberately chose a more dramatic analogy, but the comparison is not unreasonable.  In my post, I never said the gunshots were fatal; you assumed that. So is it okay if someone walks into a resturant and only fire at your legs or hip, rather than the head? Does causing non-fatal injuries make it okay?

Let me pose a question to you - would you walk into the middle of a shooting range where people are constantly shooting and then blame the gunmen when you get shot? If you walk into a restaraunt that you know allows smoking, you are doing just that - you are taking a risk of your own free will.

A shooting range is an isolated area specifically for shooting, a resturant is not. People should not have to fear for dangers when they walk into a resturant. Nor should they be forced to think about which resturants harbor threats and which do not. The convenience of a few smokers should not rank higher than the lives and convenience of ordinary people.

Even libertarians should agree that government has the responsibility to protect lives and public safety. Individuals should not be allowed to threaten other people's lives, private property or otherwise.

And furthering your logic that smoking is like shooting people, it would be just to forbid people to smoke in their own homes, at least when they have company. Are you fine with people having their habits regulated in their own homes?

If my habits are hurting other people who are in my home, government should protect those people. It is no different from someone abusing their wife and kids in their home, etc. When there is a threat to people's lives, whether it's on private or public propery is irrelevant.

[John Dibble]

Your questions are ridiculous, and have very little to do with the topic. It's never legal to murder someone, under any consequences. I find it silly to equate the negative health effects of smoking to a bullet in the head.

Secondhand smoke is damaging to your long-term health at best and lethal at worst. I deliberately chose a more dramatic analogy, but the comparison is not unreasonable.  In my post, I never said the gunshots were fatal; you assumed that. So is it okay if someone walks into a resturant and only fire at your legs or hip, rather than the head? Does causing non-fatal injuries make it okay?

The scale is still vastly different. Second hand smoke does negligible damage compared to getting shot. The point still stands. And once again, YOU HAVE A CHOICE about entering a restaraunt - if it allows smoking you are taking a risk OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL. That is not the same as someone coming in and shooting people randomly - one can be easily anticipated, the other can not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A shooting range is an isolated area specifically for shooting, a resturant is not. People should not have to fear for dangers when they walk into a resturant. Nor should they be forced to think about which resturants harbor threats and which do not.
[/quote]

A restaraunt isn't an isolated area? You have absolutely no choice whatsoever about going into it? Since when?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The rights of a few people should rank higher than the convenience of the masses. Don't like smoking restaraunts, then don't go - you have a choice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If my habits are hurting other people who are in my home, government should protect those people. It is no different from someone abusing their wife and kids in their home, etc. When there is a threat to people's lives, whether it's on private or public propery is irrelevant.
[/quote]

In that case, it's fine if the government regulates what food you serve other people. I mean, high in fat and cholesterol - that's harmful. They shouldn't have to worry about the dangers of food that is bad for them. And once again, the guests apparently have no choice about being guests.

Let people take their own risks and deal with the consequences, the government shouldn't be a nanny.

[Rob]

Let people take their own risks and deal with the consequences, the government shouldn't be a nanny.

I agree.

[Blue Rectangle]

Let people take their own risks and deal with the consequences, the government shouldn't be a nanny.

I agree.

That's the real issue here.  If the goal were to allow people to go to resturants and bars without breathing smoke, they would push a better smoking/non-smoking section regulation.  The real purpose of this kind of legislation is to discourage people from smoking, not to protect non-smokers.

[John Dibble]

Let people take their own risks and deal with the consequences, the government shouldn't be a nanny.

I agree.

That's the real issue here.  If the goal were to allow people to go to resturants and bars with breathing smoke, they would push a better smoking/non-smoking section regulation.  The real purpose of this kind of legislation is to discourage people from smoking, not to protect non-smokers.

Quite right. Heck, a nightclub in a Georgia county spent $1 million to buy a special ventalation system that would suck up second hand smoke really quick, keeping the air clean for everyone, and shortly after the county banned smoking in such establishments.(also, not suprisingly, many businesses saw a decrease in business, as smokers just went out of county) A wasted investment. I'm not sure about any results, but I heard they were working on getting an exception or stipulation placed in the ban for such cases.

[The Duke]

States have the right to regulate any commerce within their borders, so the interstate commerce issue doesn't apply to most fo the bans.

[MaC]

Heh, I always thought Dibs sig refered to pot smoking.  Which I'm still in total favor of having legal.

[No more McShame]

My view on this tilts toward's John Dibble's, even though I have a personal loathing for smoking.

My only beef is this.  Let's say you live in a town where all the non-smoking bars and restaurants are overpriced and have a terrible atmosphere.  Meanwhile, the smoking bars are all friendly, reasonably priced, and can usually be counted on for a good night out.  This happens to be the case in my town, which means my evenings out are usually to the smoking bars.  I get home and my clothes and hair stink from the secondary smoke, my eyes sting, and heaven knows what I've inhaled.  I realize that my choice to go to those bars instead of the others is exactly that - my choice - but do you think it is fair that my concern for my health and well-being means I have to sacrifice my enjoyment of an evening out?

Oh, and by the way, non-smoking areas are stupid.  Smoke is a gas - it spreads throughout the whole room.

(P.S. - yes, smoking is far better than fascism, but then that's like comparing jay-walking with child rape)

open a new bar in your town, if it's as big of a problem as you say you should make enough money to make Tony Montana jealous.