NationStates Jolt Archive

Should Smoking In Public Places Be Banned?

What Do You Think?

I think that smoking should be banned in public places. But I also feel that they should set up cafes where they sell joints. This way, everyone wins.

I am still yet see a decent arguement to ban smoking in well ventilated and 'segregated'* place

*ie smokers kept away from nonsmokers

Most of the time, when "public places" is used in this context, it really refers to "private businesses that are open to the public". In this case, the decision rests with the business owner, not government.

My view of the subject is that smoking should be banned. Designated areas are a step in the right direction.

My view of the subject is that smoking should be banned. Designated areas are a step in the right direction.

Please justify this.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing cigerettes banned period; however, my opinion is very biased because both my parents are heavy smokers and I have asthma.

Anytime someone lights up a cigerette in a closed space while I'm near the weezing sets in and breathing becomes rather difficult. Also mind you my asthma isn't nearly as bad as some people I know.

It's also pretty disturbing seeing a 70 year old woman hacking up a lung and trying to light a cigerette at the same time.

we are trying to ban smoking while legalizing pot... wow... thats retarded...


To ban smoking would be like banning someone with tattoos from buying something. Smoking is a right, there is nothing that says we can't. I appreciate businesses that do not allow smoking, that is fine with me. But the government should not get involved.

I think they should be completely removed from public places. I do not care what you do to your own body, but do not harm mine. If I wanted to be exposed to smoke, then I would smoke. Seeing that I do not, keep it the hell away from.

:twisted:

I think they should be completely removed from public places. I do not care what you do to your own body, but do not harm mine. If I wanted to be exposed to smoke, then I would smoke. Seeing that I do not, keep it the hell away from.

:twisted:

So, what is wrong with smokers remaining withhin their special, ventilated areas?

I think pot is fine but not smoking. What is the point of smoking. It's like breathing in cancer. At least pot gives you the high feeling.

we are trying to ban smoking while legalizing pot... wow... thats retarded...who is included in the "we"?

I think they should be completely removed from public places. I do not care what you do to your own body, but do not harm mine. If I wanted to be exposed to smoke, then I would smoke. Seeing that I do not, keep it the hell away from.

:twisted:

So, what is wrong with smokers remaining withhin their special, ventilated areas?

Nothing, as long as it is more segregated and ventilated than "over there." Which it never is. Also, the resturant should be providing long-term health insurance for its employees.

I like in New York City, smoking is banned almost everywhere. I think it's the best thing to ever happen in the city. If you want to smoke, go smoke in your house. If you want to kill yourself, have a blast - but leave me alone.

As for the segragated thing, a load of garbage. Unless the area has a vent fan or a couple of open windows, the smoke will drift into the smoke free section, eliminating the whole purpose of the concept.

I live in the UK, I am an ex smoker (5 months now) and I have just come back from a week in New York. I have to say that I find the bar culture strange in New York because you can't smoke anywhere. Back home almost every pub allows smoking.

I think the best way towards a better environment for non-smokers is to license a certain proportion of bars / pubs to be smoking / no smoking. That way you allow a real choice for the consumer. If people prefer to go to non-smoking establishments then the landlords can always increase the number of non-smoking bars. If people prefer the smoking establishments then there is always an alternative for those who would rather be in a smoke free environment.

It is clearly better for people not to smoke (I have realised this after a number of years as a smoker) but at the same time this is not a choice that should be made for people, it is something that they need to realise for themselves and there is no reason that facilities shouldn't exist side by side for smokers and non-smokers.

You really couldn't do that. The law would be overturned because it doesn't apply equally to all the bars. It would give one side more of an advantage than the other. Although it may be a good idea in theory, it would be impractical in the eyes of the law.

How about outside? I don't know if NYC considers outside a public place. But it is hard to think of anywhere better ventilated (esp. on a windy day)

That's about the only place you can still smoke in the city!

Except in Bryant Park, they made some of that smoke free.

You really couldn't do that. The law would be overturned because it doesn't apply equally to all the bars. It would give one side more of an advantage than the other. Although it may be a good idea in theory, it would be impractical in the eyes of the law.

Naw, it's fine. In a few months licensing will be handed over to the local authorities in England and Wales and they can control licensing hours, entertainments and any other terms applied to licenses. If you can't get people to apply for non-smoking licenses to the right proportion then you have to introduce incentives or penalties. You create an even playing field by penalising those who want smoking bars and rewarding those who don't.

I think that if death had a smell it would be something similar to the smell of exhaled cigarette smoke. I like to believe that I have the right to breathe clean air and not be forced to endanger my own health as a result of the actions of others, just as people who smoke have the right to slowly kill themselves if they so choose providing they do not impose the slow demise they suffer upon others.

You really couldn't do that. The law would be overturned because it doesn't apply equally to all the bars. It would give one side more of an advantage than the other. Although it may be a good idea in theory, it would be impractical in the eyes of the law.

Naw, it's fine. In a few months licensing will be handed over to the local authorities in England and Wales and they can control licensing hours, entertainments and any other terms applied to licenses. If you can't get people to apply for non-smoking licenses to the right proportion then you have to introduce incentives or penalties. You create an even playing field by penalising those who want smoking bars and rewarding those who don't.

There is of course also the issue about the staff...

Anyway, I quited almost four years ago now (1st of May actually) and I can't say I like smoke filled places. I don't mind if people want to smoke at home because it doesn't affect me at all, but where I live, smoking is almost allowed everywhere, which makes it impossible for me to get away from. I can't find one bar where smoking is banned and they haven't gotten around to install ventilation systems that work either...

I think that if death had a smell it would be something similar to the smell of exhaled cigarette smoke. I like to believe that I have the right to breathe clean air and not be forced to endanger my own health as a result of the actions of others, just as people who smoke have the right to slowly kill themselves if they so choose providing they do not impose the slow demise they suffer upon others.

Sure but then do people have a right to walk along streets that are not polluted by the stench of exhaust fumes? I personally find that far more obnoxious...

Should cars be banned from the residential areas of all cities?

I think that if death had a smell it would be something similar to the smell of exhaled cigarette smoke. I like to believe that I have the right to breathe clean air and not be forced to endanger my own health as a result of the actions of others, just as people who smoke have the right to slowly kill themselves if they so choose providing they do not impose the slow demise they suffer upon others.

Sure but then do people have a right to walk along streets that are not polluted by the stench of exhaust fumes? I personally find that far more obnoxious...

Should cars be banned from the residential areas of all cities?

Ahh, the often chosen counter argument: Cars. :)

Hell yes, bann them in the city at least. Bring on subways, pedestrian zones etc. And when I sit in a pub there aren't a huge probability that 68 cars are joining me, exhausting over a whisky... :wink:

I think that if death had a smell it would be something similar to the smell of exhaled cigarette smoke. I like to believe that I have the right to breathe clean air and not be forced to endanger my own health as a result of the actions of others, just as people who smoke have the right to slowly kill themselves if they so choose providing they do not impose the slow demise they suffer upon others.

Sure but then do people have a right to walk along streets that are not polluted by the stench of exhaust fumes? I personally find that far more obnoxious...

Should cars be banned from the residential areas of all cities?

I do not actually notice the smell of exhaust fumes when I walk down the street. Additionally the proximity between a car and a pedestrian the length of exposure is far less than that between a smoker and a non-smoker can be. Furthermore I think that most people recognise that cars play an essential part in the lives of the vast majority of the population and that any pollution that arises from car usage is an unfortunate necessity, the same cannot be said of cigarettes.

Ahh, the often chosen counter argument: Cars. :)

Hell yes, bann them in the city at least. Bring on subways, pedestrian zones etc. And when I sit in a pub there aren't a huge probability that 68 cars are joining me, exhausting over a whisky... :wink:

I guess that I haven't become the militant ex smoker that some people become after quitting ;)

I like a nice outside pint in the summer and the smell of petrol fumes ruins the fine hop aromas...

very good question, i thin yes but there should also be a set place where they can smoke like how that have 'hash' marks they should have smoking areas like i dunno a smokers park or whatever.

Ahh, the often chosen counter argument: Cars. :)

Hell yes, bann them in the city at least. Bring on subways, pedestrian zones etc. And when I sit in a pub there aren't a huge probability that 68 cars are joining me, exhausting over a whisky... :wink:

I guess that I haven't become the militant ex smoker that some people become after quitting ;)

I like a nice outside pint in the summer and the smell of petrol fumes ruins the fine hop aromas...

I was quite rabiat the first months, because I wanted to smoke and then I got mad at myself... and so on. Nowadays I don't care too much. It doesn't bring anything anyway.

I too like to have a beer outside in the summer, but I choose a place where there is no heavy traffic surrounding me. I don't really have that choise today if I want to go to a pub.

Why does government have to get involved at all? Let the business owner decide. If nonsmokers don't like the business owner's decision to allow smoking, then they won't go. If smokers don't like his decision to not allow smoking, then they won't go.

Why does government have to get involved at all? Let the business owner decide. If nonsmokers don't like the business owner's decision to allow smoking, then they won't go. If smokers don't like his decision to not allow smoking, then they won't go.

I think the pesky government gets involved because if it don't nothing happen. They have this crazy idea that smoking is bad for you, you know.

Why does government have to get involved at all? Let the business owner decide. If nonsmokers don't like the business owner's decision to allow smoking, then they won't go. If smokers don't like his decision to not allow smoking, then they won't go.

I think the pesky government gets involved because if it don't nothing happen. They have this crazy idea that smoking is bad for you, you know.

It's not just that. Sometimes competition needs a helping hand, especially with something so ingrained as smoking and drinking in bars...

Why does government have to get involved at all? Let the business owner decide. If nonsmokers don't like the business owner's decision to allow smoking, then they won't go. If smokers don't like his decision to not allow smoking, then they won't go.

I think the pesky government gets involved because if it don't nothing happen. They have this crazy idea that smoking is bad for you, you know.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah BMV, you big pinko commie! ;)

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah BMV, you big pinko commie! ;)

Hehe, if G Bugles had read anything else I've written so far in this thread he'd know the answer. I can't be arsed to repeat myself when the answer is given some posts above. :roll:

I do not actually notice the smell of exhaust fumes when I walk down the street. Additionally the proximity between a car and a pedestrian the length of exposure is far less than that between a smoker and a non-smoker can be. Furthermore I think that most people recognise that cars play an essential part in the lives of the vast majority of the population and that any pollution that arises from car usage is an unfortunate necessity, the same cannot be said of cigarettes.

I usually live in a quite rural area of England where I no longer drive having crushed my car and decided to use the train to commute. I have just got back from a week in NYC and I have to say that I feel the exhaust fumes in my lungs more than anything else. My breathing has been more constricted over the last week than it ever was when I was smoking. I guess people are less prepared to see the harm in car exhausts since so many people "can't live without their cars"...

Why does government have to get involved at all? Let the business owner decide. If nonsmokers don't like the business owner's decision to allow smoking, then they won't go. If smokers don't like his decision to not allow smoking, then they won't go.

I think the pesky government gets involved because if it don't nothing happen. They have this crazy idea that smoking is bad for you, you know.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

So we non-smokers need to stay home because you need to smoke a cigarette?

I have a feeling that Cigarrettes are going towards some type of prohibition. And it will fail gloriously like alcohol prohibition did....

Banning smoking in public places is simply government shoving its nose where it doesn't belong. Businesses are private and owners should decide whether they allow it or not. And if you don't like it then you don't eat there.

I have a feeling that Cigarrettes are going towards some type of prohibition. And it will fail gloriously like alcohol prohibition did....

Banning smoking in public places is simply government shoving its nose where it doesn't belong. Businesses are private and owners should decide whether they allow it or not. And if you don't like it then you don't eat there.

Decsision by private owners has clearly failed which is the reason that government should step in, not to ban cigarettes accross the board but to correct the market to give a choice to consumers.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

I think they should be completely removed from public places. I do not care what you do to your own body, but do not harm mine. If I wanted to be exposed to smoke, then I would smoke. Seeing that I do not, keep it the hell away from me.

:twisted:

So, what is wrong with smokers remaining within their special, ventilated areas?

Because, the question is, are they really ventilated? They are more often then not improperly ventilated, and you are still exposed to smoke. Most of the times, it is an elivated platform within the resturant, or one certain side. It is still one building, smoke diffuses, spreads itself, and comes in contact with the nonsmokers, even if it is not in an annoyingly vexing amount.

The fact of the matter is, even if you choose to smoke, it does not mean everyone does. Do it on your own time away from everyone else. Go outside away from the building and smoke if you cannot even sit through one simple meal without having to smoke. It is not fair to the nonsmokers to have to be subjected to it in a public place.

I respect your opinion, but this is mine. I just do not believe that people should be free to smoke wherever they feel like.

:twisted:

Why does government have to get involved at all? Let the business owner decide. If nonsmokers don't like the business owner's decision to allow smoking, then they won't go. If smokers don't like his decision to not allow smoking, then they won't go.

I think the pesky government gets involved because if it don't nothing happen. They have this crazy idea that smoking is bad for you, you know.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

So we non-smokers need to stay home because you need to smoke a cigarette?

I doubt I'd ever need to smoke a cigarette, but regardless:
A restaurant is not your property. It is the restaurant owner's property. Therefore, he gets to decide what is and is not allowed--not you, not government, just him. If you don't agree his decision, then you don't have to go. Your desire to go there does not confer upon you the privilege of running his property for him. Stop thinking like a fascist.

I have a feeling that Cigarrettes are going towards some type of prohibition. And it will fail gloriously like alcohol prohibition did....

Banning smoking in public places is simply government shoving its nose where it doesn't belong. Businesses are private and owners should decide whether they allow it or not. And if you don't like it then you don't eat there.

Decsision by private owners has clearly failed which is the reason that government should step in, not to ban cigarettes accross the board but to correct the market to give a choice to consumers.

No one is entitled to a "choice" of something that is provided by someone else (restaurant owners) at the expense of their individual rights (namely, the right to decide for themselves how to run their property). That's called "slavery", bud.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?[/quote]

Or if you changed the law, how about: If you don't want to be surrounded by people who aren't smoking then DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT. Why is this such a difficult concept for conservatives like yourself to wrap your minds around.

Yes. And this thread has been made before by that hot stuff girl Tink.

I have a feeling that Cigarrettes are going towards some type of prohibition. And it will fail gloriously like alcohol prohibition did....

Banning smoking in public places is simply government shoving its nose where it doesn't belong. Businesses are private and owners should decide whether they allow it or not. And if you don't like it then you don't eat there.

Decsision by private owners has clearly failed which is the reason that government should step in, not to ban cigarettes accross the board but to correct the market to give a choice to consumers.

No one is entitled to a "choice" of something that is provided by someone else (restaurant owners) at the expense of their individual rights (namely, the right to decide for themselves how to run their property). That's called "slavery", bud.

Go to Libya. See a taste of the true meaning of that word you bandy about so readily.

In any case, your right to swing your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins. When the both of us are in a public place and your smoking harms me, it is not me at fault for being present, it is you at fault for lighting up.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

Or if you changed the law, how about: If you don't want to be surrounded by people who aren't smoking then DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT.

Exactly. The decision ultimately rests with the restaurant owner; if they don't like his choice either way, they won't patronize his restaurant. Government has no place getting involved.

Incidentally, your assertion that I am a "conservative" is incredibly retarded. No conservative I know of supports total and unconditional legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling, for instance.

In any case, your right to swing your fist ends where the tip of my nose begins. When the both of us are in a public place and your smoking harms me, it is not me at fault for being present, it is you at fault for lighting up.

Too often, in debates such as this "public place" is taken to mean "a private business that is open to the public". In such cases, it is properly the business owner's decision. Whichever way he chooses, if you don't like his rules, then you don't have to go.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

Or if you changed the law, how about: If you don't want to be surrounded by people who aren't smoking then DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT.

Exactly. The decision ultimately rests with the restaurant owner; if they don't like his choice either way, they won't patronize his restaurant. Government has no place getting involved.

Incidentally, your assertion that I am a "conservative" is incredibly retarded. No conservative I know of supports total and unconditional legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling, for instance.

It wasn't really as much an assertion on my part as a reflection of your "retarded" contention that BMW was a socialist.

That said I did actually figure that you are reasonably right wing due to your derrogatory use of the word 'socialist' rather than the policies you were putting forward. I can't help but notice that you didn't deny it either.

It's not a matter of property or ownership, it's a matter of health. Merely because a bar is private property does not mean that whatever goes on within its premises are justifiable so long as the owner gives his consent. Laws still actually apply.

Oh and by the way would you support a ban of smoking in all areas other than those of private property? Just wondering.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

Or if you changed the law, how about: If you don't want to be surrounded by people who aren't smoking then DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT.

Exactly. The decision ultimately rests with the restaurant owner; if they don't like his choice either way, they won't patronize his restaurant. Government has no place getting involved.

Incidentally, your assertion that I am a "conservative" is incredibly retarded. No conservative I know of supports total and unconditional legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling, for instance.

It wasn't really as much an assertion on my part as a reflection of your "retarded" contention that BMW was a socialist.

That said I did actually figure that you are reasonably right wing due to your derrogatory use of the word 'socialist' rather than the policies you were putting forward. I can't help but notice that you didn't deny it either.

It's not a matter of property or ownership, it's a matter of health. Merely because a bar is private property does not mean that whatever goes on within its premises are justifiable so long as the owner gives his consent. Laws still actually apply.

Oh and by the way would you support a ban of smoking in all areas other than those of private property? Just wondering.

Whether it's bad for you or not is irrelevant. It's your body; therefore, it's your decision. If you don't want to be in a restaurant surrounded by people who smoke, then simply DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT WHERE PEOPLE ARE SMOKING. Why is that such a difficult concept for socialists like yourself to wrap your minds around?

Or if you changed the law, how about: If you don't want to be surrounded by people who aren't smoking then DON'T GO TO A RESTAURANT.

Exactly. The decision ultimately rests with the restaurant owner; if they don't like his choice either way, they won't patronize his restaurant. Government has no place getting involved.

Incidentally, your assertion that I am a "conservative" is incredibly retarded. No conservative I know of supports total and unconditional legalization of drugs, prostitution, and gambling, for instance.

It wasn't really as much an assertion on my part as a reflection of your "retarded" contention that BMW was a socialist.

That said I did actually figure that you are reasonably right wing due to your derrogatory use of the word 'socialist' rather than the policies you were putting forward. I can't help but notice that you didn't deny it either.

It's not a matter of property or ownership, it's a matter of health. Merely because a bar is private property does not mean that whatever goes on within its premises are justifiable so long as the owner gives his consent. Laws still actually apply.

Oh and by the way would you support a ban of smoking in all areas other than those of private property? Just wondering.

It's not a matter of property or ownership, it's a matter of health. Merely because a bar is private property does not mean that whatever goes on within its premises are justifiable so long as the owner gives his consent. Laws still actually apply.
It IS a matter of property. If someone does not wish to take the health risk, he can simply not patronize that establishment.


Oh and by the way would you support a ban of smoking in all areas other than those of private property? Just wondering.
I do not accept the legitimacy of "public" ownership of property; therefore, that question is meaningless in an ideal context. In the context of reality and the current status quo, my answer would be what you would expect from the previous statement--transfer "public" property to private hands and then it's not a question.

:x A bar that does not allow smoking is a poor excuse of a bar!!!

:) Restaraunts however are a different story all together.

It's not a matter of property or ownership, it's a matter of health. Merely because a bar is private property does not mean that whatever goes on within its premises are justifiable so long as the owner gives his consent. Laws still actually apply.
It IS a matter of property. If someone does not wish to take the health risk, he can simply not patronize that establishment.


Oh and by the way would you support a ban of smoking in all areas other than those of private property? Just wondering.
I do not accept the legitimacy of "public" ownership of property; therefore, that question is meaningless in an ideal context. In the context of reality and the current status quo, my answer would be what you would expect from the previous statement--transfer "public" property to private hands and then it's not a question.

That would be forcing people to allow others to harm them, in that case. Simply unacceptable. It's like ending all human rights abuses by abolishing human rights.

I think smoking is a terrible thing and a public ban would do everyone some good including the smokers.

I think smoking is a terrible thing and a public ban would do everyone some good including the smokers.

I think they should be completely removed from public places. I do not care what you do to your own body, but do not harm mine. If I wanted to be exposed to smoke, then I would smoke. Seeing that I do not, keep it the hell away from.

:twisted:

So, what is wrong with smokers remaining withhin their special, ventilated areas?

No not that. Its just one person (this happened once in the airport) lights up a cigarette and everyone suffers because just one person lights a cigarette. The ventilation will spread out the smoke and cause it going everywhere. Although its more pleasent it still damages your health although its unoticiable at the current moment.

I dont know about 'public places' as that would include the street and the park, but smoking should certainly be banned in all workplaces and indoor 'public places' such as restaurants and pubs.

Though one might argue that it is the restaurant's decision whether they want to be non-smoking.

I always say that ofcourse you have the choice of what to do to your own body, so smoke if you like, but you have no right whatsoever to cause me illness and distress - by smoking. Damage your own body in your own home.

That would be forcing people to allow others to harm them, in that case.

How so?

It's not a matter of property or ownership, it's a matter of health. Merely because a bar is private property does not mean that whatever goes on within its premises are justifiable so long as the owner gives his consent. Laws still actually apply.
It IS a matter of property. If someone does not wish to take the health risk, he can simply not patronize that establishment.


Oh and by the way would you support a ban of smoking in all areas other than those of private property? Just wondering.
I do not accept the legitimacy of "public" ownership of property; therefore, that question is meaningless in an ideal context. In the context of reality and the current status quo, my answer would be what you would expect from the previous statement--transfer "public" property to private hands and then it's not a question.

So what you're proposing isn't really an answer to the question or a solution in any form, but rather an argument that my right to take decisions regarding my health and my right to breathe clean air should be made by other people. Your argument that I could "go somewhere else" is negated by your statement that all property should be privatised thus there might be nowhere else I could go.

Additionally your argument seems to ignore the fact that citizens have a legal responsibility for the health and welfare of others on their property.

One more thing, if all public property were transferred to private property then what would happen to the Senate building and the Whitehouse. So much for "we the people" - you'd have to re-write the whole constitution "we the shareholders" has a pretty good ring to it, what do you think?

So what you're proposing isn't really an answer to the question or a solution in any form, but rather an argument that my right to take decisions regarding my health and my right to breathe clean air should be made by other people. Your argument that I could "go somewhere else" is negated by your statement that all property should be privatised thus there might be nowhere else I could go.
You can go to your own property. Or you could convince someone else who disallows smoking on his property to let you go there.

Additionally your argument seems to ignore the fact that citizens have a legal responsibility for the health and welfare of others on their property.
Because that law is WRONG. As long as no false statements were made, individuals are fully responsible for the consequences of their decisions--including the decision to enter someone else's private property.

One more thing, if all public property were transferred to private property then what would happen to the Senate building and the Whitehouse. So much for "we the
people"
So much for it anyway. If you honestly believe that "government" (regardless of its form) is somehow synonomous with "the people", then (as Murray Rothbard put it quite excellently) you have to believe that "any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have 'committed suicide,' since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."

I think that smoking should be banned in public places. But I also feel that they should set up cafes where they sell joints. This way, everyone wins.
You anti-tobacco yet pro-marijuana people confuse me.

So what you're proposing isn't really an answer to the question or a solution in any form, but rather an argument that my right to take decisions regarding my health and my right to breathe clean air should be made by other people. Your argument that I could "go somewhere else" is negated by your statement that all property should be privatised thus there might be nowhere else I could go.
You can go to your own property. Or you could convince someone else who disallows smoking on his property to let you go there.

Additionally your argument seems to ignore the fact that citizens have a legal responsibility for the health and welfare of others on their property.
Because that law is WRONG. As long as no false statements were made, individuals are fully responsible for the consequences of their decisions--including the decision to enter someone else's private property.

One more thing, if all public property were transferred to private property then what would happen to the Senate building and the Whitehouse. So much for "we the
people"
So much for it anyway. If you honestly believe that "government" (regardless of its form) is somehow synonomous with "the people", then (as Murray Rothbard put it quite excellently) you have to believe that "any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have 'committed suicide,' since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part."

Wow - not only goodbye to public property and to all laws other than property laws but goodbye to democracy and elected representation altogether. This is good stuff, did you ever think about writing a manifesto?

I don't believe that any government is synonymous with "the people" and its views but it's nice to feel that there is at least some degree of correlation between the two of them. Which incidentally is actually why there are elections held every 4 years (5 years in the UK) and each party tell you what it stands for beforehand.

"Because that law is WRONG. As long as no false statements were made, individuals are fully responsible for the consequences of their decisions--including the decision to enter someone else's private property."

That last paragraph was kind of fun in a crazy legal quagmire sort of way. I was just wondering then, say for example I dug a hole in my hallway put a large spike at the bottom, covered it over with a mat and then invited someone into my house, subsequently they fell into the hole and died a horrible, painful death, are you saying that I would not be liable providing I did not make a false statement like "there isn't a big hole with a spike in it under that rug". What if I couldn't be bothered with the hole, what if I invited him in, then just picked up a gun and shot him dead, would that be okay providing I hadn't told him that I wasn't going to shoot him?

in our country smoking is compulsory but ciggarettes are very expensive, and it is illegal to designate an area a public place as this encourages the concregation of people which only leads to more trouble.

in our country smoking is compulsory but ciggarettes are very expensive, and it is illegal to designate an area a public place as this encourages the concregation of people which only leads to more trouble.

You may have heard that since the end of February the is a complete smoking ban on all Irish workplaces with the exeption of prisions, hotels and i think nursing homes. So far it has worked grand and the hugh disruption that everyone, especially the publicans and restaurant owners, were predicting never happened.
The reason that it was introduces was that everyone now realises that smoking is a major health risk and that passive smoking is also very unhealth. I understand that in the US there is a hugh emphasise on the non-interference of the government but here in Ireland the health of the nations citizens is one of the government responsibilities. Hence drink-driving laws, healthy eating/ healthy lifestyle promotions.
I understand G'Bugles arguement that these places are private property and so the government should not have any hand in it and that people do not like it then they should simply not frequent it. Here in Ireland the ban is not for the purpose of protecting the paying customer at all, it is to protect the employees that have to work in this environment. The government is simply enacting Health & Safety legislation to prevent workers being exposed to harmful fumes, which is what cigerette smoke is.
I can only speak for my country but here we have laws against having fire hazards, use of asbestoes, lack of basic facilities and so one. The ban on smoking is simply an extension of this. Could you say that since restaurants and pubs are private business's they can allow noxious gases circulate or for open fires to be had. While the paying customers may be able to leave, the employees may not be in a position to do so.

I think that if death had a smell it would be something similar to the smell of exhaled cigarette smoke. I like to believe that I have the right to breathe clean air and not be forced to endanger my own health as a result of the actions of others, just as people who smoke have the right to slowly kill themselves if they so choose providing they do not impose the slow demise they suffer upon others.

Maybe you've never heard of cars?

how do you propose getting rid of the problems of car exaust, maybe in time we will be able to get rid of cars and have a healthier option but for now we have to suffer, concentrate on the do-able, start with small steps

I think that if death had a smell it would be something similar to the smell of exhaled cigarette smoke. I like to believe that I have the right to breathe clean air and not be forced to endanger my own health as a result of the actions of others, just as people who smoke have the right to slowly kill themselves if they so choose providing they do not impose the slow demise they suffer upon others.

Maybe you've never heard of cars?


The difference being that nobody ever drives their car into a restaurant, stops it at the next table and leaves the engine running. Cars are also a necessity for some people in order for them to go about their lives, cigarettes are not.