Thanks Facist Pigs!

[pgwenthold]

For the same reason that we need laws to make sure that people aren't putting antifreeze in wine,

Personally, I disagree with that, too. If it is fully disclosed that the wine contains antifreeze, why shouldn't anyone be able to sell it? No one would buy it, of course, but why prevent someone from selling? The concern is not that they are selling wine with antifreeze in it, but that they are doing it without making it clear that this what they are doing (and that people aren't smart enough to recognize it)

I don't think bars are advertising themselves as smokefree and then allowing smoking.

 

[pipelineaudio]

"Market forces" is "one currency unit = one vote". This is quite different—one person = one vote. In other words, democracy.

ETA: To elaborate . . .

If there were no restrictions on advertising. If there were no taxes on cigarettes. If there were no restrictions on where people could smoke. If the state did not pass any laws on smoking at all except by allowing itself to be bought off by the highest bidder (market forces). What do you think would be the smoking message and the smoking situation? The market would clear but the air wouldn't because cigarette smoke would be everywhere.

Nobody is FORCING you to into that bar THAT YOU DIDNT BUY. Go make your rules where you own it

 

[Francesca R]

I am very mixed on smoking bans. Before reading this group, I was totally opposed to them on the same grounds as Katana. In fact, if you will look over previous threads on the matter, you will see that I have typiferously opposed them.

However, my thinking has changed lately. Smoking bans are not needed for so that customers can sit in clean air. They are, however, justified on the grounds of worker health and safety.

Should an employee be forced to work in an unhealthy environment? Loggers do, but then, that risk is inherent in the profession. A logger who can't cut down a tree is not a logger. On the other hand, bar owners do not have to allow smoking to be bar owners. Therefore, the government can outlaw smoking to protect the workers.

We all get upset when there are deaths in coalmines, and everyone asks, should the government do more to require the employers to protect the health and safety of their employees? This is the same deal.

I agree with most of the comments here. Outlawing smoking on the grounds that it is annoying to customers unjustified. If you don't like smoke, don't go. It is my personal approach, and I will dispute anyone who thinks we should have a smoking ban because they, as customers, don't like smoke. Don't go.

However, the worker's rights issue is more difficult to argue against. Personally, my position has been swayed significantly because of it.

I think the public preference for non-smoking bars is harder to argue against. You're argument is—"don't go". You seem to see that as a smaller infringement on civil liberty than telling the smoker "don't smoke". Plainly, it isn't. Compare:

1—Don't come in here or else uncompensated health risks will be unloaded onto you.
2—Don't come in here unless you desist from unloading uncompensated health risks onto others.

2 is less of an infringement—even to libertarians—than 1.

 

[pipelineaudio]

However, the worker's rights issue is more difficult to argue against. Personally, my position has been swayed significantly because of it.

I think you would have to show that the person who would like to work at a bar is against smoking in that bar. I think you would have a VERY hard time doing this.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Blowing smoke in the face of someone who doesn't want it is closer to the analogy of picking up a club than is enforcing against the activity. It's even closer to using the club on your neighbour.

Dont go in the bar you didnt pay for if you dont like its rules

 

[Francesca R]

Nobody is FORCING you to into that bar THAT YOU DIDNT BUY. Go make your rules where you own it

When you open your joint to the public the social contract is that you are bound to abide by public health laws. Too bad if you don't like it. Too bad if you own the establishment. If you want to flout public health law, get yourself shut down and only invite your friends round.

Our system is supposed to protect the minority from the majority somewhat

What about protecting the majority from the actions of the minority?

 

[El Greco]

Theoretically people should be able to protect theirselves by completely avoiding all places where smoking is allowed. This would surely create a demand for smoke-free places. But "theoretically" doesn't always work: "Theoretically" we wouldn't need laws about seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Or laws against drugs. Or against adulterated drinks. Which laws, if you think about it, are an even greater "violation" of personal rights since those who don't wear seatbelts or do heroin hurt no one but their own selves. But the point is that the situation has become rather unbearable: It's not like the odd club with very loud music that can damage hearing. Smokers can be found everywhere and one of them is perfectly capable of polluting the space of 3-4 non-smokers. The option of not going to such places is as limiting to the non-smokers as the banning of cigarettes would be to smokers. Many non-smokers (and even annoyed smokers) continue to go to such places because they value their needs for entertainment and socializing more than the discomfort smoke will cause. This is especially true for tenagers and young people who are not going to think of the smoke when they go to a "cool" place. Besides, smoke is kinda sneaky: What is a clear place can slowly turn into a heavy smog area.

If we reverse this logic we should also allow smoking in gyms; in theaters and cinemas; in concert halls. Non-smokers could choose not to go in all these places, after all it's all entertainment. But it doesn't work this way: My right to smoke-free entertainment trumps your right to smoke.

 

[Francesca R]

Dont go in the bar you didnt pay for if you dont like its rules

Again—it does not set the rules.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I think the public preference for non-smoking bars is harder to argue against. You're argument is—"don't go". You seem to see that as a smaller infringement on civil liberty than telling the smoker "don't smoke". Plainly, it isn't. Compare:

1—Don't come in here or else uncompensated health risks will be unloaded onto you.
2—Don't come in here unless you desist from unloading uncompensated health risks onto others.

2 is less of an infringement—even to libertarians—than 1.

This is why we keep getting crappier and crappier skateparks built publicly and cant keep the private ones open

Some lame kids' mom says "that ramps too big for my son"

So instead of riding the plethora of little ramps at the skatepark, the scums have the big ones torn down. Noone pays to get in any more because the ramp they like is no longer there, skatepark shuts down

Are we going to have to declare bars risky activities?

Or would you like to shut down the hiking trails, lakes and anywhere else you might get hurt?

 

[pipelineaudio]

When you open your joint to the public the social contract is that you are bound to abide by public health laws. Too bad if you don't like it. Too bad if you own the establishment. If you want to flout public health law, get yourself shut down and only invite your friends round.

What about protecting the majority from the actions of the minority?

those who dont want smoke can not enter

 

[Francesca R]

If it is fully disclosed that the wine contains antifreeze, why shouldn't anyone be able to sell it? No one would buy it, of course, but why prevent someone from selling?

This analogy lacks the presence of a negative social cost to others.

 

[brodski]

In previous threads I've had arguments about what the term "fascist" means, now thanks to the insight of Piplineaudio, I realise that the policies of early 20th Centaury European totalitarian sates can be summed up as "anti smoking, pro illegal immigration". If only the Jews had quit the Marlboro's and not been so mean to the Mexicans, maybe the holocaust would never have happened.

I have also learned that consumer and worker safety legislation is the most evil political Phillips ever, and that whatever is delivered by the market at any one time is, by definition, the best outcome. Changes to the regulation of the market is the very definition of evil, and must be resisted at all costs.

Now I have learned these things, I can no longer wait to get my citizenship papers to Libertopia, and to take up arms against the evil slag fairy and their fellow travellers.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Again—it does not set the rules.

SO whats your solution? WHAT can we possibly do for those who would like to smoke, buy a drink and see a band?

Or are you just THAT much against someone's freedom that this cant be allowed?

 

[pgwenthold]

I think the public preference for non-smoking bars is harder to argue against. You're argument is—"don't go". You seem to see that as a smaller infringement on civil liberty than telling the smoker "don't smoke". Plainly, it isn't.

I don't see how going to a place of business is a civil liberty in the first place.

Compare:

1—Don't come in here or else uncompensated health risks will be unloaded onto you.
2—Don't come in here unless you desist from unloading uncompensated health risks onto others.

2 is less of an infringement—even to libertarians—than 1.

OSHA requires that employers take steps to protect the health and safety of their employees.

Unless you are for abolishing OSHA (and I am not) then this is just part of that.

 

[Beerina]

For the same reason that we need laws to make sure that people aren't putting antifreeze in wine, or dumping raw sewage into rivers to save the cost of treatment.

Market forces do not take into account public health issues (they're another classic "tragedy of the commons").

Secondhand smoke is not a public health issue. It's an "ewww, get that away from me" issue. It's ironic that the same people touting getting rid of smoking in buildings are the same people supporting the Supreme Court decision that stinking, filthy, diseased bums could sit in a public library causing people to gag and vomit.

No principles whatsoever -- just whatever makes them feel good.

 

[Badger]

Why don't you move?

Why don't you go into some other business?

Why don't you switch to being a "private club" with your own rules and music?

You rant a lot, when you could probably find or make a niche that would be profitable, given the changing market conditions.

And yes, you have to change in order to adapt and survive.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Why don't you move?

Why don't you go into some other business?

Why don't you switch to being a "private club" with your own rules and music?

You rant a lot, when you could probably find or make a niche that would be profitable, given the changing market conditions.

And yes, you have to change in order to adapt and survive.

Weve already tried the private club deal as mentioned earlier. It means DJ's and no bands

We also tried outside smoking areas here, but they got shut down by the "noise nazis"

 

[Beerina]

Blowing smoke in the face of someone who doesn't want it

STOP RIGHT THERE.

IF this building allows smoking, at the owner's discretion, and you don't like it, don't go in and take your business elsewhere. That's what it means to live in a free country.

And, yes, that applies to being employed, too.

is closer to the analogy of picking up a club than is enforcing against the activity. It's even closer to using the club on your neighbour.

If someone said they were going to start swinging a club around on their own property, and I had permission to go onto that property, if I go run into the path of their club, that's my fault, not theirs.

Your analogy falls apart because it doesn't take into consideration the voluntary nature of a free society.

 

[brodski]

I don't see how going to a place of business is a civil liberty in the first place.

Really? So you wouldn't have a problem seeing signs which said "no blacks" again?
It doesn't necessarily follow that smoking must be banned in public enclosed spaces, but it was established decades ago that the freedom to enter and patronise places of business which cater to the public is a civil liberty. You may have a better argument that allowing smoking in such a places does not breach that civil liberty.

 

[Francesca R]

I don't see how going to a place of business is a civil liberty in the first place.

It's a place of entertainment open to the public. For many things the proprietor can dictate who is allowed in and what they are not allowed to do. Not with smoking because it is an accepted public health issue. Accepted by the majority of society. Until/unless society changes its collective mind.

OSHA . . . [snip]

Just that IMO you don't need to invoke worker's protection. Doesn't mean that isn't valid.

SO whats your solution? WHAT can we possibly do for those who would like to smoke, buy a drink and see a band?

The market solution that is consistent with social welfare is for you to pay the costs of the effect of your smoking on society and for the market to redistribute those costs as side payments to those who suffer from the effects. Similar to carbon emissions trading. I can't see that ever taking off though.

IF this building allows smoking, at the owner's discretion, and you don't like it, don't go in and take your business elsewhere. That's what it means to live in a free country.

Er . . . no. If that was what it means then that would be the law. But it isn't. So you don't know what freedom with responsibility means.

If someone said they were going to start swinging a club around on their own property, and I had permission to go onto that property, if I go run into the path of their club, that's my fault, not theirs.

Your analogy falls apart because it doesn't take into consideration the voluntary nature of a free society.

It's your analogy remember? You do not take into consideration that what you can permit on your own property, if you open it to the public, is not completely up to you. No matter how much you wish it should be.