Thanks Facist Pigs!

[pipelineaudio]

Ok lets talk evidence

Everything you claimed about the music industry was wrong.

Not just a little either

Go back and read it again, if you need help understanding it better, I can show you sources to read

I am far more qualified to speak on this subject than you. Just that you can debate doesnt make you right, you are still wrong.

 

[Cheesejoff]

I'm fairly sure Fascists would actually keep immigrants out of the country rather than letting them in.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok lets talk evidence

Everything you claimed about the music industry was wrong.

Not just a little either

Go back and read it again, if you need help understanding it better, I can show you sources to read

I am far more qualified to speak on this subject than you. Just that you can debate doesnt make you right, you are still wrong.

How am I "wrong"? The Beatles had no major impact on the music industry?

 

[Ian Osborne]

If the smokers dont go, those who they ride with may not go.

And that's precisely why we need a smoking ban, instead of the market providing separate non-smoking pubs for the non-smokers.

And if 'the non-smoker can avoid smoky pubs by not being there' is a valid answer, why can't the pub owner avoid bans by relocating somewhere else? The only difference is Mr Nasty Gubmin(tm) is involved.

 

[skeptifem]

I want to stay and enjoy an atmosphere without harmful ciggie smoke. If anyone smokes it's contrary to my will, and my freedom to enjoy public health standards. If they smoke without doing this then they can go ahead—but not if the only way for me to avoid their smoke is to leave.

You have a right to enjoy an atmosphere that is owned by someone else? I doubt that very much. The loud music comparison has been done to death but it still holds water- it damages hearing, and I dislike loud music of any sort. When a place I go to cranks up the music I leave.

Doesnt the business owner have the right to make enjoyment of tobacco products part of their preferred atmosphere?

Next time somebody steals your wallet don't you dare go whining to the law about it, because others are being tortured and raped and murdered and you would be showing them horrifying disrespect.

Allow all crime except the worst crime imaginable. Failure to allow it is really messing up your priority of having respect for that victim.

I am just saying that when you say you were 'harmed against your will' its pretty disrespectful to people who wish that they could have just walked away from harm. If you can walk away and you stay then it isnt 'against your will' at all. Deal with it. You are again comparing theft to something you decided to subject yourself to and then whine about. What you are saying is that my POV is a sillpery slope where only the worst crimes need attention- but by saying that you show that you are missing the point completely.

 

[merentha]

I'm not familiar with US laws so here's my query. Assuming there's no smoking ban, and a bar owner decides to set up a non-smoking bar as an alternative for people how like in unwind with a drink in a less hazy atmosphere. A guy passes by, likes the music playing within, and enters. However, this guy is a smoker and proceeds to light up. Does the bar owner have the right to throw the smoker out? Or can the smoker sue on the grounds that his "right to smoke" has been violated since the smoking ban in the bar is not a legal ban?

 

[skeptifem]

Most places they can kick you out for almost any reason(you dont have to break the law), and if you dont the cops will remove you. I think if you are there when the owner tells you to leave its trespassing.

 

[Francesca R]

You have a right to enjoy an atmosphere that is owned by someone else? I doubt that very much.

Then you remain uninformed. The "atmosphere" is not owned. And the fact remains that if it is a public place of business or entertainment it is not up to the owner to do what they like.

Doesnt the business owner have the right to make enjoyment of tobacco products part of their preferred atmosphere?

Nope.

I am just saying that when you say you were 'harmed against your will' its pretty disrespectful to people who wish that they could have just walked away from harm. If you can walk away and you stay then it isnt 'against your will' at all. Deal with it. You are again comparing theft to something you decided to subject yourself to and then whine about. What you are saying is that my POV is a sillpery slope where only the worst crimes need attention- but by saying that you show that you are missing the point completely.

Or you are. I would like to use your house for a loud party tonight. I will send some hired thugs over to throw you out first and get things ready for the event. You can't complain about this because I am giving you warning and you are able to walk away voluntarily. . .

The purpose of my analogies is to throw into sharper relief the errors in your analogies.

What you need to deal with is that smoking out the atmosphere in a place open to the public is increasingly not a right. Not the smoker's right. Not the owner's right.

 

[b33fj3rky]

For some reason, many libertarians think that it is worse to have your options limited by government (or specific people) than it is for your options to be limited by circumstance. I don't understand why.

Simple. It's because when circumstance is limiting your options, you have the freedom to patronize another establishment, get another job, move to another town, get new friends, or otherwise change your circumstances.

When government "limits your options," you have to do what they want, or they'll put you in jail, maybe even kill you.

Government is worse because it forces you to do whatever the government deems best. With a business, if you don't agree with what they want, then you're not compelled to patronize them.

 

[Esperdome]

Originally Posted by Esperdome
What if a bar owner concerned with smoke in their bar installs a ventilation system that sucks smoke away from every table with a vacuum system combined with three or four times the air exchanges per hour more than required by code.

Combine this with a heat exchanger to extract heat from the incoming air by transferring it to exhaust air.

Bar air is virtually smoke free. It's like drinking in a spring breeze. This is an engineering solution to the problem that would make smoking bans unnecessary.

Industry often sees the writing on the wall and takes the bitter pill themselves to avoid government intervention. Why should clubs and bars be any different?

Requiring that would almost certainly cost bars more than any loss of business from a smoking ban.

You may be right about this, especially if you are retrofitting an existing bar.

But bars in my area often do a complete remodel every 5-10 years. Ventilation improvements could be included at that time.

Twenty years ago many welding shops said it was too expensive to upgrade their ventilation systems, it would put them out of business. When they got hit by all the lawsuits brought by welders for getting Parkinson's and other diseases, they quickly changed their tune.

IMO, employers who ignore their worker's health issues for higher profits deserve to get their butts sued off.

 

[b33fj3rky]

It seems contrary to libertarian ideas to protest smoking bans.

But it's not contrary.

With smoking bans:
Someone who would elect to do something—in an establishment open to the public—which harms her neighbour against his will—is forcibly prevented from so doing. She can carry on life freely as long as she does not harm her neighbours.

Without smoking bans:
Someone—who is not harming anybody—must either forego access to an establishment open to the public, or must suffer harm that she does not consent to from her neighbour.

You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint. You've ignored the rights of the business owner. For libertarians, business transactions should be based on a very simple principle: voluntary interaction between two individuals (or parties.)

The business owner can run his business as he sees fit. He has no right to force you to patronize it. If you don't want to shop/eat/whatever there, then you don't have to.

And, in turn, you can patronize it, or not, as you see fit. If you don't like it, don't go there. You have no right to force the business owner to run his establishment the way you wish it were being run.

 

[El Greco]

And, in turn, you can patronize it, or not, as you see fit. If you don't like it, don't go there. You have no right to force the business owner to run his establishment the way you wish it were being run.

Not if there are health concerns, like hygiene in restaurants, adulterated drinks or smoke. Then the owner has no right to run his establishment the way he likes.

BTW, here's a relevant study: Air pollution in Boston bars before and after a smoking ban

CONCLUSIONS: During smoking, although pub ventilation rates per occupant were within ASHRAE design parameters for the control of carbon dioxide levels for the number of occupants present, they failed to control SHS carcinogens or RSP. Nonsmokers SHS odor and irritation sensory thresholds were massively exceeded. Post-ban air pollution measurements showed 90% to 95% reductions in PPAH and RSP respectively, differing little from outdoor concentrations. Ventilation failed to control SHS, leading to increased risk of the diseases of air pollution for nonsmoking workers and patrons. Bostons smoking ban eliminated this risk.

 

[El Greco]

And here's another relevant study:

Impact of a smoking ban on restaurant and bar revenues--El Paso, Texas, 2002

To assess whether the El Paso smoking ban affected restaurant and bar revenues, the Texas Department of Health (TDH) and CDC analyzed sales tax and mixed-beverage tax data during the 12 years preceding and 1 year after the smoking ban was implemented. This report summarizes the results of that analysis, which determined that no statistically significant changes in restaurant and bar revenues occurred after the smoking ban took effect. These findings are consistent with those from studies of smoking bans in other U.S. cities.

 

[b33fj3rky]

Not if there are health concerns, like hygiene in restaurants, adulterated drinks or smoke. Then the owner has no right to run his establishment the way he likes.

And that's where we differ, my island friend. From my way of thinking, and many libertarians I know, it's like this: The owner has a right to serve ill-prepared, unhygenic garbage on a plate, if he wishes, as long as he's honest about it. And you have the right to not eat there, on the grounds that the daily special is "E-Coli Explosion Surprise." As long as the owner makes no false claims about the quality or safety of his product, then he's in the clear, and it's up to you to use your brain and decide whether or not you want the E-Coli Special of the Day.

If you're too stupid to make intelligent consumer decisions, that's your problem.

 

[El Greco]

And that's where we differ, my island friend. From my way of thinking, and many libertarians I know, it's like this: The owner has a right to serve ill-prepared, unhygenic garbage on a plate, if he wishes, as long as he's honest about it. And you have the right to not eat there, on the grounds that the daily special is "E-Coli Explosion Surprise." As long as the owner makes no false claims about the quality or safety of his product, then he's in the clear, and it's up to you to use your brain and decide whether or not you want the E-Coli Special of the Day.

If you're too stupid to make intelligent consumer decisions, that's your problem.

So, if a malicious owner decides to cause gastrenteritis to his customers just for fun, he should be free to do it ? And what if the owner simply doesn't know that his ways of preparing the food are not hygienic ? How can he be honest if he is ignorant ? And who's going to verify the owner's honesty ? Wouldn't we need some inspections ? And wouldn't it be simpler to inspect the food quality instead of the owner's honesty ?

 

[Mashuna]

And that's where we differ, my island friend. From my way of thinking, and many libertarians I know, it's like this: The owner has a right to serve ill-prepared, unhygenic garbage on a plate, if he wishes, as long as he's honest about it. And you have the right to not eat there, on the grounds that the daily special is "E-Coli Explosion Surprise." As long as the owner makes no false claims about the quality or safety of his product, then he's in the clear, and it's up to you to use your brain and decide whether or not you want the E-Coli Special of the Day.

If you're too stupid to make intelligent consumer decisions, that's your problem.

By 'honest about it', do you mean he must actively come out and say, "Hey, the meal's cheap, but all the meat is rotten and there are rats in the kitchen." or just not lie about it if asked?

Personally, I quite like having minimum hygene standards, rather than have to inspect a kitchen and food preparation areas before I eat.

 

[Ian Osborne]

From my way of thinking, and many libertarians I know, it's like this: The owner has a right to serve ill-prepared, unhygenic garbage on a plate, if he wishes, as long as he's honest about it.

That's why most people have a problem with unrestricted libertarianism. Do you really think restaurant owners will advertise the fact that they run unclean kitchens? Should it really be consumer choice which closes down establishments which have the potential to kill?

 

[skeptifem]

Not if there are health concerns, like hygiene in restaurants, adulterated drinks or smoke. Then the owner has no right to run his establishment the way he likes.

That is different. When it comes to smoking people go in and accept the risk by staying there. With what you listed there is no way for the patron to know of those dangers so government has to regulate it.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I thought I should speak up as one who did, in fact, vote for this proposition.

I admit that I was moderately torn about it. The law does violate most of my libertarian tendancies. However, I break company with most libertarians w.r.t. drug policies. And I find no characteristic that alcohol and tabacco share which seperate them from other recreational drugs (other than historical usage patterns, which are not intrinsic to the drugs), so no reason to treat them differently from other recreational drugs.

What I found particularly funny, then, was all the ads. saying that this law would hurt bars. I'm thinking, hey, thanks for giving me another reason to vote for the law!

Mostly cigarette and alcohol druggies don't bother me. But finding both groups litter (most common types of liter one can find) and dealing with the negative externalities smoke impenges on me can annoy me.

Aaron

 

[UserGoogol]

You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint. You've ignored the rights of the business owner. For libertarians, business transactions should be based on a very simple principle: voluntary interaction between two individuals (or parties.)

The business owner can run his business as he sees fit. He has no right to force you to patronize it. If you don't want to shop/eat/whatever there, then you don't have to.

And, in turn, you can patronize it, or not, as you see fit. If you don't like it, don't go there. You have no right to force the business owner to run his establishment the way you wish it were being run.

Nobody has a right to do anything, that's just silly. Nobody's entitled to anything in life. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, even if you think you paid for it. The question is what is the best way to make life so as to make people as free as possible (ultimately so as to make people as happy as possible, because freedom is conducive to happiness).

The only way to really force someone to do something is to go into their brains and make it so that they choose your thing, and even then it's debatable whether it's truly coercion because they are still doing what they "want" to do. All you can do is make it more difficult for a person to make a choice. In a dictatorship, a person can still say and do whatever they want, they'll just have to deal with having the gestapo running after them. Similarly, when there is no ban of cigarettes in bars, a person can choose to go to a bar without smokers, but then they'll either have to deal with smoke in the air or deal with their bar going out of business because it kicked the smokers out.

Perhaps an argument can be made that not having a ban is still freer than having a ban. I don't know, it depends on which is worse, people having to smell smoke when they go to bars or people having to pay fines. I can certainly see how the argument can be made that having no ban is ultimately the better way might work. But to simply appeal to rights is just silly. Actions can only be weighed by looking at their consequences, because an action without consequences is meaningless. To say that some actions are wrong because they violate rights seems like mystical thinking, supposing that there is more to human will than merely being an electrochemical system embedded a sack of meat.