Personally, I am a proponent of individual liberty. I generally think people should live and die by their own choices. On the other hand, liberty doesn’t mean doing anything you want. Liberty requires that you do not impede others’ efforts to do as they please as well. Beyond this, I’m willing to make exceptions to the general principle of liberty if the policy serves a reasonable or necessary purpose with as little intrusion as possible. This is the background from which I approach the debate over smoking bans.

 

First, smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker, but all of those around them. There is both a health risk and strong, irremovable smell that attaches itself to anyone nearby. So, a smoker isn’t just making a personal decision, but physically imposing themselves onto those around them. This would be entirely unacceptable in almost any other situation. Second, a smoking ban comes with a miniscule burden. Smokers are asked to step outside to smoke. That is, at most, a minor inconvenience. Establishments are insulated as well, as the ban affects all equally rather than forcing one or two to embark on their own bans by themselves where they would be more likely to suffer. Third, and related, people go to these places primarily to eat, drink, or socialize. No one goes to these places purely to smoke; they simply might in addition to those other things. Non-smokers, on the other hand, don’t get to choose whether to not-smoke, as it were, because the smokers choose for them. This is why it’s not particularly convincing for those to say people have the “choice” to go where there isn’t smoking. They do, technically, but it’s a secondary aspect. If I want to go to the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and where most of my friends are, then I’m going to go the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, where most of my friends are and possibly suffering the smoke, not one with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and no-smoking. Conversely, a smoker, especially in an area that has banned smoking, doesn’t have to make this sacrifice or calculation, as they can smoke anywhere already.

 

With all of that said, I find little reason to oppose a smoking ban. I think it corrects something that the market simply can’t, for reasons I identified, and it comes with minimal burden. Perfectly reasonable to me.

Sure I do not play football can always watch for free on tv.

I am smart enough and not addicted to enough to pay that price unlike so many smokers.

 

 

 

Your turn.

 

I would fine other items to use.

I have no addiction strong enough to make me pay the price that smokers will pay for their fix.

You seem really bitter and somewhat hateful toward smokers, I find that rather sad.

 

I can only hope my America NEVER turns into your America.

Personally, I am a proponent of individual liberty. I generally think people should live and die by their own choices. On the other hand, liberty doesn’t mean doing anything you want. Liberty requires that you do not impede others’ efforts to do as they please as well. Beyond this, I’m willing to make exceptions to the general principle of liberty if the policy serves a reasonable or necessary purpose with as little intrusion as possible. This is the background from which I approach the debate over smoking bans.

 

First, smoking doesn’t just affect the smoker, but all of those around them. There is both a health risk and strong, irremovable smell that attaches itself to anyone nearby. So, a smoker isn’t just making a personal decision, but physically imposing themselves onto those around them. This would be entirely unacceptable in almost any other situation. Second, a smoking ban comes with a miniscule burden. Smokers are asked to step outside to smoke. That is, at most, a minor inconvenience. Establishments are insulated as well, as the ban affects all equally rather than forcing one or two to embark on their own bans by themselves where they would be more likely to suffer. Third, and related, people go to these places primarily to eat, drink, or socialize. No one goes to these places purely to smoke; they simply might in addition to those other things. Non-smokers, on the other hand, don’t get to choose whether to not-smoke, as it were, because the smokers choose for them. This is why it’s not particularly convincing for those to say people have the “choice” to go where there isn’t smoking. They do, technically, but it’s a secondary aspect. If I want to go to the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and where most of my friends are, then I’m going to go the bar with the cheapest beer, most TVs, where most of my friends are and possibly suffering the smoke, not one with the cheapest beer, most TVs, and no-smoking. Conversely, a smoker, especially in an area that has banned smoking, doesn’t have to make this sacrifice or calculation, as they can smoke anywhere already.

 

With all of that said, I find little reason to oppose a smoking ban. I think it corrects something that the market simply can’t, for reasons I identified, and it comes with minimal burden. Perfectly reasonable to me.

Non-smokers DO have a choice, they can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment. There are plenty of them, I know, I've been to them. It's every bit as easy for them to do that as it is for a smoker to go outside. I don't smoke, my wife has asthma and smoke really bothers her, we manage to find plenty of places we can go without any trouble.

A bar and smokers go hand and hand, always have. Don't hang out in bars unless you can find one that is smoke free. If there's money to be made with a smoke free bar, someone will open one.

There is absolutely no good reason to force a ban on any restaurant or bar, it should be up to the owner and them alone. As I said, they know their clientele and will restrict or not restrict accordingly. That's the only right thing to do.

:popcorn:One of many.

 

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-166568358.html

Non-smokers DO have a choice, they can choose to go to a non-smoking establishment. There are plenty of them, I know, I've been to them. It's every bit as easy for them to do that as it is for a smoker to go outside. I don't smoke, my wife has asthma and smoke really bothers her, we manage to find plenty of places we can go without any trouble.

A bar and smokers go hand and hand, always have. Don't hang out in bars unless you can find one that is smoke free. If there's money to be made with a smoke free bar, someone will open one.

There is absolutely no good reason to force a ban on any restaurant or bar, it should be up to the owner and them alone. As I said, they know their clientele and will restrict or not restrict accordingly. That's the only right thing to do.

 

I didn't say non-smokers don't have a choice, I said smoking isn't part of their primary choice. Primarily, you choose a restaurant based on the food, a bar based on the drinks or amenities, anyone who chooses those things based on smoking is a poor consumer and the market reflects that.

:popcorn:One of many.

 

 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-166568358.html

:popcorn: Two of many...

 

http://wfnt.com/michigan-smoking-ban-hurting-bars/

 

http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/11/28/news/srv0000010119497.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

All this aside, it shouldn't be up to the government. Why that's so hard for some to understand is quite baffling.

I didn't say non-smokers don't have a choice, I said smoking isn't part of their primary choice. Primarily, you choose a restaurant based on the food, a bar based on the drinks or amenities, anyone who chooses those things based on smoking is a poor consumer and the market reflects that.

And if smoke is really a problem for them, they choose one that is smoke free. You and a few others act as if there are hardly any smoke free places to go, that's far from reality.

:popcorn: Two of many...

 

http://wfnt.com/michigan-smoking-ban-hurting-bars/

 

http://www.themorningsun.com/articles/2010/11/28/news/srv0000010119497.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

All this aside, it shouldn't be up to the government. Why that's so hard for some to understand is quite baffling.

 

If the smoker cared about those businesses, they would still be going there. The fact is they only care about being able to smoke there, they care nothing about the business.

 

The non-smoker goes there to enjoy what the business has to offer but many non-smokers can not stand the smoke and all the nasty stuff that goes with it, so they are forced to stay away.

And if smoke is really a problem for them, they choose one that is smoke free. You and a few others act as if there are hardly any smoke free places to go, that's far from reality.

 

I haven't said that. I think my argument was fairly clear.

If the smoker cared about those businesses, they would still be going there. The fact is they only care about being able to smoke there, they care nothing about the business.

 

The non-smoker goes there to enjoy what the business has to offer but many non-smokers can not stand the smoke and all the nasty stuff that goes with it, so they are forced to stay away.

They both go where they're comfortable, plain and simple. Who twists your arm to make you go into a smoking environment? I know nobody ever forced me. Why do you have such a problem with the owners making the decision? If smoke free is as lucrative as you claim, non-smoking establishments should far outnumber smoking ones. Why be so self-centered as to think you have to have them all?

I haven't said that. I think my argument was fairly clear.

OK, but your argument is one sided. Leave it up to owners, that way both sides still have a voice and a choice. I think that's not only quite clear, it's quite fair.

OK, but your argument is one sided. Leave it up to owners, that way both sides still have a voice and a choice. I think that's not only quite clear, it's quite fair.

 

Like I said some people just don't get it...I wonder how many of these people that want the government to make decisions for business owners, have owned their own business?

 

BTW as of now tobacco is legal.

 

So the other side of the coin for folks who want bans on smoking.A business owner decides he does not want smoking in his business.The smoker does not like the owners rules and chooses not to do business with this establishment.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?

Like I said some people just don't get it...I wonder how many of these people that want the government to make decisions for business owners, have owned their own business?

 

BTW as of now tobacco is legal.

 

So the other side of the coin for folks for bans on smoking.A business owner decides he does not want smoking in his business.The smoker does not like the owners rules and chooses not to do business with this establishment.

 

Why is this so hard to understand?

:thumb:

 

My guess is none of them.

All I can do is sit back and scratch my head. Sell away our freedoms, little by little, because it's something I don't do or like. Amazing.

:thumb:

 

My guess is none of them.

All I can do is sit back and scratch my head. Sell away our freedoms, little by little, because it's something I don't do or like. Amazing.

 

Maybe one day they will get their wish and the government will ban everything that is harmful to society.

I would hate to walk to work everyday or grow my own food to eat,but if that keeps everyone safe we all can sleep better at night!:isurrender:

Maybe one day they will get their wish and the government will ban everything that is harmful to society.

I would hate to walk to work everyday or grow my own food to eat,but if that keeps everyone safe we all can sleep better at night!:isurrender:

 

Not my Xbox!!!!!!:cry: