Where are the civil rights advocates for the non-smokers in this debate? I went to get milk this morning before my kids were up. I go to walk in a local mini mart but have to walk through the employee's smoke who was standing outside. I don't want to be around the smoke, I don't want my clothes to smell like smoke, and I don't want to inhale the carcinogens that I have watched kill many of my family. Why should it be my responsibility to have to drive around town and find an establishment that doesn't have people around smoking. It is a habit, it is not any kind of necessity, and you (the general you) doing it has a detrimental affect on me. It also drives my insurance costs up because I am having to pay for the care of people with emphysema and other smoking related illnesses.

 

I do not see protecting my rights has this country losing its greatness. That is just silly.

 

Did someone hold a gun to your head and make you spend your money at that mini mart?

Maybe...just maybe if enough people like yourself that are against freedom of choice would choose to shop eleswhere,then maybe the owner of the business would lose money and have to make the choice of changing or shutting down...:idunno:

America continuing to become a shell of a once great nation...

 

Very true.

You have an inalienable right to smoke? I do have a right to my health, and when I walk through a smoker's smoke it effects my health. They don't have to smoke, so what right is being infringed when they are asked not to do it where it might impact someone's health. How is their "right" to smoke more important than my right not to breathe their carcinogens?

Did someone hold a gun to your head and make you spend your money at that mini mart?

Maybe...just maybe if enough people like yourself that are against freedom of choice would choose to shop eleswhere,then maybe the owner of the business would lose money and have to make the choice of changing or shutting down...:idunno:

 

I am all about freedom of choice. This person's smoking infringed on my right to choose to walk into a store without breathing second hand smoke. I am not participating in a bad habit, I am using the store for what it was meant to be used for. Again, why is their right more important than mine?

You have an inalienable right to smoke? I do have a right to my health, and when I walk through a smoker's smoke it effects my health. They don't have to smoke, so what right is being infringed when they are asked not to do it where it might impact someone's health. How is their "right" to smoke more important than my right not to breathe their carcinogens?

Go to another store or ask the owner to ask his employees to smoke in an area away from the entrance to the store. Isn't that much easier than imposing your will on everyone else just because you can't handle smoke?

I am all about freedom of choice. This person's smoking infringed on my right to choose to walk into a store without breathing second hand smoke. I am not participating in a bad habit, I am using the store for what it was meant to be used for. Again, why is their right more important than mine?

How long did it take to walk through the smoke? You couldn't hold your breath that long? That's what I've done in similar situations, always works for me. Why is your right more important than theirs?

Why is theirs more important than mine? Holding my breath does not keep the smell from getting on my clothes.

Why is theirs more important than mine? Holding my breath does not keep the smell from getting on my clothes.

 

Which has zero impact on your health.

 

You're acting like your right to not breath in their smoke should somehow trump their legal right to smoke. Why do you feel you're better than the smoker Ace?

Why is theirs more important than mine? Holding my breath does not keep the smell from getting on my clothes.

Again, ask the owner to have them smoke in an area away from the entrance. Problem solved.

 

When you tell me why your rights are more important than theirs, I'll tell you why theirs are more important than yours.

Why does their right trump mine? Why do you feel that a smoker is better than me?

Why does their right trump mine? Why do you feel that a smoker is better than me?

Why does your's trump theirs? Why do you think you're better than smokers? We can do this all day. You're the one that wants to be unreasonable when there are viable solutions. Explain to us why you can't just ask the owner to have his employees smoke in an area away from the entrance. Why be so difficult.

Why does their right trump mine? Why do you feel that a smoker is better than me?

 

That's the whole point Ace. This holier than thou act you're putting on about how your rights are more important than theirs is the problem.

 

You have the right to not breath in smoke. He has the right to smoke anywhere he choses.

 

I hate being in smokey environments. I hate breathing in smoke, and I loathe having my clothes smell like smoke. So you know what I do? I use my right to choose. I decide to not go to bars, restaurants, etc., that allow people to smoke. If I do go to a place that allows smoking, it's on me if my clothes stink or if I breath in smoke. I made the decision to be in that environment.

 

You'd very easily be able to do the same, but then again, I guess sitting there complaining is the easier thing to do.

Why does your's trump theirs? Why do you think you're better than smokers? We can do this all day. You're the one that wants to be unreasonable when there are viable solutions. Explain to us why you can't just ask the owner to have his employees smoke in an area away from the entrance. Why be so difficult.

 

Because these days everyone wants it their way (Thanks Burger King) and that goes for the smokers as well.

THis is crap. Banning a legal activity? Welcome to the dictatorial states of America. What liberties will they take away next? Limits on how often we can eat fast food? How about China-style internet bans over material prohibited by the government? Does the ban of organized religion soon follow?

 

I don't smoke but this is ridiculous IMO. MSU is instituting a smoking ban and if I weren't graduating I would personally pick up smoking and smoke all over campus. Come on KY stick up for your rights, even if you don't smoke this is just going to lead to more bans, censorship and the prevention of rights.

I posted this in the other thread but thought it was applicable here.

 

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.