A lot of the points that have been brought up relate to the idea that private businesses should be able to make their own decisions on allowing smoking or not. While I agree with that and with much of what PipeTrucker said, it's not entirely pertinent to this situation, as it's not the case. If business owners did have control over that, my argument would have no validity at all. As is the case, though, the government gets to decide when and where smoking is allowable for the most part. From the perspective of our current situation, I'm arguing that indoor smoking bans in public places, even if privately owned, are reasonable.
Yes, but that's the whole point!!! As I pointed in my first post, you can not legally ban something simply because "I don't like it." Nor can the government do that. They get away with it however for several reasons with the biggest being the "public health" excuse and healthy dose of apathy from the masses. That is why government got away with it in my state of Colorado. They made it a health issue. Actually, the health issue pertained to workers and not necessarily patrons. Most people don't realize this. Their argument was essentially that workers had the right to work in a smoke free environment. But once again the nanny state has stepped in and ham fisted it's way into a situation that should have been left to the property owners to decide. If enough employees complained about smoking I'm sure and indeed many companies have banned smoking in their facilities. It's also one (as I argued earlier) of personal responsibility. Why on earth would you choose to work in a place that would expose you to second hand smoke if you were that dead set against smoking? It's like getting a job at a strip club and complaining that you hate nudity. It makes no sense!!! You asked earlier if any restaurants existed that were smoke free before the bans. While I cant speak for anywhere else, I know here in Colorado, McDonald's went smoke free in the late 90's. Long before any state or city enacted laws banning smoking. Why? Because their customers and employees complained enough about it, and they found that their non-smoking customers outnumbered their smoking customers within the restaurant (it seems when smokers wanted to go out and relax, grab a meal, kick back and smoke, McDonalds wasn't their top destination vs something like the neighborhood pub). Even regardless of that, their reasons are irrelevant. McDonalds simply decided they didn't want anyone smoking on their property and that is all that is relevant and matters. That's how it should work.
Now, to say again, another thing coming up quite a bit is the idea that our right to smoke is the null hypothesis, and that if others wish not to be bothered by it, they simply shouldn't go where we are. The same argument can be made from the other side, saying "My right not to be around your smoke is the null hypothesis, and if you want to smoke, don't come around where I am." In this, each side's argument is equally and oppositely valid. So what decides the outcome?
Here is, in my humble opinion, where you're making a mistake with your argument. You keep referring to it as a "right." I have never referred to smoking in a public place as a right. It's not. Keeping with the restaurant example, I don't have a right to be there and I certainly don't have a right to smoke there. Both of those things are privileges granted to me by the property owner in the hopes that I will buy something (in this case food and drink). Let me give you another example. In many malls across the country you'll often find elderly people walking around the mall for exercise in the morning when the mall first opens and before the crowd gets there. Did you know that legally they are trespassing? By legal definition if your not there with the express intent to purchase something, you are trespassing. The point I'm trying to make is, again, that although it may be a public place, it is still private property. In this case, since those mall walkers aren't purchasing anything, the property owner could have them removed from the premises. But they don't because the property owner allows them to do that (walk around the mall). They don't have a "right" to be there, they are allowed to be there.
It works the same with smoking. If the property owner allows me to smoke on his/her property than by definition, it does in fact null your argument that "I shouldn't have to smell it." Again, don't like it? Then complain enough to get it changed or go somewhere else. No rights are involved in this and non are being infringed upon. Simply saying "I have a right to be there" or "I have a right not to smell it" is irrelevant and doesn't make it so, as its what the property owner allows that is the mitigating factor.
I believe a greater good point of view is the tie-breaker. Say you have a restaurant with 50% smokers and 50% non smokers in it. Is it worse for all of the people who don't want to be exposed to smoke be exposed to it, or for the other half of the room to not light up for 45 minutes? Even if severely addicted, and especially while distracted with eating, one can go a meals worth of time without smoking. Now I'm sure many people will say, "But second hand smoke won't kill you instantly, it's not that bad at all." Regardless of if it will kill you or not, it's impossible to argue that smoke, second hand or not, is healthy or neutral. Ignoring free radicals and all sorts of other things produced from burning organic material, especially cigarettes which have many added chemicals, smoke is steam with particles in it. Any particulate landing on your lungs acts as an irritant, regardless of it will give you cancer.
I hear what you're saying but again, its irrelevant as your still looking at this from a "rights" point of view. In this case the "I have a right to be there and so does the smoker, but I also have the right to not smell breathe second hand smoke." And, once again, that is simply incorrect. It only matters, in the context of this debate what the property owner allows. Even with the health issues that you bring up and the ones used by governments to ban public smoking, it' still an irrelevant argument. You don't have a "right" to be there (or work there) and if it's allowed (smoking), it's your responsibility to go somewhere else or to petition the property owner to change their policies.
But since you do bring it up, let's discuss the health issues. Now to be clear, I will NEVER argue that smoking is either good for you or without risk, and that goes for smoking pipes and cigars as well. But the issue has never been about smokers themselves but rather, those breathing second hand smoke. Fair enough. There have been only two major studies done on the effects of second hand smoke. One was done by the American Lung Association in the early '90s and the other by the World Health Organization published in 1998. The study done by the ALA was thrown out, twice, by the supreme court because they found that they had "cherry picked" their data and in some cases set up tests in order to achieve a desired outcome. Even more laughable was the WHO report. In big bold letters at the head of the report it read..."DON'T BE FOOLED. SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A KILLER." At the end of the third paragraph in the report was a quote from the doctor that led the study. "...however, we can find no direct link between exposure to second hand smoke and any major long term disease." HUH??? You just said it was a killer and yet you can't find anything to support that?
Let's play a game. Name five people that died from no other cause other than breathing second hand smoke. Whether they breathed it for 5 secs or over the entire course of their life. I'll wait.... *cricket* *cricket*
Give up? So did the government. That's why their only statistics are filled with people who died from other causes but also were exposed to second hand smoke. Remember my 500lb man, heart attack example?
And what about the millions of people who have been exposed and are healthy? Both of my parents grew up in houses where both of their parents smoked. My parents are in their late 60s and they have exactly zero health issues. What about all those waitresses and bartenders from the past 100 years many of whom didn't smoke? Shouldn't there be an epidemic of former restaurant, bar, club workers dropping like flies with a clear and direct link to exposure of second hand smoke as the cause? Cases like these are anecdotal for sure, but the number is overwhelming.
My point in all this is that this whole "second hand smoke, health scare" is a sham. It's nothing but a smoke screen (no pun intended) put up by people who simply don't like smoking but needed a valid way to get government to step in and ban it for them. Nothing more.
To use an example that is probably better than the punching one mentioned earlier, imagine a man walking into a restaurant, sitting down to order his food, and pulling out a loud whistle. He starts blowing on it continually, going on and on. Whether or not it is harmful to the ears of those surrounding him, it's still annoying as hell. "I have the right to blow my whistle, though," he might argue, "and if these people don't like it, they can leave!" I hope you can all see the ridiculousness of this situation.
It is ridiculous if such a situation were to occur, but again, as long as the property owner allows it... "Rights" have nothing to do with it as, once again there are no rights in this situation to violate.
edit : To clarify, I'm not one to deny a logical argument based on my own convictions. From what has been presented in this topic I can completely agree that allowing smoking or not should be completely up to the business owner. From the perspective of a situation where government is the deciding factor, though, I still stand by my argument.
Please don't take my post as me arguing with you personally. I realize that I've only quoted your post but only to show where my arguments are coming from based on what you wrote. I do find your last sentence puzzling however, as that is a large part of this entire argument. That is, that the government should not be the deciding factor. But essentially what your saying here is "I agree with you guys, but since the government says no public smoking should be allowed, I agree with them."
Huh? If I have misinterpreted your meaning than I do apologize. But I think at this point we shall have to agree only that we disagree.
