[ravinraven]

I'm not a great smoker. A cigar or two a week, maybe. I personally don't give a **** if I ever smoke again. However, I am sick of the gov't ramming it's nose further and further into the business of private individuals and groups. I am sick of the "health police" and their terrorist tactics.

A bright light appeared on the horizon last night and the bit passed before I woke up to what was being said. It seems that somewhere in Colorado a judge has reversed a smoking ban in some town or county. I think its temporary, but I would lke to hear from someone with more, maybe personal, information.

I have three friends [really!] who are so conservative they make me look like Lenin, or maybe even The Slickster's Wife, Hitlary. They yell about the gov't sticking their snouts into their lives, yet they go ballistic when they encounter a smoker in a restaurant. They try to get the management of the place stirred up about a smoker and so forth.

Smoking is dangerous, but I think that the lives that'll be lost when the Liberty Restoration Project gets into full swing will exceed the number of lives lost to second-hand smoke.

Another thing that seems a bit out of whack is the fact that we Americans [whites, at least] are supposed to be sensitive and celebrating the diverse cultures we are surrounded with. The Indians, whoops, Native Americans, gave us tobacco. Why are we throwing such a fit? Don't we appreciate what they did for us?

[GregoryTech]

I "hate" smoke, especially when I'm eating.

I have no problem at all with someone asking a owner/manager of an establishment to make his experience at the establishment more more enjoyable, and the manager obliging. I only object if it is illegal for said manager to say "No" to such a request.

I don't need no stinking "health police" and I have no interest in taking away the choices of a free person to set the rules on his property. If it's too smokey for me, I'll find somewhere else to eat. If the business loses enough money because of the smoking policy, they will change their policy BY CHOICE, not by law. And that suits me just fine.

[Russ]

Being a native of the PRK, which bans smoking in all public places, I like the idea of banning it. I saw both of my parents die miserable, HORRIBLE deaths from lung cancer caused my smoking. I smoked for several years when I was 17 to 20 years old. It was was really tough to quit. You get hooked on cigarettes and it doesn't take long.

I had allergies my whole childhood because of my parents smoking. They took me to allergy doctors and tested me for over 400 substances, none of which I was allergic to. They did not think to test cigarette smoke in the 1950's. Mfeanwhile, my nose ran like a faucet and I lived on Benadryl.

If people want to smoke they can go for it. Just stay away from me and my family if you do.

[GregoryTech]

Being a native of the PRK, which bans eating fast food, I like the idea of banning it. I saw both of my parents die miserable, HORRIBLE deaths from heart disease caused by obesity. I ate fast food for several years when I was 17 to 20 years old. It was was really tough to quit. You get hooked on fast food and it doesn't take long.

If people don't want to smell smoke, fine. Just stay away from smokers if you do.

---------

(I'm sorry about your parents. I hope I didn't come across too insensitive to their suffering)

I'm not opposed to smoking bans in "public" places, such as schools, libraries, government buildings, etc. But I am deeply concerned that we American citizens are allowing the government to crawl into every aspect of our life for "our own good", and to dictate what legal activities are allowed on private property. You may not care now, but when "your" favorite legal activity is deemed unsafe for the population, and private property owners are legally mandated to disallow it on their property, it may be too late to do anything about it.

[Blackhawk]

Smoking is dangerous, So is kissing, eating, shaking hands, walking, etc. We don't need government criminalizing all dangerous activities. I enjoy some of them, and living in a bubble isn't what I'd call living....

However, I do reserve the right to not be kissed, avoid contaminated food, avoid shaking hands, etc., and that includes sharing a cigar, pipe, cigarette, or joint with somebody else. Let them pursue thier own pleasures without involving me, and we'll be okay....

[nualle]

Let them pursue thier own pleasures without involving me, and we'll be okay....
Hear, hear! Just as it's wrong to assault me at a distance with your carbine, it's wrong to assault me at a distance with your carginogen.

[GregoryTech]

Have you ever decided not to go to a resturaunt because you might smell smoke? If not, then you're not really all that concerned.

Why allow the government to do your dirty work? If you don't like smoke, vote with your wallet and get like-minded people to do the same. I'd join THAT boycott, I HATE the smell of smoke when I eat. But I simply can't support an idea that allows the government to nanny me [added] and takes away the rights of a property owner to set the rules for legal activity on his own property.

[Destructo6]

I don't usually go into bars for my health. Bring back the smoke.

[GregoryTech]

However, I do reserve the right to not be kissed, avoid contaminated food, avoid shaking hands, etc., and that includes sharing a cigar, pipe, cigarette, or joint with somebody else. Let them pursue thier own pleasures without involving me, and we'll be okay....

Drunks on the road are dangerous too. But I doubt many people would support a LAW that made it illegal to drink alcohol away from home (at least not yet).

I don't want to be nannied, I want to be free. In a free society there are some risks. At least with second hand smoke, without government intervention I can choose to exercise free choice and leave or not frequent a place that's too smokey for my perceived health.

Get those creepy crawley fingers of invasiveness out of my life and let me take care of myself.

[Mikul]

Smoking cigarettes isn't dangerous. Smoking 40 cigarettes a day is. I can't think of too many things you could put into your body 40 times a day that wouldn't be dangerous.

Addictive shmadictive. I know too many people who quit cold turkey and said it was no big deal. I lived with one of them. It's a habit which is difficult to break, but it isn't addictive.

[Zander]

...it's wrong to assault me at a distance with your carginogen."Assault" you? Is that how you envision sharing space with a smoker? An "assault"?!? Tantamount to shooting you?

Wow...I had no idea it was this bad.

[Justin]

Pueblo, Colorado tried to pass the smoking ban. It was halted in its tracks by a petition drive.
Last word is that the local .gov is going to come up with a 'compromise.'

As for allowing or banning smoking in a privately owned establishment, that's a blatant violation of property rights, as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't like the smoke in a place, you're certainly free to leave. Also, bear in mind that the dangers of second-hand smoke have been exaggerated to the point of idiocy.

But like someone above said, don't get the government to do the dirty work.

Oh, and for the record, I smoke maybe 3 times a year, usually a cigar.

[Azrael256]

There is a difference between asking the manager of a restauraunt to move a smoker and banning it by law. If a property owner, or his agent, asks me not to smoke, then the cigarette gets snuffed out on the sole of my shoe and the butt goes in my pocket (or the trash). That's it. If I don't want to comply, then I leave.

What many people fail to grasp is that the reverse is true as well. If I demand that you stand on one foot, balancing a chair on your forehead, while singing "Yankee-Doodle-Dandy" on my private property, then you'd better do it if you want to stay. Otherwise, I'll show you the door.

If I choose to allow smoking in my bar, restaurant, store, etc., it is my choice to make as a property owner, or the empowered agent of the owner. I have effectively made it a condition of your continuing presence on my property that you be in an environment of tobacco smoke. Don't like it? Again, I will gladly aid you in finding the exit. Legislating smoking in MY establishment is an infringement on my rights as a property owner, plain and simple.

I do agree that a smoking ban in public buildings (post offices, courthouses, etc.) is appropriate, and that the government does have the authority to regulate it in those places. You don't even need to go into the health effects of smoking. Smoking indoors can easily be compared with littering indoors even without having to clean up cigarette butts. It's a rather messy habit, and it doesn't smell all that great.

As for outside on public property... A ban in such a place doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Not only would it be almost impossible to enforce based on the number of smokers (something like 22% of the population last I heard), but you'd be chasing down smoke trails that end up leading to private property. It's simply uncontrollable. The most common complaint I hear about smokers outdoors in public involves people standing on a streetcorner waiting for the light to change or some such event. That kind of thing makes very little sense. Whine and complain about the evil man with the cigarette while the cars around you spew carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. Next time a poorly tuned car drives by and blows exhaust on me and makes me cough, I'm going to sue the manufacturer and the driver and see to it that cars are banned in public places.

As for blowing smoke in somebody's face... I'm guessing that there is some kind of assault charge associated with spitting on a person, and I suspect that this falls under the same category. It is an assault of sorts, but comparable to firing a weapon at you? One presents a clear and immediate threat, the other one presents a possible (considering how many carcinogens you take in during the course of your day, I would say remote) threat that is not immediate in any sense unless you have a dangerous asthma condition. This is why one is attempted murder (at least), and the other is a misdemeanor (unless you know the person has some kind of condition, but you get the idea).

I have also heard the argument that smoking should be banned because of cigarette butts littering the streets... This argument uses the same logic as banning guns because there are deaths associated with the use of guns. Ban the act of littering? Sure! They already did that. Ban the posession and use of potentially litter-causing objects? You've got to be kidding!

[Jeeper]

OHHHH Noooooooo Another smoking thread.

Anyway.

I think the idea of banning smoking in ALL public places is a good idea. The only thing I ever liked about working in California is the bars.

I know it is private property but there are already restrictions on private property that no one here would ever try to object to like zoning requirements. No right is absolute. I believe that the public can decide others property right based squarely on the constitution using something like the due process clause of the 14th ammendment.

[Russ]

GregoryTech,

Skating pretty close to a personal attack I would say. Why not share some more of your amazing wit with us?

Russ

[GregoryTech]

Skating pretty close to a personal attack I would say. Why not share some more of your amazing wit with us?

Russ

It wasn't meant to be. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

[edit to add]

(was that amazing enough?)

[PATH]

I think it is rather funny that NYC has banned smoking in bars.
One can sit behind a cross town bus and suck in diesel fumes for a good hour but heaven help us if we are in a bar with a smoker.

Can anyone direct me to the studies that show second hand smoke to be so dangerous. I mean they must be available if people keep quoting them. Is anyone aware of studies that contraindicate the myth of harm from second hand smoke.

Smoking is harmful to the self. Second hand smoke smells bad.
Avoid places where smolers hang.

How many smokers inhabit gin mills? Why does the government try to control our behavior in all facets of life?

Folks, they don't want just your guns they want your freedom!

[Oleg Volk]

Never liked the smell of smoke. However, I hate government interference a lot more. So I'd be on the side of all the smokers despite not liking the smell.

Smoking should be legal in restaurants and stores and everyplace else, except perhaps for government offices. The logic being that I can avoid all other venues if the smoke obthers me or causes health problems. I would expect that I could find at least one non-smoking store in my area if necessary.

[Russ]

GregoryTech,

Thanks. Yes that was amazing enough! No hard feelings.

Russ

[Larry Ashcraft]

I have the information on the Pueblo CO smoking ban you asked for...

Our illustrious City Council took it upon themselves to pass a ban on smoking in all public places, including within 20 feet of an entrance to any public place. The ban took effect Jan. 1, 2003. A group of local business people formed a group and along with two prominent attorneys who volunteered thier time, started circulating petitions to stop the ban and to recall the 4 city council members who voted yes (the vote was 4-3).

On the first petition, the group turned in over 10,000 signatures (they needed about 3,300). Last week the smoking ban was rescinded. (One of the council members said that they wouldn't stop the ban, no matter how many signatures were collected. Shows you the mentality of these people, they h\don't have a choice in the matter now.)

The recall petitions aren't due until the end of February. Opinion on the recall seems split, with some of the people wanting it, and the rest wanting to wait until the elections to oust these guys.

Personally, I'm against the ban. I don't think we need government to keep us safe from ourselves. As a business owner, I feel that I have the right to say what is allowed in MY building. If I want to chase off customers by smoking in front of them, that's my problem, not City Council's.

On a side note... Several of the restaurants and bars that were forced to be non-smoking for 10 days haved stayed non-smoking on their own after the ban was lifted.

[Larry Ashcraft]

Oh, and if you really want to wade through the whole story...

www.chieftain.com

Go to the archives and do a search on "smoking ban", Dec. 2002 and Jan. 2003

[nualle]

Zander: for the degree-of-harm argument in re: smoking, I refer you to this thread from just over a month ago in TFL:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1344584#post1344584

[Joe Gunns]

Unlikely that the courts will strike down anti-smoking ordinances. Landmark case on public regulation of private property is Munn v. Illinois (1877) Ira Munn, owner of a grain elevator, challenged an Illinois law, lobbied for by the Grange, establishing the rates grain elevator owners could charge for grain storage. He based his case primarily on the 14th Amendment's due process requirement, and that state regulations infringed on the Congress's commerce regulation authority.

Munn lost. Supreme court held that when private property has public use, it is liable to public regulation. Also stated that the legislative process provides "due process" protection (like the recall effort mentioned by Ashcraft) and that absent Congressional regulation, states were free to do so. A chain of subsquent cases has refined and confirmed the basic ability of government to regulate a wide range of private business activity and property.


I agree with those who feel it should be up to the individual business owner to decide smoking policy. Have no sympathy for people who want to control the policies of every establishment, regardless of whether or not they will ever actually patronize them. Have no sympathy for those who choose to smoke and end up getting sick, like I have no sympathy for myself who chose to ignore proper diet and ended up with clogged arteries and a bad heart. It is natural selection in action. If I dont want to be around smoke I go to another establishment or avoid that type of place altogether, just like if I want to avoid fat and cholesterol I chose to no longer go to my favorite greasy spoon. Life is about choices, and addicts, be they hooked on coffee, tobacco, alcohol or heroin, made choices about what they would believe based on the same pool of info and common sense as those of us who chose to avoid same. The way it works is that if you make a really bad choice, you die. We all die eventually. Personally, I am not willing to remove choice for the sake of safety.

My adult daughter chooses to smoke. She knows the facts, knows her mom and I disapprove, does it anyway. Life is tough.

[triggertime]

nualle, with all due respect, there is a higher
'degree-of-harm' to your health from being exposed to the by-products of gunfire than from being exposed to second hand smoke.

So I certainly wouldn't consider exposure to second hand smoke as an 'assault', but rather as a consequence of living in a free country.

[nualle]

I'm only around the gaseous products of gunfire when I choose to be (unless someone around me is committing a crime), so the argument stands.

[G-Raptor]

Whatever your position on smoking, there is one simple problem with a smoking ban; it denies any choice to people who chose to smoke.

Under a smoking ban, a private business (i.e. resturant) would be prohibited from placing the following sign in the window:

"This establishment welcomes smokers. If you are offended by tobacco smoke or are concerned about it's health risks, we suggest that you seek service elsewhere. By entering, you are voluntarily accepting any smoking related risk you may perceive.

There are several very good resturants nearby that cater to non-smokers. Thank you for your consideration. - The management."

[Zander]

Zander: for the degree-of-harm argument in re: smoking, I refer you to this thread from just over a month ago in TFL:

Good thread. Unfortunately, I saw no compelling argument for "cleansing" the "public" air of smokers' exhalations. In fact, I came away more convinced than ever that there is a sub-segment of the population, immature in the extreme, that insists on defining certain behaviors as "dangerous" to their "well-being".

Here's a positive analogy:

One of my clients is allergic to perfume, cologne and aftershave. I don't wear aftershave when I go to her home and she doesn't show up unannounced at my office. Our arrangement works. Common courtesy, I'd suggest.

I have two members of my immediate family who are asthmatics, one of whom requires daily medication. In spite of that, they have no problem frequenting restaurants where smoking is "allowed". We simply request the non-smoking section...and if that proves a problem, we leave.

What you ask is that all areas, public and private, be smoke-free...solely because you might be subject to someone's incidental second-hand smoke.

Your referenced thread has frequent mentions of the statist attitude of those who would punish those who have the temerity to actually light up in "public" areas. You'd willingly punish a cowboy who runs his range fifty miles from Billings, Montana for hand-rolling his smokes, wouldn't you? You or one of your "all-or-nothng comrades" would insist that anyone who wanders onto his range should be "protected" by "second-hand" smoke regulations, correct?

Your advocacy is statist; some would say in the extreme.

What say you?

[nualle]

I'd say that a statist is one who seeks to use state power to either:
-- punish people who have harmed no one
or
-- eliminate the possibility of redress for those who have been harmed.

Second-hand smoke may only cause small harm to those of us who did not choose to breathe it, but it is harm. It is harm caused by someone's voluntary act. Someone who voluntarily causes another person harm (even incidentally, by negligence), has acted outside their rights and, in a just world, would accept liability for the harm done.

I am no statist. I want individuals to bear the true cost—and only that cost—of their own choices.

What you ask is that all areas, public and private, be smoke-free...solely because you might be subject to someone's incidental second-hand smoke.
Not at all. I think private areas should have all the smoking they like, so long as they don't emit carcinogens into the public air. I'm perfectly content staying out of smoke-filled places.

[triggertime]

"I'm only around the gaseous products of gunfire when I choose to be (unless someone around me is committing a crime), so the argument stands."

Granted, you may possess a level of control on how you are exposed to gunfire, but you can't blame your risk of lead exposure on those shooting around you, can you? Even if you're exposed on your own free will, its still a consequence.

The same could be said for you being exposed to exhaust fumes while pumping gas or just walking down a sidewalk in the city. You have no control there, just as you have no control over someone elses pursuit of happiness.

Your argument on smoking is simliar. Just because someone smokes does not mean that they should be held accountable for the supposed detrimental effects on your health just because you happen to be a victim of circumstance.

That said, its suprising how easily people forget that they are living in a free country where they should be entirely comfortable with accepting the consequences of freedom.

I guess that patriotism is lost when exposure to second hand smoke is considered an 'assault' and becomes a precedent for unnecessary civil litigation. :rolleyes:

[Zander]

Nualle opined...

I'd say that a statist is one who seeks to use state power to either:

-- punish people who have harmed no one; How convenient...your own personal belief as to what statism entails. Almost as convenient as your stated opinions which are inherently contradictory to your own definitions.

or, - eliminate the possibility of redress for those who have been harmed./Ah...of course...victimization [the scourge of our nation] raises its ugly head.

Let's get to the real crux of your belief, if we may...

Smokers should be prohibited from smoking in any area in which anyone objecting to smoking is present or might be present. That about it?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' would help our discussion...

[SteelyDan]

nualle:

Hey neighbor, I do have a little bone to pick with your analysis. I recall reading some of your posts over at TFL, and they were always well written and intelligent, so I've got to think it may have at least crossed your mind that you're being a bit hypocritical.

The tag-line on your posts is "Fat brown heathen dyke with a 12-guage..." (Plus the"smile," that was the part that made me smile.) None of those five characteristics isexactly mainstream or especially popular in this culture, yet they're apparently important
enough to you that you include them in all your posts. The problem is that, historically, governments have outlawed, banned, and restricted at least four of these characteristics, and the "fat" one may be next. So, I would expect a little more tolerance of those whose lifestyles don't conform to yours, and a little less desire for the government to control the choices individuals may make. Most of all, I hope you're not saying the government should intervene to protect those characteristics or lifestyles that you care about, but that it should restrict or ban those that you do not.

Now, I'll assume you'll respond by saying that your being brown or gay or athiest or whatever doesn't hurt anyone, but that, in contrast, my cigarette smoke does have the potential to hurt you. There are, in my view, two problems with that argument.

First (and please understand I'm only playing devil's advocate here), if the government were so inclined, it could perhaps produce statistics "proving" that blacks or hispanics have higher crime rates, that gays have higher medical costs, or that athiests have higher divorce rates. Or whatever. Would those be sufficient reasons to regulate or ban such characteristics or behaviors? Not in my world, but the reality is that governments have killed people for these and "lesser crimes" in the past.

Second, and more importantly, most of us make a deliberate choice to live in cities, and that means that we will inevitably come into regular contact with other people. By virtue of that fact, it is equally inevitable that we will not approve of every choice that everyone else makes. We need to have more tolerance and respect for other peoples' choices, there's already too much government. Offended by nudity? Gee, we better ban R-rated movies and the Sopranos. No, it's the potential for harming someone else? Well, we better ban boxing and football.

I just cannot imagine what kind of sterile, boring, regimented country this would be if we allowed the government to control or ban everything that could possibly be harmful or offensive to anyone else.

It all comes down to "where do you draw the line," and in almost every case I'll be on the side of less governmental intrusion. Fascinating issue, though, and I'd be happy to buy you a beer after work some time and continue the discussion.

[Zander]

Would those be sufficient reasons to regulate or ban such characteristics or behaviors? -- SteelyDanDepends on whether or not you're willing to buy into the argument for utilitarianism. :cool:

[nualle]

Zander: you don't like my definition, posit your own and we can debate their relative merits. I don't see where I've contradicted my own.

Far from being a statist, I'm an anarchist. I believe all associations should be voluntary, which leaves government pretty much out. I think the referenda (and they are referenda -- popular demands by nonsmokers to control the excesses they perceive in the behavior of some smokers) referred to are bad uses of law. But back to the anarchism: I think most laws are poor examples of the type.

I'm not arguing for the laws, by any means. I apologize that my terse first post on this thread left that unclear. I was reacting in the environment of the previous smoking threads I had participated in... that's why I referred back to one of them.

Let me state clearly that I am not for smoking bans. I am for smokers' voluntary control of their smoke, to keep harmful emissions out of the commons -- the public air.

Smokers "get away with" a great deal. The commons (city streets) are fouled by both their emissions and their litter. (They are also fouled by the car emissions, but that's another issue.) They get away with it because, in cities, we're all faceless... it's simply too hard to track down who caused each harm and hold them to right it.

In an anarchic world, people would be forced by their neighbors to pay more of their own way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
or, - eliminate the possibility of redress for those who have been harmed./
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah...of course...victimization [the scourge of our nation] raises its ugly head.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." T. Jefferson.

If government has any right function, redress of real harm is it. Eliminating that redress is the action of a statist. Being an anarchist, I would reduce "government" to a public forum at which I describe the harm I've sustained, whereupon I go and exact the redress myself.

Smokers should be prohibited from smoking in any area in which anyone objecting to smoking is present or might be present. That about it?

A simple 'yes' or 'no' would help our discussion...
What are you, a lawyer? You're refusing to recognize the difference between "objection" and "harm." Go back and read pax's post about the effect second-hand smoke has on her. Now tell me how you could tell at sight that thus-n-such a stranger has or doesn't have a condition as severe. If you're willing to live dangerously and risk the liability of your smoke causing a reaction like that, fine... just don't balk when you get the medical bills.

[nualle]

SteelyDan: Hullo neighbor *tipping hat*.
The tag-line on your posts is "Fat brown heathen dyke with a 12-guage..." (Plus the"smile," that was the part that made me smile.) None of those five characteristics isexactly mainstream or especially popular in this culture, yet they're apparently important enough to you that you include them in all your posts.
My issue with smoking in public is not that it's unpopular... it's that it involves a high likelihood of acute harm to some nonsmokers (like pax), and a certainty of incremental harm to everyone. That, as my wife puts it, is an abuse of the commons.

I hope the clarifications I tried to make in my last post answers most of your points.

We need to have more tolerance and respect for other peoples' choices, there's already too much government.
I agree entirely, on both points.


BTW: I wrote my sig line because, though I am many more things than those I list (e.g., operatically trained mezzo-soprano, in-training medievalist), I felt it was important to be "out" on some of the demographics that bust the gun-owner stereotypes. I added "fat" to, uh... round out the list. (OK... I coulda resisted that. I didn't. ;) ) I haven't changed it because I get so many PMs reacting positively to it.

[Selfdfenz]

The effect of second hand smoke = what you may experience in a bar or eating establishment frequented by smokers.
The effect of second hand alcohol intoxication = what you may experience in you automobile thanks to drunk drivers.

It strikes me as strange that so many that advocate smoking bans see nothing wrong with semi-public (bars,eating establishments,etc) alcohol consumption. Hipocritical.

I was once a consumer alcohol and tobacco but no longer. Common sense and past experience indicates to me that society would save more lives and money by more heavily restricting alcohol.

I don't like smoke in my area but I take personal action to get away from it.
I don't care to be around drunks and I take action to stay away from them. Both are easily accomplished without any whining or hand wringing or politcial correctness on my part.

OTHO as gun owners we should be sensitive we have a "glass house" issue and should be carefull what groups we support. The same people that want to ban SHS and want you to buy a 1000 dollar front loading more water thrifty washing machine becaue they think its "better for everyone" don't want you to own firearms.

S-

[Desertdog]

I am an exsmoker living in thr PRK and it is nice going into a restaurant and not be bothered by the smell of smoke. BUT I do not believe the government should be the one to say you can't smoke there. :fire:
That should be the owners decision. During pre-ban days, if I walked into a restaurant, I would ask for a non-smoking section. If no non-smoking section, I walked out.
That is the way it should be. I can decide on my own to patronize them or not.

[Gophfer]

Florida recently passed a Statewide ordinance to prohibit smoking in most places. I have been a non smoker for many years and don't like to eat with smokers around. I voted against the issue because it should be a market driven issue not a government issue. I won't partronize a restarant that doesn't provide me a smoke free area. If they want my business they will provide a non-smoking area. If they have a non-smoking area and you are smoking in it, I will bitch to management and ask you be moved.

[Zander]

What are you, a lawyer? No, I'm a curmudgeon. Sometimes it takes asking for a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to get folks to concentrate on what they really believe.

You're refusing to recognize the difference between "objection" and "harm." One must naturally follow the other.

I am for smokers' voluntary control of their smoke, to keep harmful emissions out of the commons -- And if they don't, you'll punish them. That is what you meant by -- "...whereupon I go and exact the redress myself." -- isn't it?

...the public air.There is no such thing. As an anarchist, doesn't that strike you as a strange construct? Public air, public water, public land; it all sounds so...well...statist.

If you're willing to live dangerously and risk the liability of your smoke causing a reaction like that, fine... just don't balk when you get the medical bills.Hmmm...I thought you said:

"They get away with it because, in cities, we're all faceless...it's simply too hard to track down who caused each harm and hold them to right it."

'Scuse me...I think I hear a Macanudo or Padron calling my name.

[twoblink]

I can't stand smoke either, especially at restaurants. Part of your taste is the sense of smell, and the fact that my food turns to the taste of Camel Lights really bother me.

But banning it is not the answer, telling the owners that you don't want to eat here because they allow smoking... is. Vote via pocketbooks folks. I can tell you, if there is a "No Smoking" sign, then people obey it. Short of the place being a bar, most people will honor that at a restaurant. Let the owner know, they won't lose business if they don't allow smoking at a restaurant, but they will lose business if they do..

The "health police" is annoying. It "use to be" a free country...

The only comment I have left to make on the subject is:

Hitler was for gun control and hitler was for anti smoking...

Hell has a direct road to it; called legislated good intentions...

[PATH]

We keep hearing about second hand smoke being so very harmful. Will somepone please quote me the exact satudies so I can review them. How can you say something is harmful if you don't have the evidence in hand?

[G-Raptor]

Whether or not second hand smoke is harmful is irrelevant. The issue is simply a matter of personal choice. You can "choose" not to go where the smokers are.

People who support a smoking ban (in other than public building - and a resturant is not a public building) are not interested in health issues, only in forcing other people to conform to their wishes. One non-smoker walks into a smoke filled bar and demands that everyone else stop what they are doing. Why? Because they don't want the "inconvenience" of finding a bar where smoking is prohibited by the owner.

In a similar fashion there have been a number of situations where people build a house next to a gun range then try to get the range shut down because of the noise and "danger to their children".

[Zander]

Further, could we post these studies on the 'smoking' thread and try to keep this one on course? :)