A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject. He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants. I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.
First of all, smoking is legal. Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment? I told my friend this is a very slippery slope. He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach. So what's next? Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol?
This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl. Our economy is about the worst out there. If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke. The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.
I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it. If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity? Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.
I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.
I wonder how many anti-smokers support the legalization of pot? Naybe don't mind that second hand smoke?
I support the legalisation of pot.
What is the connection you perceive between not recognising other people's "right" to harm me and the legal status of pot?
I don't care what people smoke, unless they smoke it in my vicinity.
The truth is cigarettes are one of many forms of indirectly harming other people with or without their consent.
Actually, cigarettes are one of many forms of DIRECTLY harming other people with or without their consent.
But even though I believe in a utilitarian benefit analysis, I don't see how the benefit to the smoker outways the disadvantage for the person harmed.
And new research ties those benefits to grapes, the source fruit of wine. Not to the alcohol itself. Of course that research might be wrong and alcohol in of itself has health benefits, the solution would be to test it on animals, AFAIK it was never done.
In the UK they have banned smoking from everywork place, Bars, offices the lot and I am in complete agreement.
I'm with Leakui with the pot thing as well, so long as they are not forcing it on other let them.
People may have a choice in going to a smokey bar or not but the workers don't, at least if they want a job.
As an aside would the anti-banners here be willing to pay for the support of somebody who was offered a full time job in a smokey atmosphere (in a bar or office) and rejected it?
As for the drink comments. Hitting people is illegal, you can be drunk in a public bar with out hitting people so the hitting people is illegal not the drinking. You can not smoke in a public bar without damaging the health of everybody there. They might not all get lung cancer but the increase in carbon monoxide will damage the ability of their blood to carry oxygen (to a greater or lesser amount but everybody would be affected).
Yes people dropping litter on the ground should be banned, because, as with smoking, it is creating a negative externality (that is, a market failure which the free market cannot effectively address itself). The harm to the person who drops that garbage is far less than the harm done to them along with the harm done to everyone else. Hence the optimal choice for that individual is unlikely to be in society's best interests. So, you ban it, and have the rubbish desposed of in the best way possible for society (e.g. people pay taxes, and in return a rubbish collection service is provided which will take all your rubbish and dispose of it).
As for drinking, if you drink excessively around other people, you don't harm them. You may harm them as a result of drinking excessively, but then that is illegal. With smoking if you smoke around other people, you harm them. Hence it too should be illegal (unless the damage done is so inconsequential that it's not worth worrying about, and that certainly isn't the case with smoking!). Similarly if you drink excessively and drive a car, you're no longer properly in control of it, and are highly likely to hurt someone else other than yourself, hence that too is illegal.
The smoke from a BBQ grill is typically released outside, and hence will dissipate without causing any meaningful damage to others. I'm all for a ban on very smoky BBQ grills inside where there is a lack of ventilation such that the health of employees and customers will be adversely affected.
As for legalisation of some drugs, again what people do to their own bodies is their choice. So long as they're not hurting others, and are given the full information so they can make an informed decision about whether to hurt themselves or not, I don't see the issue.
Ultimately people should have the right to harm themselves if they want to, but should not have the right to harm others, and that's what the smoking ban is about - by all means smoke where you won't hurt others, and just yourself, but don't smoke where you will hurt other people.
A lot of good points being made here. I'm still not convinced of changing my stance but may be closer than on any other debate I've had.
I'm having such a good time with this debate I accidentally made a comment pertaining to this subject on one of Brad's blogs by mistake.
hahaha.
I am enjoying it as well. This is the first time I've ever seen the topic discussed at JU without it turning into...
"You're a fascist."
"I know you are but what am I?"
I haven't read all the comments so maybe this has been said before I appologize if that's the case.
My feeling is that government shouldn't be able to ban smoking in anything other than government buildings. Now if they want to enact regulations that mandate that businesses must ensure "clean air" for patrons that is different. What I mean here is that if a business wants to allow smoking the ventelation system used in the "smoking area" must be completely separate from the other ventelation system so that those who don't want to be around smoke don't have to be. I could also see from a labor standpoint setting a regulation making it voluntary for employees to work in the smoking area, meaning that if an employer can't staff the smoking area than the smoking area is closed.
I still think that this might be a bit too far for government to go on the subject. The bottom line is that smoking is a legal substance just like booze and some regulations should be allowed but outright banning it should be up to each individual business.
That said I have now lived in two states that have gone through smoking bans to one degree or another and businesses always raise a fuss over it. There is a slight downturn in business at first while people get used to the smoke free establishments but after a few months business returns back to normal because people would rather get their booze at the bar than at home alone just so they can smoke.
You just said on another post that smokers in Ireland go outside to smoke, how is that not putting people lives in harms way? People could still walk by them, the smoke could still travel and harm someone although it will take much more of it to do so but still. Again, by your own comments, a smoker can only harm a person if the person places themselves within the smokers reach. Going to a bar, a restaurant or any location that allows smoking makes you responsible for putting yourself in that situation. You were not obligated to be there and just because you feel this urge to have to be at any of these smoking allowed locations doesn't mean a smoker has to leave. That's like jumping into the path of a bullet on purpose and then blaming the shooter for shooting you.
As I said, it depends. If you happen to be behind the shooter and his bullet ricochet back to you, that could be your fault for being behind someone shooting a weapon. That would not have been intentional. BTW, why does it have to be a he? It could have been a she you know.
Agreed. But as I said, 100% or zero, I just don't see any middle ground in this.
Check out a drink called Mama Juana from Dominican Republic and get back to me on your answer.
But lets not ignore the fact that when it comes to harming others, those others in most cases have to put themselves in that situatuion by choice for the harm to be done. If a smoker goes into a non smoking location, then he is directly doing harm, but if a non smoker goes into a smoking location, it's their own fault if they are harmed by the smoke. You can't blame the fire for burning you if it was you who stuck your hands in the flame.
My office has a spot in the back of the building, out in the open for smokers to releave their addictions. I don't go there because I dont like the smoke and I dont smoke anyways. But if I did, would the smokers be to blame if I got sick from it? Or should I expect them to put out their cigarettes just because I felt like hanging out in that particular spot?
I don't truly believe businesses would go out of business if a smoking ban was enacted. peiople always find ways around this, we are like the borg, we adapt. My beef is with the Govt getting involved too deeply. There is this saying in Puerto Rico when people ask for favors and then want more:
"Te doy pon y ya quieres guiar?"
Roughly translated, it says "I give you a ride and now you wanna drive?" basically it's the same as "I give you an inch and you take a mile". That is what "will" (I say will because the Gov't never fails to do so) happen once the Gov't is given "an inch" of control.
do you think that the government has any role in regulating the saftey of workplaces?
You just said on another post that smokers in Ireland go outside to smoke, how is that not putting people lives in harms way? People could still walk by them, the smoke could still travel and harm someone although it will take much more of it to do so but still.
There is no need to be a fundamentalist about it. While it is technically true that a smoker is harming passers-by on the street, I do believe that a certain level of tolerance for other people's impolite and harmful actions is appropriate for the sake of society.
As I said, it depends. If you happen to be behind the shooter and his bullet ricochet back to you, that could be your fault for being behind someone shooting a weapon. That would not have been intentional.
It's his action, it's his fault.
Unintentional consequences happen, but they are still someone's fault.
If for some reason the shooters action itself can be considered as not having put anybody at risk by itself and it was ONLY the accident that caused harm, I would argue that there need not be punishment (as there was neither intention nor reckless endangerment), but someone still has to pay the medical bills.
Who forced him to shoot? He is free to do what he wants and I am free not to be shot on the street. If he does something he wants to do and happens to shoot me, he clearly violated my rights; whereas I am not violating his rights for holding him responsible for his own actions.
BTW, why does it have to be a he? It could have been a she you know.
I would have noticed that.
That's where we are different. I see a middle ground. People can smoke outside.
But lets not ignore the fact that when it comes to harming others, those others in most cases have to put themselves in that situatuion by choice for the harm to be done.
Using that logic you can excuse any crime.
"What was he doing living here in this city anyway?"
"If he didn't want to be poisoned, why didn't he just give me his money and move away? Stupid uncle Bob!"
"He was in my way. He put himself in harm's way. He could have been in Nebraska and I wouldn't have shot him."
I think you are confusing somebody's choice to be positioned at X for reason Y (with Y != "wanting to breath smoke") with somebody's choice to be positioned at X for reason Z (with Z != Y).
In the examples above, three people obviously decided to put themselves in harm's way. But they didn't do so because they willingly accepted the harm or the risk. They did so because they liked the city, wanted to keep their money, and didn't want to live in Nebraska. None of these reasons are the same as a declaration that they wanted to be shot.
Note that knowing about the risk does not change the situation. Even if it is known that not being in Nebraska means immediate danger, our third guy still has a right to walk on a street outside Nebraska. The knowledge of the danger must be used, by government, to stop the danger, but it must not be used as an excuse to take away the victim's freedom of movement.
Again, the difference is, it is a privately owned place we are talking about. You don't have a RIGHT to be there. You have the choice, you have the freedom, but you don't have the RIGHT. If you are given a warning of the concequences of entering a PRIVATE place, it is then your responsibility.
If you come to my house, should you have the right to demand I don't smoke in my house? No. So why should the government be able to tell me that I can't smoke in the building that I own? People don't have to work for me and people don't have to do business with me. If I want to stay in business and see that smoking is costing me business, I have the right to ban smoking from my building.
Your logic is flawed. If you want to compare apples to apples here the appropriate analogy to use here is if a bank is being robbed and a client of the bank knows that it is being robbed but decides to enter the bank anyway to attempt to make a deposit or withdrawal. At that point it is the clients fault if they get hurt because they could have more easily chosen to return to the bank on another day when it wasn't being robbed. As for the clients in the bank as the robbers entered they are not at fault for being put at risk because they did not knowingly enter the bank whilst it was being robbed.
Now to take that analogy and apply it to a business that allows smoking the patron knows before entering the establishment that smoking goes on so they are accepting the potential second hand smoking risk when they enter the business. There is nothing requiring them to go to the business. Now if the business had been smoke free and decided to change to allow smoking after the patron (or employee) entered the business then the business is at fault.
It is NOT the government's job to remove all danger and risk from life. Part of living in a "free" society is accepting some amount of risk, freedom != safety. Personal responsibility needs to play a role in our lives.
Your logic is flawed. If you want to compare apples to apples here the appropriate analogy to use here is if a bank is being robbed and a client of the bank knows that it is being robbed but decides to enter the bank anyway to attempt to make a deposit or withdrawal. At that point it is the clients fault if they get hurt because they could have more easily chosen to return to the bank on another day when it wasn't being robbed.
No, it's the robbers' fault, obviously.
Part of living in a "free" society is accepting some amount of risk, freedom != safety. Personal responsibility needs to play a role in our lives.
No. Living in a free society does not mean accepting some amount of risk that one wouldn't have to accept in a non-free society. And personal responsibility means that an individual is responsible for his actions; it does not mean that others have a responsibility to accomodate and change their own lives to allow whatever it is you want to do.
That's an interesting quote seeing as it contradicts everything you posted before. If it's not other peoples "responsibility to accomodate and change their own lives to allow whatever it is you want to do" then why should the Gov't (basically other people) be involved at all?
So if someone is dumb enough to put themselves in harms way knowing harm will occur it is still somehow the other persons fault who did the harm? Interesting.
I think we are seeing the same scenario in 2 different ways. When I talk about a shooter, I am not talking about someone going around shooting people. I am talking about someone who could be hunting or at a shooting range.
If you knowingly put yourself in harms way it is YOUR fault that harm comes to you. If you jump off a cliff is it the cliffs fault for existing or is it your fault for jumping off? In my analogy I wasn't saying that the robbers have no blame, I was simply stating that if you enter a bank while it is being robbed then you must accept the risk that you may get hurt.
There is absolutely no way that anyone can live in any amount of freedom where there is also no risk of harm. It's just not possible. Everytime you enter your car you are taking the risk that you may not make it to your destination because you may be involved in an accident. The only way to eliminate that risk is to take away the freedom to be allowed to drive.
You just shot your argument in the foot here. The smoker is responsible for their actions, why should they have to change their own lives to allow for whatever it is you want to do?
That's an interesting quote seeing as it contradicts everything you posted before.
No. It's exactly what I have been arguing the entire time.
If it's not other peoples "responsibility to accomodate and change their own lives to allow whatever it is you want to do" then why should the Gov't (basically other people) be involved at all?
It is government's business to enforce the law, including even laws that protect me from people who want to do me harm.
I don't know how much clearer I can say it. It is ALWAYS the fault of the person doing the deed. I didn't imagine until now that this is controversial. The robber's decision to rob a bank does NOT take away anybody else's right to walk into the bank.
It is probably stupid to walk into a bank while it is being robbed, but everything that happens will be the fault of the bank robber, not of the idiot passer-by who is morally (and probably legally) in the clear.
I don't think "dumb" is a moral value.
Before a court the defence that the victim was dumb and walked into the bank while the robber was robbing it probably won't do much good for the robber. Shooting dumb people is still a crime, regardless how dumb the victim was.
Neither am I. I mean any shooter.
If the bullet hits someone standing behind the shooter, the shooter is at fault. It's an accident, sure, but somebody will have to pick up the medical bill. And I don't see why it should be the victim.
If you knowingly put yourself in harms way it is YOUR fault that harm comes to you.
No. It is the attackers' fault.
If you jump off a cliff is it the cliffs fault for existing or is it your fault for jumping off?
A cliff is not a moral agent. But if somebody pushed me off the cliff it would be solely HIS fault, even if I walked into his range while he was pushing other people off the cliff.
In my analogy I wasn't saying that the robbers have no blame, I was simply stating that if you enter a bank while it is being robbed then you must accept the risk that you may get hurt.
I must accept the risk because physics says I must. But the responsibility lies absolutely and solely with the bank robbers.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
