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.
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?
Because they don't have a right to harm me. I thought I already made that point.
I am sorry if somebody's choice of lifestyle includes actions that violate other people's rights. But the onus is on THEM to change their lifestyle, not on everybody else to accomodate it.
The communist is responsible for his actions too. But that doesn't mean that he can steal my computer. He will have to change his life to allow me to keep my property, thank you very much.
This whole conversation seems to be running in circles. Having somebody outside the US try to have a stand on US law doesn't work for me, either.
The US was founded on personal freedom- the freedom of choice.
Now, nobody is forced to work in a bar. I don't like bars- I don't work in one. I also don't like heights, so I don't work in construction. I really don't like dead animals, so I don't work at the Humane Society. People can choose where they want to work- that is freedom of choice.
People don't have to go to a restaurant or bar or anywhere else that allows smoking- it's freedom of choice.
The more laws that the government (especially when it gets to a federal level) puts on people, the less freedom of choice the people have. It becomes a very slippery slope- where does it end? Who is to decide whose freedoms are more important?
I'm pretty sure that people working at toll booths inhale way more harmful fumes in a day then they should- should we outlaw cars? Nurses and Doctors get exposed to all sorts of disease, what are we going to do about that? The government should protect us!
(JU screwed up quoting. Checking if it works in the next comment.)
Try to sue the "attacker" for damages that you incur because you knowingly put yourself in harms way. The court should toss out the suit. Again I'm not saying the robbers were blameless in my scenario, I was merely stating that when you knowingly enter a bank that is being robbed you must accept responsibility if you get injured.
Some research has shown that associations with overweight people causes people to gain weight, does that mean we should enact laws that dictate how much people can weigh?
There is tons of research that indicates that alcoholism is an inherited disorder, should we prevent alcoholics from having kids?
And to go along with smoking since smoking is harmful to others should we charge all smokers who are parents with child abuse?
Guns are harmful to people, should we outlaw guns? (Good luck.)
If you sneeze without covering your mouth you might infect others with your cold, should we have a law that you must cover your mouth or risk jail time?
People get hurt when they play sports, in fact riots have broken out due to the outcome of sporting events should we outlaw them too?
Where does it end? At some point you have to say that some of the risk and responsibility must fall on the person making the choice to be around whatever is causing them harm.
Try to sue the "attacker" for damages that you incur because you knowingly put yourself in harms way. The court should toss out the suit.
In that case I disagree with American law.
I was merely stating that when you knowingly enter a bank that is being robbed you must accept responsibility if you get injured.
And I am saying that I disagree.
Don't think that I haven't been in that situation myself. Maybe I was stupid. But somebody had to be because otherwise the bad guy wins. You call it stupidity, I thought of it as resisting evil.
I think we can draw the line somewhere.
For example, when "some research" shows that there is a possibility that something about a person that isn't an action might harm somebody in a way that is not even noticed as harm by the "victim", I think we can be tolerant.
There are laws, I think, that forbid you from forcefeeding others without their consent in public.
Coming back to our original problem. What about smokers.
I think that we shouldn't blame smokers for getting other people into smoking (because that is the other people's decision).
But we should blame them for causing others to smoke (second-hand) who did not want to do so.
I don't consider having particular genes to be "actions" that somebody is responsible for.
If, however, they teach their children to drink, they should be charged with child abuse.
Yes, if they smoke in the vicinity of their children.
(Same goes for gun owners who shoot their children or car drivers who drive over their children.)
No. But we should outlaw shooting people.
The concept of individual responsibility for one's actions is really difficult for you to understand, isn't it? I see you cannot differentiate between tools and the actions they are used for and between actions and genetics.
A perfect example here is a cannibal... his "lifestyle" choices are harmful to himself (he is in danger of being killed by his victims, and eating another human puts you at a variety of health risks), yet his actions harm others, thus it is NOT just his own choice...
No they aren't, they are the greatest equalizer in human history, the basis of democracy, sexual equiality, and the ending of slavery.
No I understand personal responsibility. My examples were extremes of how far your argument could be taken by the government if we ignore the fact that each person is responsible for their own actions and that each person assumes a certain amount of risk of being harmed if they knowingly enter situations where harm may come to them. I can see an argument for charging a smoker who smokes around their children with child abuse because the child has little choice of where they live and whether or not they are around their parents, but I don't see the argument of banning smoking in privately owned businesses because all the patrons and employees are aware before they enter that smoking is allowed in the establishment.
The "victim" has a certain amount of responsiblity when they knowingly engage in risky behavior. If prostitution were legal and you choose to have unprotected sex with a prostitute don't you share in the responsiblity if you acquire an STD? If you are the prostitute and you willingly engage in unprotected sex don't you share in the responsibility if you acquire an STD from your client?
Personal responsibility is NOT always an absolute. There is not always one person (or group of people) who are 100% responsible for what happens, sometimes the victim shares some of the responsibility for what happens. If you walk into a bank when it is being robbed, and you know that it is being robbed ahead of time, then it is partly your fault if you get hurt. That doesn't mean that the robbers are without responsibility, but you put yourself in harms way. You should have waited until the robbery was over or simply returned on another day.
I agree. Liability already spans too much.
Actually the so called victim here is ALSO making a personal choice. The smoker chooses to engage in the self destructive behaviour of smoking. The PASSIVE smoker choses to engage in the self destructive behaviour of passive smoking. As long as government institutes don't allow smoking, then all is well. If I choose to go to a bar that allows smoking, then I am responsibly for my second hand inhelation.
As to why not ban it completely. You cannot call yourself a free society if you forbid people from making bad choices. The state is not a nanny in a free society. A person is held responsible for his actions (eg, drunk driving, assulting someone while on drugs, etc), but they are allowed to make those choices.
Leauki, your opinions have me confused. On one end you say people are responsible for their own actions but on the other you want to blame others for something you could have avoided when being aware of the danger. That's like blaming a person who started a fire in a BBQ grill and you stuck your hands in there and got burned.
Best analogy ever
Just to add to your knowledge...smokers won't be crossing the border into Canada for a public smoke as Ontario ( the province closest to Michagan) outlawed smoking in all public places well over a year ago. There was a huge outcry about it, and much nashing of teeth and complaints about government destroying businesses. To be honest it did kill a lot of businesses, mostly bars and bingo halls. Those that survived though have created patio and open air smoking rooms. Restaurants on average however, have seen an increase in business as people who used to avoid them now visit them much more often. Despite the fact I disagreed with it at the time, I think overall it has worked out for the better, and I certainly enjoy my few meals out more now without someone lighting up beside me while I'm trying to enjoy my meal.
I do however completely disagree with how they have handled our vetrans legions and hospitals. As Jilluser said many of these folks got hooked on tabacco that we sent them during the war. Now we're telling that same 80-90 year old vetran he has to sit outside in the dead of winter in his wheelchair to have a smoke! Common sense seems to have been thrown out the window.
I'm all for allowing businesses to form a private club and sell memberships and allow smoking, provided they provide proper ventalation. I'd also insist though that any existing businesses that want to go this route provide any employees that refuse to work in that environment up to 2 years severance. I also believe that vetrans hospitals and legions should be permitted to create separately ventilated smoking rooms for our vetrans to use.
Overall I agree with Leauki. If you want to smoke... take it outside. At least if I pass you on the street I've got a decent chance at some fresh air. Inside I have no such chance and your infringing on my right to clean air. Those that argue I should just not frequent establishments that allow smoking are missing one major flaw. If even one restaurant allows smoking they all will allow smoking just to remain competitive. I'm sorry, but I'll always believe my right to clean air exceeds your right to pollute it.
2 YEARS is a big much... 2 months at MOST.
Actually they are not allowed to make those choices - they're illegal, hence why if they do decide to do it, they'll be breaking the law+face arrest. The same would go for smoking - make it illegal in public places and yes you can still smoke in public places, but you'll be held responsible for it.
Leauki, your opinions have me confused. On one end you say people are responsible for their own actions but on the other you want to blame others for something you could have avoided when being aware of the danger.
I look at who does the deed and hold him responsible.
There is no "on the one end" and "on the other". There is only one end. No other. Only one.
Any individual is responsible for HIS actions alone.
That's like blaming a person who started a fire in a BBQ grill and you stuck your hands in there and got burned.
You have no right to stick your head into somebody else's grill in the first place.
But a bank customer does have the right to walk into a bank and the bank robber does not have the right to take that away.
Actually the so called victim here is ALSO making a personal choice. The smoker chooses to engage in the self destructive behaviour of smoking. The PASSIVE smoker choses to engage in the self destructive behaviour of passive smoking.
I assure you that in most cases where I have been passive-smoking I did _not_ make that choice.
Imposing something on me is not the same as me making a choice.
I also assure you that if I ever make the choice that I want to passive-smoke I will be telling people and it will be clear enough.
But unless I say something you can rest assured that I don't want to passive-smoke.
(And the same goes for being shot, being driven over by a car, and being shelled.)
Despite the fact I disagreed with it at the time, I think overall it has worked out for the better, and I certainly enjoy my few meals out more now without someone lighting up beside me while I'm trying to enjoy my meal.
If somebody lights up next to you, you could simply throw a bottle at him and claim that the restaurant owner didn't put up a sign forbidding the act.
If he complains that causing him harm is forbidden anyway and that he doesn't see a need for a specific sign about it; apologise, tell him you didn't know, and remind him not to pollute the air you are breathing.
I realise of course that you wouldn't do that. Neither would I.
And that's the difference between smokers and non-smokers.
No I understand personal responsibility. My examples were extremes of how far your argument could be taken by the government if we ignore the fact that each person is responsible for their own actions and that each person assumes a certain amount of risk of being harmed if they knowingly enter situations where harm may come to them.
I am not sure you understand the concept still.
My argument is SOLELY about personal responsibility and its importance and how it should apply EVEN to smokers.
But you are talking about the slippery slope of IGNORING the fact that each person is responsible for their own actions.
I disagree with you that being shot at means that one put oneself in harm's way and that the victim has _any_ responsibility whatsoever to avoid being shot at. Personal responsibility is for what one does, not for what is being done to one.
And if the business owner didn't put up a sign forbidding cannibalism on his property, the cannibal is of course free to slaughter and eat whomever he wants. The victims of passive-cannibalism had a choice. They could have chosen a different restaurant.
If there are enough cannibals in society, no restaurant owner will be able to run a restaurant without allowing them into his business.
At some point, the anti-cannibal movement will grow and vote for laws prohibiting cannibalism, at least indoors where it bothers too many people (presumably issues with blood).
Supporters of cannibalism will argue that prohibiting cannibalism in restaurants should be the owners' choice and that government intervention is wrong, that cannibalism is a choice and that nobody is forced to stand next to a cannibal (or even live in the same city).
Any argument that cannibals should be responsible for their actions like everybody else will be disregarded as being the equivalent of making eating per se illegal.
And what about the children? Should eating your children be considered child abuse? Some supporters of cannibalism will agree that it should be. But eating other people is a different matter.
It's a complicated question.
I was talking about a free society. The united states obviously isn't one.
If such a free society means that you're allowed to go drink driving, assault someone while on drugs etc., then it's not a society I want to be a part of.
In a free society you are allowed to drink, and you are allowed to do drugs, you are not allowed to assult or drunk drive and will be punished if you do so.
please reread my original post about the issue.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
