well in that case, it seems like the free market could work it out--you would have the choice to go to a non-smoking bar if you didn't want to be exposed to cigarette smoke.

I think that is the more reasonable argument. Be considerate. It's like when I used to smoke. I would not smoke at my parents home for the most part, not even outside, except for sometimes I would go way outside into our backyard far from the house and such. Not because I was hiding, but because my parents didn't want to see it or smell it.

This is a scary argument to see from a libertarian. I don't smoke, I don't like the smell of smoke, and I've gotten so used to smoke free bars that its a shock to go to an area that allows smoking in bars. I'll never lobby against prohibitions out of personal self interest but I still have a philosophical problem with the laws themselves. Why should the government be able to set smoking or non-smoking rules in privately owned restaurants and bars just because they are open to the public. Shouldn't it be up to the owners and their management to set the policy. What's next, do I have a right to expect my favorite dish to be served in every restaurant. If you don't like the smoke, don't go in. If enough people want smoke free restaurants and bars, the free market should be able to meet the need without the government setting rules for every establishment.

This is the point I was trying to make. The problem of smoking in public places or drinking in public places is not the problem. It's the abuse and lack of self-control that exists within a large portion of humanity. The ban is not going to do anything.

To me it's the same thing as the people that want to ban certain music or violent video games. The government becomes Big Brother in many ways. Not allowing certain freedoms. Hell, it's not even freedoms.

Where is this evidence that second-hand smoke is just as bad for you as if you were a smoker? I was told by a trusted doctor that the AMA recently published something saying that second-hand smoke was not directly linked to cancer. Now, keep in mind, I don't have the source for that. It just came from someone I trusted...disregard it if you will. And beyond that, there is significantly less proof that there is any dangerous physical outcome from people smoking outdoors on a street and such. It is just that some people don't like it and those that don't have a greater pull in the state government.

If you're gonna put any expectations on people being considerate of others, you're gonna be sorely disappointed.

Here is a point that requires clarification. I have no problem with a private establishment allowing smoking on their premises. I have a big problem with people smoking in public (e.g. the sidewalk, street corner, etc.). I have no property rights to Chez Fumer, I have property rights, albeit shared, to the corner of 5th and Vermouth.

It's still an ideal. An ideal is what should be sought after, not the placating of special interest groups.

I don't expect people to be considerate, but that is more closely related to the solution than bans based on whims.

On the drinking issue being brought up...not really seeing where it comes into play here. No, drinking is not outlawed. But there are laws governing the amount you are supposed to have (or not have) to be able to operate a motor vehicle.

Once again, people make their own choices. If these people thought about who else might be affected by their actions then they might make better decisions. But then again, there are some dumbasses out there who think of nothing but themselves.

The thing about these laws is overall they are trying to better the health of everyone. No one says you can never drink or smoke, they just say you can't do it in certain places or in excess. If you feel that infringes your rights, then step back and look at the big picture. Try seeing it from the other side for a second.

I think the dirinking issue was brought up initially because it is a good example of what these types of bans do. Not much. If a government wants to better the health of people, educate them properly. But, these issues I think come more from parenting rather than the government not doing its job of educating. But with smoking it is almost a complete ban. where are you left able to smoke? at home? in your car? you can't do it in any restaurants or buildings or on the streets. where does that leave? the only place that isn't public is my house. They may as well get rid of smoking altogether, along with alcohol. If you want to make the place healthier anyway. I don't see much of a difference between a ban like this and complete prohibition. The line separating the two is really thin.

i can see the other side, i just think it's based on bunk assumptions. like the idea that second-hand smoke exposure outdoors is harmful. where's the evidence?
and the drinking issue comes into play because we could change the law to encourage people to make better decisions when it comes to booze. for instance, shut down all bars. people can still drink, but only in their homes. this necessarily means less drunk driving, since people wouldn't drive across town to their favorite bar. it wouldn't eliminate drunk driving completely, but i would certainly make a dent in the problem, which translates directly into less drunk driving deaths (or property damage, criminal justice system resources used to prosecute drunk drivers, etc.)
but the anti-smoking forces are unlikely to support a law like that because, well, they enjoy going to bars. legislation of preference is fine as long as it isn't your own preference that is being outlawed.

seriously. i don't need someone to tell me i can't smoke. it's MY choice to do so. yes it's a bad habit, yes i'm aware it's bad for my health, and yes it's expensive. but all that aside, i still choose to smoke.

outside of our offices, there's a designated smoking area. i don't smoke in places where i know it will disturb others. as a smoker, i don't like smoking in bars/restaurants so i'm glad there's no-smoking indoors (with the exception of a few dives here & there that allow it).

if you're going to live in los angeles and bitch about breathing clean air, you're living in the wrong city.

so what next, is the government going to ban fast food? might as well, oh hell, why don't they just ban alcohol and everything else since "it's bad for you."

this is exactly the distopian future evisioned by:
[img][374:500]http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/dvd/images/large_images/Demolition_Man_Front.jpg[/img]
eerily prophetic!

At the risk of stunting what is developing into another enlightening and well-reasoned dialogue, I will point out that there are megathreads on smoking bans

HERE

and

HERE

Physically harmful or not, it's a nuissance and an infringement on everyone's public property rights.

damn you aaron. My goal is to start a mega-thread that isn't about me killing an innocent animal. HOW DARE YOU!

Throwing around "nuisance" pretty loosely there, aren't you Billz?

Nope, it's a nuisance. If I can smell the smoke, then it's a nuisance.

now thats just incredibly thin. some people do happen to like the smell of smoke, or at least aren't bothered by it. why does your "right" not to exposed to an offensive smell trump my right to smoke? would it trump my right not to shower? or to cook indian food? or to drive a diesel truck?
and is smell the only justification for outlawing a nuisance? what about noise? sight? can we outlaw subwoofers and awful fashion sense?
the problem, when your justification merely goes to "people find the smell of smoke offensive" is that you don't have a right not to be offended.

I hate the smell of coffee, if i can smell coffee, then it's a nuisance.

this thread should have ended at billy g's post.

sub-woofers and the volume at which they are played are regulated (so as to prohibit a public nuisance).

Next...

Sorry but I don't think passing someone on the street whose smoke you happen to catch a whiff of is going to harm you much considering all of the other fumes you're breathing in. I'm not saying it's a good idea to allow smoking everywhere but smoking outdoors should not be illegal.

well cigarette smoking can be very very quiet. and i don't know where you live, but i've never lived any place that regulates the volume of car stereos on public streets. not to mention that there's a big difference between driving in a residential area at 2am blaring music (where it would interfere with an individual's quiet enjoyment of their own property) and driving on a major road lined with shopping centers at 2am blaring music (where it wouldn't). if i smoke as i walk past your house, the smoke doesn't have any possibility of invading your home.

Well there probably are regulations where you lived but that aren't enforced because the powers that be recognize that its just not a serious problem that warrants throwing a lot of manpower at trying to enforce. Kinda like stopping people from smoking a cigarette on the street corner.

I'm really surprised that Billz is on the wrong side of the issue here.