Xera

I've been looking into a few things here and I have to say, I'm getting more and more convinced that the real argument for about half the people on this thread have now is, "how much control over our lives should government have." While the other half are still arguing, "smoking is bad for me so I don't do it and you shouldn't be able to make me." While the parallels are there, the issues really aren't connected. Smoking in this case is more of an example of how government is trying to control our lives rather than the issue of concern, for some, and I suppose I am becoming one of those.

Smoking is horrible. If you can, STOP.

See my perfume example above, non smokers do stink and make people sick. They just don't see that smelling themselves up is actually causing harm to others. The response to my question proves the non-smoker's argument in this case is right. Other people will never actually be courteous and respectful of others needs without external controls to the issue. You know there is a significant number of people that develop illnesses ranging from a skin rash to asthma attacks due to this entirely unnecessary practice, yet unless some actually DIES from it, there is no need to expect people to stop swimming around in that crud. Hurting people doesn't count apparently as harming them.

I am a subscriber to the harm principle which is basically that no part of my freedoms should ever be curtailed unless not curtailing my ability to practice my freedoms would harm another person. This means that yes, I do believe that laws not specifically designed to protect should not exist. Cities that lower the speed limit on low traffic wide roads for the sole purpose of gathering more revenue for the city by encouraging breaking that unreasonable and often unexpected speed limit, without need, piss me off. Laws should be for protection ONLY.

This is where we come into conflict. Whose rights do we protect and whose safety do we ensure? We have to protect everyone. Smoking bans on public places must be in place because smoking is dangerous, being in an enclosed area with a smoker is dangerous, and therefore laws need to be in place to protect against that danger.

Now to the more complex problem, are privately owned restaraunts and bars public? Not really. They are, by definition, privately owned. There is an expectation that a large portion of the public population will be present there, but they are in fact PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY. Publicly accessible does not mean the same as public property.

It is typically believed that working is not a right. It is good for society to have our citizens working, but it is not a right. If my smoking is not a right and therefore there should be no laws in place to protect me from unreasonable bans on that right, then the same MUST be said of workers, because frankly their right to work is not any more guaranteed than my right to smoke, though it is more widely valued.

I hold by my statement that we must take care how much we allow the government to control behaviors. We will be instruments of our own loss of liberties.

I do want to note here that my stance changes if we are discussing whether or not it is better for the public to limit where I can smoke. I am discussing here only the extent of governmental controls over behavior that I am comfortable with. I KNOW it is better for the public at large if I don't smoke in public. Even before the bans went into place I did not sit in the smoking section of restaraunts. I tried to stay away from those areas where people were forced to walk very close to me in order to get into an establishment. I think it is very important that we, as citizens, try to respect each others needs and wants, even when we don't share those wants.

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~