There's probably not much more either of us can say, shakran, but a few more things:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
The public has the option of not accepting their invitation to use their property when they aren't up to fire codes, or have asbestos, or dangerous animals improperly confined. By your logic, government should not regulate ANYTHING a business does because the public doesn't have to go in there.
|
Already gave fire codes as a reasoned exception. Not sure about
ANYTHING - give me a particular thing and I'll tell you - but certainly a lot more than you'd allow. Dangerous animals? We had one of those, we had to put him down when he escaped through the front door and attacked another dog. (The current one, Max, is much more mild and friendly.)
Quote:
|
What? Are you trying to give me the choice between clean air and socialized medicine?
|
You lost me here.
Heh.
Quote:
|
The external cost is the cost of the workers who get sick because of other people smoking. The cost of fast food is the individual who eats too much of it and gets sick.
|
Which is an external cost if the obese person in question can't pay for his/her hospital care. The same artificial, indirect, external cost in your scenario of a worker sick due to cigarettes.
Quote:
|
Let's stop chopping arguments up into very specific versions of un-reality to suit your point.
|
Soon as you stop beating your wife.
I explained the distinction, explain your objection.
Quote:
|
It is privately owned property in which the public is invited to do business, and therefore it is held to different standards than the house.
|
Invited by the business owner. Owner
should decide standards. I'm aware that it isn't this way currently.
Quote:
|
No, some people do not have that choice. Period.
|
Bad faith. It might be a very very very hard choice, but it's a choice nonetheless.
Can you provide me with a single example wherein the worker was physically unable to leave the job?
Quote:
I disagree with you still, but this line was really funny 
|
It's my hometown, I know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
|
So as long as I tell you that guns are dangerous, I can shoot you?
|
Looks like a bad analogy to me. So long as you tell me that guns are dangerous, you can let me handle your gun. So long as you tell me that trespassers will be shot, you can shoot me if trespassing. (Generally... that situation opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, couple of threads on that right now.)
Quote:
|
You are attempting to violate their right to life by introducing a carcinogen into their lungs.
|
Implicit assent. No violation.
Quote:
|
You do not have the right, legally defined or otherwise, to smoke.
|
Couldn't disagree more, actually. I believe I have the right to do pretty much anything as long as it doesn't forcibly - key word in this debate, forcibly - intrude on the rights of others. That includes
at least smoking in the privacy of my own home.
Quote:
|
You're right. That's why I'm not trying to get the government to ban smoking entirely. Only near others in public places.
|
Yep... impasse #1: we can't agree on what counts as a public place. Maybe that could be phrased in a better way, but we get the essential disagreement here.
Quote:
|
publicly accessible is not the same thing as public property, but it is also not the same thing as purely private property.
|
Eh... I can basically agree with this statement, but then we'll quibble over what it means for private property to be impurely private and what that means in terms of owner's extent of power and we'll end up right back where we started. Suffice it to say, on this particular issue, I consider 'publicly accessible' effectively the same as 'purely private'.
Quote:
|
You're right. It's indefensible and inexcusable to do it on property that is NOT yours.
|
Well, sure. Unless you have the owner's permission.
Quote:
|
That's not false. You just don't want to believe it.
|
Impasse #2: we can't agree on what counts as choice.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
Those arguing in this thread for the right of the business owner to have the say in whether or not they will allow smoking, are making public health take a back seat to the right of the business owner. That's simply a laughable suggestion.
|
Well, to put it another way, I disagree that we're talking about
public health - we're actually talking about the health of that segment of the public that accepted an invitation to an unhealthy place. But hey, I'm glad I could bring a smile to your face.
Quote:
|
I'm kind of surprised this "conversation" has gone on for 4 pages now... talking "at" each other, indeed.
|
Riiight. It's a good thing that
you avoided that pitfall!