Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
That's a bit one-sided, don't you think? The stance that a guest on someone else's property should have the power to change the owner's health concern to match his own is also a bit like belief in Jesus. ALL ideologies are ultimately based in something other than reason. Yours is hardly an exception.
|
Well, to be clear, it isn't the guest who is changing the owner's health concern. It is the local government. Also, there are many reasons why one might choose to regulate smoking indoors. There are also reasons why one might oppose smoking bans. Try to make an argument supporting the notion that private business owners should have absolute control when it comes to choosing to allow their patrons to smoke indoors without resorting to broad, axiomatic notions of the unalienable rights of private business people.
Quote:
|
Do you really think this is something other than a terrible argument? Great injustices exist, so there's no point in ever addressing small injustices?
|
Well, to hear some people talk about it, smoking bans are not small injustice. Smoking bans are, in fact, no less then the first step down a treacherous and slippery slope towards the complete suspension of the bill of rights. You know, tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is getting hacked to bits because you happen to belong the minority. Being forced to go outside to feed a bad habit? Eh. Cry me a river. The majority could do a lot worse. I have a difficult time finding sympathy for people who rely on FUD where reason would be a lot more useful.
This isn't to say that you can't address things you don't like. It just seems to me to frame it as some sort of matter of "justice" shows a lack of perspective.
Quote:
|
Strike three. The idea that smoking is a good habit has NEVER been instrumental to the argument against bans. I, for one, argue no such thing.
|
No, but you are arguing a position that is essentially pro-smoking by proxy. It's like when the ACLU defends the KKK. I mean sure, first amendment, blah blah blah, you're still putting yourself in the tough position of defending quasi-pariahs as a matter of principle. I'm not saying it isn't noble, just that it isn't enviable from a public relations or probability of success standpoint, especially given that the KKK's rights are protected by the constitution (when it comes to speech), whereas the 11th amendment in the original bill of rights, which was supposed to guarantee the right to smoke in private businesses, was scrapped when New Hampshire balked about ratification.
Quote:
|
I think that the pro ban crowd is put in the unfortunate position of defending the legal requirement to accept guests with no sense of etiquette or respect. People who give you good reason for dislike and have no rational semblance of a 'right' to be there in the first place. Tough position, I almost feel for you.
|
I won't argue with your right to frame an issue as you want, it isn't like I wasn't doing the same thing. Reality is often what we decide it to be. In any case, the interface between private property and the general public with respect to matters of public health isn't nearly as simple as you seem to think they are.