:) wow. here here.

If only it were that simple. Smoking doesn't always kill you, but it can give you long-term illness. Now that is a cost to the health-care system. A non-smoking, health-oriented old person is less expensive than a chain-smoking, health-indifferent old person.

I haven't seen the data, but I wouldn't be surprised if smoking and poor dietary habits cause more burden to the health-care system even if these people have a shorter life span.

Yes, my problem with universal health care is that most people aren't healthy. And with UHC, there is now no incentive for people to be healthy.

The only way I would support UHC is if it was done by groups. I choose to exercise and be healthy and am currently in my 20s, I can be in one group with other people like me. Other people can join this group with low rates if they choose to.

I do yearn for simplicity but she is an elusive lover.

Here is a link to one study:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22995659/

Be warned, I am always dubious of findings from one solitary study.

I do enjoy the fact that it supports part of my world view.

We use laws to ridiculously micromanage things.

I think I've heard of this plan, its called normal health insurance :thumbsup:

So how is that UNIVERSAL Health Care and what are these rates you speak of? I was about to go off on a rant about the joys of UHC, but really this isn't the thread to do it in.

Oh please do, I hear Canada has a wonderful system full of Unicorns and magic beans :thumbsup:

Actually that's not true. There are incentives for doctors with healthier patients and for healthy citizens in NHS, which has been discussed in the Hillary's Healthcare thread.
/threadjack

As far as smoking itself goes I am rather libertarian. If you enjoy it, do it in your own home, or some other consenting person's home. If there is a designated smoking area where it absolutely does not affect others then that is fine as well. I used to hate going home after a night at a bar or club REEKING of smoke, and am grateful for the bans on smoking in public places. I can't stand having to walk through a pall of smoke when I have to enter a building with smokers outside. I wonder what would happen if non-smokers simply hocked lugies on the smokers as they passed through their cloud. Seems fair, gross for gross. Also, why is it that people enjoy smoking in their cars, but do not like the smoking refuse. I find it gross to pull up to a stoplight and find thousands of cigarette butts on the street against the curb. I do not know of a single smoker who ashes and puts out their cigarettes in their own car (though there must be a few). Don't get me started about smokers affecting my health insurance...

Yeah like the time I thought I broke my foot, went to see my doctor, got x-rayed and hit the pharmacy for some painkillers and all I had to pay for was the meds (which are covered by my work place benefits anyway) :thumbsup: //threadjack//

No, it has its problems. But it's a lot better than no universal system at all like in countries such as the United States....and China...Mongolia...a bunch of the -stans, and pretty much all of Africa.

It was once one indicator that separated developed countries from developing countries, but even some developing countries are implementing it.

The United States is, of course, as is the case with several other things, a unique case.

I love smoking threads, so much vitriol on each side. I'm what I think is a considerate smoker. I don't litter (at all, not just butts), I smoke in our designated areas and I'm respectful in that I avoid exhaling upwind. I'm used to being a vilified minority and don't really care. I can be a quite confrontational asshole if someone wants to get in my face about it.

I'm all for banning smoking in public owned buildings but not private ones. Hell, I think people should still be allowed to smoke in offices if they manage to exhaust or purify the air. What really gets my panties in a twist is the legislation banning smoking in private businesses like bars. Smoking and drinking go together and should usually be enjoyed with a card game.

One thing I find especially humorous about militant anti-smokers is the environmental angle. "Bitch, please." The amount of particulate pollution caused by burning tobacco is minuscule at the worst. I guess I'll support banning smoking for environmental reasons when I support banning campfires. "Those damn campers, always screwing up our environment! We're going to install EPA certified wood stoves at all the campgrounds!"

On a slight threadjack, I am happy that Colorado made the diesels clean up their act. Nothing quite like being behind one of those old RTD buses on a bike and getting a face full of diesel smoke when the light turns green. Sure don't miss those days and it's one of the reasons I don't blow smoke in people's faces.

Here's my small contribution, partly because I'm lazy and partly because my sentiments are already an echo at this point:

I've never smoked and I never will, but overriding the wishes of business and apartment owners nauseates me more than secondhand smoke ever will.

You're a guest in that restaurant, and it's not very fucking respectful to demand a rewrite of the host's business plan. Don't like the invitation? Cook your own damn food.

Does that concept (overriding the wishes of business) apply to who a business may or may not wish to serve as well http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...hites-only.gif or just to smoking bans in private restaurants, bars, etc.

I'm not equating the two in terms of law, but the "public good" comes into play in regard to smoking bans.

I think it's funny that the person who decided to bring in a segregation analogy into the thread was part of the anti-smoking crowd.

And yeah, I do personally believe that a business should be able to discriminate in it's clientele based on whatever criteria they choose. If a business owner decides independently not to allow smokers into his establishment, that's great. If he decides that black people shouldn't be allowed, that's fine by me too. One of these businesses is likely to do well, and the other is not. Can you tell which is which?

Racism is a social problem, not a legal one.

Martian, the social and legal often cross. They're not mutually exclusive. Or should women not get promoted unless they shag their boss?

Legal issues are a subset of social issues. My point was that attempting to fix a problem like racism with legislation is ignoring the wider issue. Same goes for smoking.

Both.

The public good isn't a valid issue when the affected property(ies) aren't owned by the public.

I think the billions that the government collects directly from smokers and indirectly from lawsuits against tobacco companies should be used to pay for smokers' health care and/or insurance.

I haven't seen the data either but I bet the taxes that smokers pay more than makes up for the additional cost to the health care system.

I go back and forth when it comes to smoking, but I've never been against bans. Either way, when I do smoke, I don't really mind going outside, even when it's goddamn cold and when I don't smoke, I don't really think about it, and that's nice.

From an ideological standpoint, it seems to me that the well measured regulation of private business is one of the cornerstones of an effective capitalist system. What "well measured" means depends on whose doing the measuring.

It is difficult to refute a personal belief that business owners should be given absolute control when it comes to choosing to allow their patrons to smoke indoor; such a thing is not so far from a belief in Jesus in the sense that ideological stances don't need to be anchored by reason (though they often are to a limited extent).

It is also difficult to argue against the fact that there seems to be overwhelming public support for these bans, and also that there is nowhere any sort of guaranteed right to smoke. To the smoker who complains of tyranny of the majority, I would like to point to Darfur while I take a break from playing a dirge for them on the worlds smallest violin. Even without taking such wholesale slaughter into consideration, yep, it sucks to be you. You are so oppressed. If only society was more accepting of your no doubt well reasoned personal choice to spend a lot of money to make the people who love you watch you slowly kill yourself. If I had any pity left from the little I allotted your family and friends I would give it to you, but I don't. Just my luck I will have smoked just enough in my younger days so that I won't be spared that idiotic fate.

Unfortunately, reality tends to trump ideology. I think that the anti ban crowd is put in the unfortunate position of defending an expensive, disgusting and toxic habit on purely ideological grounds, which is rarely a winning proposition.

The only thing I would add to filtherton's well-stated analysis is that smoking bans do not discriminate against a class of people....they regulate an action.

Smokers are welcome in any establishment if they keep their cigarettes in their pocket.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

Acting on orders from those obnoxious guests.

Why should I? Those broad, axiomatic notions are perfectly sufficient. It's not different in any significant way from banning smoking in private homes. Require all the skull-and-bones door warnings you want, make it perfectly clear that a bar may carry health risks (you don't say!), but recognize your completely unfettered ability to leave buildings you don't like.

And they could do a lot better. Let's not settle for 'mediocre'.

FUD?

I disagree that such arguments aren't using reason.

Not in the slightest. Framing it as a matter of "the gravest, most serious injustice since Hitler had a bad day" would show a lack of perspective. But framing it as a matter of justice is just plain accurate.

The ACLU wasn't defending racism and I'm not defending smoking. If you're just saying that it can look otherwise to some lazy thinkers, well sure, but I couldn't care less about them. They'll be lazy thinkers no matter what I do.

With the passage of these "matters of public health" concerning private property, I'm aware that it's not very simple. I'm arguing that it should be.

What's your point?

I never said you shouldn't. All I said was that any attempts to convince you otherwise would be as effective as trying to convince Mike Huckabee that god isn't real and so it is a useless thing to argue about.

In this instance, I happen to think that "mediocre" is just fine.

Yes, they use reason, but they rely on FUD.

If you want to dilute the word "justice" then by all means.

I'm not saying that you're defending smoking, or that the ACLU is defending racism. What I said was that you are essentially taking a de facto pro-smoking position on a matter of principle. Your personal opinion of smoking is irrelevant-- any success you have will mean success for smokers. You and the ACLU happen to be in the position of defending the right of people to be obnoxious and destructive. I'm not hating, I'm not saying it isn't noble, or net admirable to a limited extent, it's just a tough position to be in.

Nothing is ever simple when people are involved.

Smokers need to realize that there are no laws on the books protecting their right to smoke. So, with that said, they have absolutely NO leg to stand on as far as demanding a dry, safe, warm place to smoke.


Additionally, there are a lot of things that are legal but regulated in this country. It's legal for me to own and fire a hand gun, but I can't walk down the street to do it. I have to go to an authorized firing range.

I get so turned off when I meet cute girls and they suddenly whip out a cigarette and start smoking then hacking. Major turn-off.

That your distinction is immaterial. The government is the people.

Beliefs which don't require bad logic may be harder to change, but it's presumptive to rule out the possibility of change. You don't know me that well. Hell, I don't know me that well. And for all I know, you're just as dogmatic. Are you just arguing that arguing with me is pointless? Or is there something less ironic?

Noted. My standing point being that injustices don't have to be Darfur to be worthy of attention.

Again, FUD? Spell out that acronym for me and why anti-ban types must rely on it. (Bonus points for how you avoid this terrible reliance.)

I'm doing no such thing.

Huckabee forbid.

Sure, I'll cop to that. I wonder if you'd cop to being in the same position. And with the added benefit of being the liberal counterpart to let's-regulate-the-bedroom busybodies like Dr. James Dobson.

I haven't found it tough yet. I sleep very well.

I'll butcher Clerks: Humanity would be great if it weren't for the fucking humanity.

Yes, the Constitution enumerates every single specific right we have, one by one. Anything left out must not be a right.

Goodbye Titty Board.

Unless that dry, safe, warm place is owned by them or someone friendly to their desires. Then you're the one with the peg leg.

That's a good analogy. Do you know why?

(Hint: what do a restaurant and a firing range have in common?)

This whole tangent is immaterial.


I'm not arguing with you. I'm just repeating what I said using different words. You're the one who seems intent on arguing.

I never said they did. I just said that the antiban crowd tends to be a bit dramatic.

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. And I never said antiban types must use it, I said many of them do use it. You should reread the things I've said. I think you're arguing with what you think I'm saying, and not necessarily with what I'm saying.

If you think injustice is requiring private business owners to submit to the public health requirements of local governments, local governments who are acting on the behalf of the majority of their citizens to limit the use of carcinogens indoors, then you are completely diluting the word justice.

I won't cop to the same position, though I see how you would think that our positions were the same. James Dobson wants to regulate healthy expressions of sexuality. I am indifferent to the complaints of people concerning the possibly overreaching regulation of known carcinogens. If you don't see a difference, then I won't press the matter.

I'm sure you do sleep very well. Have you overturned any bans yet?

We're our own biggest problem.

You started it! Nyah.

Heh. Okay, sure. The proban crowd tends to be a bit irritating, though!

If your aim is simply to make a bunch of generalized, one-sided statements implicitly demeaning the anti-ban side, statements juuust general enough to be true without being useful, statements that just. as. easily. apply to your side, well, you should've said so. It looked like you were commenting on the issue, rather than the unobjectively observed appearances of the issue.

Nope. I'm not. It's apt.

I see plenty of differences, none of which defeat my point on their similarity: people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.

And that's in addition to your defense of people who are obnoxious (you won't smoke on your property while I'M here!) and destructive (I don't care if your sales tank!). We're not so different, you and I.

Hell no, I'm too busy sleeping.

Maybe you should step outside for some "fresh air". ;)


I was just describing the situation as I saw it. It wasn't meant to be useful. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any statements on this subject of any use. And yes, my statements are general, they are summaries of my experiences. I am sorry if you assumed that I was talking about you when I wasn't. Do you want me to name names or something? Let me tell you, my friend Joeyjoejoe Junior Shabadoo is practically a socialist, except when it comes to smoking bans.

If you say so.

Okay, so I'm like James Dobson in some relatively insignificant way. That's fine. As long as he doesn't try to suck my dick (he's one of those secretly gay antigay conservatives, right?), I mean, I probably wouldn't stop him, because, whatever, but my girlfriend would be probably get upset. I don't have a problem with worker safety regulations or child labor laws either, despite the fact that they are the result of people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally. I guess I just don't care all that much about the rights of private business people.

I'll agree with you that there are plenty of nonsmokers who are obnoxious, I appreciate the fact that they're obnoxious in a generally non-carcinogenic way. As for tanking sales, that sucks-- though you'd think sales would suffer continuously, given that smoking kills people. I guess it's just a reminder of why it's a bad idea to rely on addicts for loyalty. Oddly enough, there are plenty of restaurants in my city, one of the colder ones, that are doing great despite a county-wide ban. There's a lesson in here somewhere about the irrepressible spirit and ingenuity of the American entrepreneur.

Pretty much the opposite of insignificant. Different issues, same nosy authoritarianism.

With worker safety regulations... it really depends on which ones you mean. Some jobs are just more dangerous by nature. As long as dangers are made perfectly clear - now see, THAT'S where the government comes in - a lot of these regulations ARE overreaching.

Child labor laws kinda actually, y'know, do affect people personally, people who don't necessarily have the power necessary for avoiding or escaping such a situation. Not a good comparison.

Secondhand smoke was avoidable before the bans by sticking to public property, your own property, and private property owned by like minds. That really, really, really sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. But people in favor of smoking bans - wait for this neat trick, wait for the channeling of Ann Coulter in a way that's actually 100% valid - demonstrate that they aren't reasonable people. At least when it comes to dining out.

Yes, we've already established this.

And I'll agree with you that there are plenty of obnoxious smokers, but I appreciate the fact that I'll never have to leave my own property to avoid them.

It kills people verrry verrry slowly. If something else doesn't get them first. Like nonsmoker-induced aneurysms.

Well, it's significant to you, but you're an idealist. I see lots of shades of gray, and I don't have a problem with any of the things that you think I have in common with Dobson. It's not a particularly compelling or intimidating thing for me, so if you're expecting to play "gotcha" here you're going to be disappointed.


Why should the business person be forced to tell his workers about possible danger? As rational actors in a market economy the workers should be able to make the decision on their own. Why are you such a nosy authoritarian?

Why not? What's wrong with allowing market forces to do their thing. Clearly, if there is something wrong with child labor the consumers will vote with their dollars. In any case, nobody forces children to work in sweatshops, and for them to complain about employment opportunities just shows what obnoxious guests children can be.

No, they are reasonable people, they just have different values than you. What are you, a neoatheist? Reasonable people can disagree. A reasonable person would be able to understand this distinction.

What is it, like 400,000 a year or something?

It goes without saying that I'll be disappointed.

People should be forthright about offers they extend, lest they commit fraud by omission. Workers often won't have that inside information unless it is given to them. The very large difference here: restaurants advertising secondhand smoke aren't being deceitful. The information is already there for the taking.

Yes, when I approve of the market directing voluntary choices, I was clearly referring also to choices not so voluntary. Consent to secondhand is rightnextto child slavery on the slippery slope.

Children generally hold the weight of doing what adults tell them to do. It's not the same. It's not the voluntary situation that it would be if it involved consenting adults.

So much for those shades of gray of yours.

Reasonable people would not go onto someone else's property and order them to stop smoking. That's not something that reasonable people would do.

I hear sunlight verry verry slowly gives you cancer, too. Funny that people still walk outdoors, you'd think that would decline over decades.

We weren't talking specifically about smoking, though. We were talking about people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally.

You can't have it both ways. Either you support the free market or you are apparently a nosy authoritarian. Which are you?

No, I still see the shades of gray. Apparently you do too. Unfortunately, the ability of children to effectively make decisions is completely irrelevant when it comes to people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally. So what if children can't make decisions? Why does that have anything to do with telling a private business person who they can and can't employ? Do you think we should limit advertising directed at children too? I thought you were against nosy authoritarianism.

I'd link to the definition of the word "reason" but I'm pretty sure you know how to use google. Reason is not defined with respect to a certain ideological position, it is defined with respect to the structure of ideas. Just because you don't find something to be reasonable doesn't actually make it unreasonable. What if you're being unreasonable?

It is pretty funny.

banning smoking in restaurants is as much about protecting the people working there as it is about protecting the patrons

FTA and filth, it's interesting to see these conversations from the outside.

Amen. When I was a regular on the London pub and club circuit, it was the thing I hated most about doing gigs.

I bet.

it

is.

Notice how much is being accomplished.

This is because you can't "stop" sunlight. It's out of people's control. But get rid of all the smokers? That's something "they" think they can do. And if not, we'll just make their lives unhappy.

I might be wrong, but isn't that what's been happening since the start of our government? I mean with "separate but equal," "over weightiness," and now with smoking. I'm sure there are other examples, but those were the first that came to mind.

I have to agree with this. I didn't take the time to look up "reasonable" but I feel like it is a bit controlling and unneeded. Children may not be "smart" enough to make the "right" choices, but then again, neither are some adults. But being an adult means having the freedom to what you want (inside the laws of the land). But when laws are an interfere with people's everyday life, they get ignored, even if they are "reasonable." Laws that come to mind are jaywalking and talking on cell phones in cars. And while people are willing to put up with non-smoking laws indoors, I think any laws put on outside places are going to have a good number of people ignoring them.

I think that is all well and fine. But because there are people who don't care about being "protected" - aka smokers - there should be room for places that allows smoking. And those who want to "protected" can have their dinner, drink, ice cream else where. The only problem I have is that the government is forcing everyone to "protect" the lungs of non-smokers.

And while this may not have any effect (or is it affect?) on the conversation, I can't help but wonder how many people in the discussion are smokers, non-smokers, or ex-smokers. . . . Is it too late to add a poll to this?

I think that is all well and fine. But because there are people who don't care about being "protected" - aka smokers - there should be room for places that allows smoking. And those who want to "protected" can have their dinner, drink, ice cream else where. The only problem I have is that the government is forcing everyone to "protect" the lungs of non-smokers.

how about an island somewhere in the Arctic Circle?

Well, yeah, I'm sure the average anarchist would argue that any decision made through non-collective means is essentially authoritarian. What I generally object to are arguments against authoritarianism (as it is defined in this thread) that are made by people whose problem isn't really with authoritarianism, but with authoritarianism crossing some certain arbitrary threshold. Notice FTA's stance on authoritarianism with respect to smoking bans vs FTA's stance on authoritarianism with respect to child labor laws. Clearly it isn't authoritarianism he rejects, but the extent to which it is employed. There's nothing invalid with this way of looking at things, it just isn't the kind of perspective that can be defended with arguments that would seem to reject authoritarianism altogether.


Controlling and unneeded work for me. I don't necessarily agree with that characterization, but at least we've gotten beyond the idea that the only reasonable position is the one that we agree with.

I agree. The smoking ban in my city also says that smokers need to smoke at least 25 feet away from entrances. They don't, and unless some cop is having a bad day nobody cares.

I used to smoke. Now I'm just taking a break from smoking until I don't have anything to live for. Hopefully I die first.

I don't really have a large problem with smoking outside, although it is pretty savage when you get a mouthful of smoke downwind when you're enjoying the sun. Most of my friends smoke, so I'm used to it.

What I will add is that for the inside of clubs and bars, the difference the smoking ban here has made is amazing. I used to come home smelling like I'd been set on fire, but now I just smell normal.

One "problem" was that the smoke apparently cloaked the smell of body odour on the dance floors, although I haven't encountered this yet!


The only main problem I've found with the ban, is that if your friends are all smokers, you often get dragged outside whilst they smoke, so that you aren't sitting on your own in the pub/bar/club/etc.


On the whole I love it though! I used to have lots of coughs after going to a gig in a small venue with lots of smokers around, but I'm much better since. :)

I hope this was just a silly strawman.

My hope fulfilled.

In case you missed it, I'm against fraud, too. I think that the government should act to prevent and to punish fraud. And forging a contract with someone incapable of understanding the contract and its costs? That's unavoidably fraud by omission.

Now that I've spelled out the nuance a little more, maybe you won't ignore it.

You aren't a very good word lawyer. 'Reasonable' also means 'sound judgment'. The meaning isn't nearly as narrow as you suggest.

The idea that you are entitled to walk onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner due to your mere presence - which was a privilege in the first place - there's no way to explain that idea as anything other than poor judgment. Try.

How considerate of you! I don't know where in the world I got this misconception of anti-smoking zealots as unreasonable. Bless you, sir!

It just keeps getting easier and easier to sympathise with these cancer spewers.

I never said otherwise. You chose to indulge in oversimplification, you shades of gray lover you.

It's a good thing I had no such argument!

It's too bad that we haven't gotten past the idea that posts can say what we want them to say, regardless of what was actually typed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
how about an island somewhere in the Arctic Circle?

How considerate of you! I don't know where in the world I got this misconception of anti-smoking zealots as unreasonable. Bless you, sir!

It just keeps getting easier and easier to sympathise with these cancer spewers.

Give me a reasonable, legitimate reason for anyone to smoke ever, and i'll give you a reasonable solution to people's need for a special place to smoke

What, like James Dobson?

We have these things called permission slips, whereby a parent makes a decision on behalf of a child. It's pretty standard, and it has nothing to do with fraud. So assuming permission slips could be applied to employment, I presume you'd have no problem with child labor. Are there any other reasons you wouldn't want children working, or is fraud the only one?

Obviously it isn't very effective to walk onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner, but that doesn't mean the idea is borne of a lack of sound judgment. I would remind you that you aren't the sole arbiter of the definition of "sound judgment". You only think it's poor judgment because it bothers you from an ideological perspective; it's something you'd never do. So it's only natural that you'd question the judgment of someone who walked onto someone else's property and start making health decisions for the owner. All I'm saying is that the fact that you think it is unreasonable doesn't actually make it unreasonable.

You did. You hide behind accusations of authoritarianism, yet can't acknowledge the little authoritarian inside of you. Or is your only problem with child labor really the fact that you don't think kids aren't mature enough to sign contracts? There are a lot of good reasons to be against child labor...

Here's the thing, when you were trying to tell me that I was James Dobson's secret lover you defined authoritarianism as Based on that definition, you are absolutely a proponent of authoritarianism, no matter how much you hem and haw over the details of worker safety regulations or child labor laws. If you want to change your definition of authoritarianism, then by all means. Something a little less inclusive might suit the consistency of your perspective more.

What's that you say? I'm right any you're going to send me a check for $50,000,000,000,000 dollars?

It's pleasurable.

I didn't identify your position as being Dobson's, I noted a significant similarity. And it's still there.

With a permission slip? Presuming that the parents aren't glaringly callous to the well-being of the child, this could be okay. Is there a 'gotcha' situation you'd like to hit me with?

As the smoking bans have shown, it actually can be very effective to do just that.

And yeah, it does mean that. Taking a gift and insisting that it be modified to your liking is unreasonable.

I'm starting to wonder exactly what your point here is. Is it that I'm fallible, that I can have mistaken ideas? I'm well aware. But it doesn't - and nor should it - prevent me from taking stances that appeal to my reason and empathy.

If you're only saying that I could be wrong, well, duh.

I don't decree it unreasonable, I recognize it as unreasonable.

No, I didn't, and no, I didn't. Read the posts again, more carefully this time.

Yeah, I can. Go back. More carefully this time.

That wasn't a definition of authoritarianism. More carefully this time.

And I explained in the very next post that child labor does, y'know, actually effect people personally. People who might not have the power and/or authority to escape from such a situation, should it turn harmful. Unlike with adults and restaurant smoking.

But it's so much easier to pretend this nuance doesn't exist, that I must hate ALL authoritarianism or NONE of it! Or, when you tire of that pretension, to pretend that I didn't define the supposedly arbitrary line. The strawman or the deafman.

Right after you stop beating your wife.

Yeah, exactly, that sort of stuff. Only you were a little more subtle before.

so is jerking off, but no one is crying that there isn't a maturbation section at the family restaurant

FTA.....my advice is to move to Paulville:

Since thing like smoking bans are often state wide, a town can't opt out.

True, but I would assume the good citizens of Paulville, including the local constabulary, won enforce state laws that abridge their freedoms.

Here's another solution.

http://www.ingestandimbibe.com/Images/cigarGlass.jpg

FTA could ask his current bar of choice to mix him a nicotini

I'm strictly a secondhand smoker, guys. Way too cheap for the real thing.

There IS, presumably (cough), a masturbation section at places like The Lusty Lady in downtown Seattle (Where Every Miss is a Hit, Veni Vidi Veni, and so forth), and there'd probably be a number of tears if enough soccer moms marched in and demanded a place that was suitable for the whole family.

Not all restaurants are suited to your tastes. The mature response to this is to seek out those restaurants that are.

Stop trying to tempt me into nicotine addiction! If I want to taste an ashtray in my drink, I'll use Johnny Walker Red.

Yep, the whole "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" thing. You know you have a certain similarity there, too.

No gotcha situation. Do you propose some sort of "callousness test" for parents before they are allowed to give their child permission to work?

Okay, how about this, private businesses take the "gift" of having their business subsidized through the various protections and infrastructure provided by the government. It is unreasonable for them to insist that the the terms of their relationship to the government should be modified to their liking. In other words, no one forces them to do business in areas where smoking bans exist. Right? I mean, let's be reasonable here.

I'm just saying that "you're being unreasonable." is a poor argument.

Here's what you said with respect to Dobson and I:

And then I was all like:

And then you were all like:

So I am similar to James Dobson, in that we are both "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" which is just another way of saying that we share the same affinity for "nosy authoritarianism."

I don't get it, how am I mistaken? If you are against "nosy authoritarianism" and "nosy authoritarianism" is the same thing as "people using government to enforce their personal preferences on privately-owned areas that need not ever effect them personally" how are you also not a nosy authoritarian?

You know kids are allowed in smoke filled restaurants, right? And these kids might not have the power and/or authority to escape from such a situation, should it turn harmful?

No, I know that the nuance exists, I just don't think your position is entirely consistent, and I know you disagree.

She chose to marry me, live in my house and can leave at any time. Any attempts by her to stop me from beating her are unreasonable.

I smoked for 12 years. Haven't smoke in something like 15.

You want to smoke fine, please do it outside or at home.

As for restaurants- I won't eat at a restaurant that allows smoking. I don't have a problem if private business owners want to allow smoking, it's their business, they own it. Just don't expect me to eat there.

Sure, as long as you keep ignoring that second part.

Observations of working conditions should do it.

Almost clever. But you're right to put 'gift' in quotes. It's not a gift. They pay for it. (And they aren't exactly given the option not to.)

Well, that's not the full extent of what I said, is it?

Sure, as long as you keep ignoring that second part.

At least you're now implicitly noting that I never condemned all authoritarianism. Baby steps, I guess.

Pass a law that bans those under 18 from entering smoke-allowed areas. I wouldn't oppose it.

It still doesn't seem like you're talking about my argument. It seems like you're talking about a somewhat similar argument.

You should've been upfront about the beating aspect of the marriage before it happened. I could've sworn I said something about deceit before...

Also, it's just not very nice to beat your wife.

The part about defending obnoxious people? Are you serious?

Sounds like a regulatory can of worms.

So the "gift" that private business give their customers is free?

I never said it was.

The second part is silly. If that was really your point in comparing me to Dobson, then why even make the comparison? It's not like you're not doing the exact same thing.

No, you just condemned the kind of authoritarianism that you happen to be a proponent of.

So you prefer limiting individual freedom over the freedoms of private business? That's where we differ.

I'm just not sure why you brought up James Dobson.


Why? She can leave at any time. It's not like the beating is exactly a secret at this point.

Well, it's not very nice to expose your employees to carcinogens.

Uh, no. The "need not ever affect them personally" part. Perhaps you're imagining 'them' to be a much more narrow group than I am.

Like anti-smoking legislation?

The part where they come in and take up space? Yeah, that tends to be free.

Just commenting on another unmade argument, then?

Incorrect.

Private business tends to be made up of individuals.

And I said nothing about the property rights of these secondhand-loving children anyway, so I'm not sure where you discovered my secret preference for freedom of business over freedom of kids. You're still relying on oversimplifications to discover these oh-so-numerous inconsistencies of mine.

I think you're both overly nosy in a way that violates rights rather than defending them. Something really insignificant like that.

Also, I hear he's on craigslist under the name 'topdob66'. Just passing that along.

I'm tired of this tangent. Is it your position that employees/customers who suffer from (or enjoy) secondhand smoke are akin to battered wives in some significant way? Is there a point to this line of joke? Or did you just feel like missing the message of "not until you stop beating your wife"?

It's nicer than exposing your employer to your excessive sense of entitlement.

Well, it is kind of vague. Depending on how much of a badass you are, the only person who can allow something to affect you personally is you. So if you go by that definition, there should be no laws.

Smoking bans are pretty cut and dry. Coming up with criteria for the kinds of jobs which are acceptable for children to do with their parent's permission is probably a bit more complicated.

I don't know how things are where you're from, but where I'm from, private businesses exist at least in part to make money. The idea that one could just walk into a restaurant and smoke without buying any food is ridiculous. Of course private businesses charge their customers money. If that's your idea of a gift, I'd hate to be your kids come birthday-time.

Is that what you were doing?

There's more to freedom than property. You said you'd prefer to eliminate the right of underage children to frequent smoky private businesses before you'd limit the right of private businesses to make their buildings smoky. Freedom of business trumps freedom of the individual. This says nothing about the right of individuals to control the smokiness of their nonbusiness property.

Well, its arguable whether prohibiting smoking in a restaurant is a violation of rights, given that smoking isn't necessarily protected in the constitution. It's just as much of a right as the right of the average person to eat out without smelling cigarette smoke while they eat.

That's actually Sean Hannity. He's a top, I need a bottom.

You brought it up. I'm not saying they're the same, just that the words you use to describe your position are a tad overly inclusive.

That's the price of doing business in places where most people don't respect the rights of the lazily suicidal.




Notice how nothing is being accomplished here at all... I'm kind of having fun though.

Okay, I guess this part is kind of vague. Let's replace 'them' with 'people'. Restaurant smoke need not ever affect people personally. Because avoidance is always possible.

They're pretty cut and dry, until you get to the issue of when a business is allowed to get the exception in the form of a smoking licence, when a bar can qualify as a smoking lounge, ect. Then the law either gets convoluted or becomes neutered, pointless bureaucracy.

Of course, you can keep it cut and dry by banning smoking lounges as well, but then it gets reaaaaaaly hard to deny that you're just being nosy out of some strange spite.

Uh, then reality is ridiculous. They might get you for loitering after a long while of no purchases, but many places even let you use the bathroom without so much as a pretzel purchase. And they're not going to kick out the one person in a party of three or four who settles for tap water. The food may cost you, but the space frequently doesn't.

It's certainly not an altruistic gift, but it is a gift.

But this is kinda beside the point, anyway. If owner and customer both decide they're willing to make a deal that involves secondhand smoke - and yes, a customer who walks into a restaurant with smokers IS making that deal - then the government should probably slip out of the mommy role and let both parties take the risks they want to take.

And if the customer accepts the smoke but really doesn't want it, the customer is conflicted in a needless and stupid way. Decide which is more important - restaurant food or secondhand avoidance - and choose accordingly. Don't use the gun of government to coerce someone into your idealized choice. Avoid that self-centered childishness.

IknowyouarebutwhatamI.

I'm also against convicted murderers and illegal aliens frequenting the local indie rock venue. Contradictions ahoy!

If you're looking for symmetry, I think private businesses should also not be allowed to serve secondhand smoke to minors. Penalties all around. I also think that underage children shouldn't be allowed to own smoke-filled bars. And there should be a moratorium on the use of the word 'hypocrite' until you're at least 35. (That's a view with personal sacrifice. I've 11 years to go!)

If that doesn't cover it, you'll need to clarify what exactly the inconsistency here is. It's looking too much like

"A can do B, but X can't do Y? Don't you see the problem with that?"

No, no I don't.

Well, sure, I could agree with that. But if I wanted to eat out in a non-public place, I'd still need the owner's permission, right? Or can I crash your house at 2am unannounced? And I'd probably have to agree to the owner's term's, no? If I barged in and insisted that your godawful techno/smoothjazz/nucountry/MindofMencia was causing long-term health risks and must be shut off immediately, you probably wouldn't invite me back. Even with my totally awesome sense of humor!

Show me where in the constitution it says that you can make coma-inducing sounds. It's not there. Our Founding Fathers made allowances for the possibility of Kenny G.

Pfft. Hannity isn't smart enough to use the internet.

It's a saying, jerk. How was I supposed to know that you actually beat your wife? You screwed up my cliche.

It's a really poor way of committing suicide, don't know think? They might try a way that doesn't often allow for a long and happy life.

Same.