Yeah i smoked heavily for around 12 years,maybe 30-35 a day.Suddenly i started feeling all clogged up and weazzy all the time.I’d had bronchitis many times as a child and the Doc had told me 3 or 4 times to give up,so I thought maybe it was time.
Anyway at the time (june 2001) they were goin on about this drug Zyban all the time,and seeing as it was on Gov subsidy at the time,I went to the Doc and got a weeks dosage.I took these pills for a week whilst still smoking,then just stoppped at the end of the week with no cravings what-so-ever since .... a fucking miracle - pardon my french

No one ever explains why the minority may dictate to the rest of us.  If it was the smokers harming just themselves then no one would care. But smoke drifts, and one person pollutes a large area.  The idea it is the victim who should have to make adjustments doesn’t hold in other areas. “If you don’t like being racially abused, work somewhere else”.

On the other hand, that’s exactly the sort of argument that various religious organizations use to launch their tirades against atheism and other religions.

If the minority can’t dictate to the majority in the interest of freedom then what argument do you recuse yourself to? I suppose you can make some headway with “protecting people from themselves,“ but smoking is no where near as dangerous as drinking or being poor or owning handguns or sunbathing or living in any large city I think. You might try to make that claim with some sort of statistical study, but you can make statistics sing to say almost anything.

I’m not completely not in favor of allowing businesses to set up “smoke free with teeth” zones, where they’re allowed to severely penalize customers who abuse their self-established smoke-free designations. But I also think that simply banning potentially harmful or personally distasteful activities by fiat isn’t the sort of action a free society participates in.

I think there could be a happy medium between freedoms and the demands of society, but anti-smoking politics has all the overtones of religion and the faithful - and all the damning consequences.

Regarding WV and the conversation veering off towards parenting, it could be assumed that when people are talking about responsibility and rights, including their role in the eyes of the government, that the subjects of the conversation are adults.  This can be assumed because 1) children really aren’t viewed as proper citizens in the eyes of the (US) government, they don’t have the same right to contract (responsibility) as adults do, and 2) most children don’t demonstrate the ability to make choices in the interests of being self-sustaining—meaning there’s a good (and generally understood) reason that a different set of rules and freedoms apply to them.  To have one person talk about individual rights and freedom and then be accused of not believing in parenting is a little bit ridiculous.  However, WV should have just said he’d taken it as assumed that he was talking about competent adults, if that is in fact how he meant it.  (‘competent adults’ as opposed to, say, insane or mentally diminished)  I understand his statement was broad, but you read assumptions out of every other thing he’s said…

WV, I gave two examples of where you arguement stops working. Did you just choose to ignore them or did you miss them?

WV- It was me you were addressing, not Les- it’s all got a bit confusing since I declared him a God.

The people arguing against me have not made the case why I should be resposible for other peoples harmful behavior towards me.  The red meat analogy is completely nonsensical. Someone who eats red meat in harmful quantities does not harm me. Smiking does. Your rights (I know WV has said he is a non smoker, but this is you in a general meaning) to cause harm to yourself end at my body. If you worked with some one who spat in your coffee would you really think that “Get another job if you don’t like it” would be a suitable response from your employer.

If the minority can’t dictate to the majority in the interest of freedom

then where is the freedom for the majority to carry out their lawful business without being assualted by other peoples’ poisons.  WV do you really change your lifestyle to allow other peoples’ anti social behavior everytime?

One disagreement, MisterMook.

you can make statistics sing to say
almost anything.

- you can’t always get a stack of studies across different methodologies and populations to consistently come up with the same answer under peer review. If you screw up somewhere, they’ll tell you to go spend another 20 years on a longitudinal study that accounts for more and more until there’s general satisfaction at the method. The studies on smoking make just that case. But when you try to do a statistical analysis of a model, that’s when you get your fat lady on stage; then you can stand behind her with a cattle prod and nobody will be the wiser.

- you can’t always get a stack of studies across different methodologies and populations to consistently come up with the same answer under peer review. If you screw up somewhere, they’ll tell you to go spend another 20 years on a longitudinal study that accounts for more and more until there’s general satisfaction at the method. The studies on smoking make just that case. But when you try to do a statistical analysis of a model, that’s when you get your fat lady on stage; then you can stand behind her with a cattle prod and nobody will be the wiser.

I’d love to come up with a rebuttal or comment or something for your statement, but to be honest I have no idea what you’ve just said or meant.

Maybe my brain is just muddled today from all the allergy medications and ibuprofen.

Last Hussar’s avatar is sowing some confusion. That’s somewhat amusing to me.

For the record, here’s my Libertarian-leaning thoughts on the issue:

I think people should have the choice to smoke or not smoke as they see fit. I also think that, as more evidence has come to light that second hand smoke is actually dangerous, that steps should be taken to limit the impact of that smoke on others. That means that it’s not that much of an offense to my Libertarian thinking that many communities are starting to ban smoking from places of business under the old axiom of “your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins.“

Whether or not people are willing to work in a risky environment is no reason not to try and make it as safe as you possibly can.

That’s just my thoughts on it.

I’m not completely not in favor of allowing businesses to set up “smoke free with teeth” zones, where they’re allowed to severely penalize customers who abuse their self-established smoke-free designations. But I also think that simply banning potentially harmful or personally distasteful activities by fiat isn’t the sort of action a free society participates in.

A business owner should be free to designate the areas under their control as smoke free areas; I don’t know what the ‘with teeth’ means, but I think that I am in favor of it.

Banning potentially harmful activities in work places by fiat is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal.  There are also limits placed upon chemical exposure in workplaces.  I believe that the health dangers of second hand cigarette smoke are well documented.  Smoking should be prohibited by OSHA in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars.

My right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.

Or however O. W. Holmes said it. 

My issue is with WV’s seemingly trying to distill the issue down to a short phrase.  I find it too idealistic for the real world.  When he says your health responsibility is on you alone, I interpret it as “My right to swing my fist is unlimited.  Your obligation is to get your nose out of the way.“ 

That and the flippant “Just get another job if you don’t like the one you got”.  That’s a whole other can of worms.

I interpret it as “My right to swing my fist is unlimited.  Your obligation is to get your nose out of the way.”
That and the flippant “Just get another job if you don’t like the one you got”.

Thank you Ragman.

I feel there is to much talk of rights nowadays.  With rights come responsibilities. Unfortunately it feels as if ambulance chasers and the such are not so keen on that (probably because some of the damage is their clients own damn fool fault, so less payout).

Last Hussar’s avatar is sowing some confusion. That’s somewhat amusing to me

That makes it official.
Commandment number 1: Thou shalt confuse the unbeliever.

I interpret it as “My right to swing my fist is unlimited.  Your obligation is to get your nose out of the way.” That and the flippant “Just get another job if you don’t like the one you got”.

That analogy presumes someone has a right to be in a restaurant, when in fact it is a privilege bestowed by the restaurant owner.  To come into someone else’s establishment (as the government or a citizen) and demand that everyone must extinguish their cigarettes for your comfort (or health) is completely unreasonable.  The statement would be better interpreted as “My right to smoke in my space is unlimited.  Your obligation is to stay out of my space if you don’t like my smoke.“  I’m of course talking about buildings and rooms here, not space as in personal space (smoke does drift) or different seats on the bus.  Nor would this apply to public areas that people do have a right to be in, such as courthouses, police stations, etc.

However, the issue of workers is completely different from that of customers.  We could argue that no people are forced to work anywhere, but in some areas there aren’t a lot of choices.  In this country we’ve banned sweatshops, asbestos insulation and child labor because the dangers are severe enough that we don’t want anyone exposed to them.  There are people (I promise) who have no problems working in a smoke-filled bar, who don’t care about the health risks—either due to ignorance or their willing participation in that life-long suicide mentioned by someone else earlier.  However, there are also people who don’t necessarily want to work in those conditions, but are desperate enough to take a job anywhere.

To me, it seems to boil down to this: (yes or no)

1-Do you believe a property owner has the right to allow or disallow smoking on said property?
2-Do you believe rational adults are fit to decide whether or not to expose themselves to first or second-hand smoke? (i.e. should smoking be legal in the first place?)
3-Do you believe that cooks and wait staff in a smoking-allowed restaurant should be out of the jurisdiction of workplace laws such as those banning sweatshops and HazMat violations?

Yes to all three means you’re probably against smoking bans in semi-private places.  No to any of the three means you’re probably for them.  Most people I know would say yes to the top two and then could go either way on the last one.

You may disagree that your parents played a pivotal role in your development, and you may disagree that said development was essential to your being who you are today. You will be alone in thinking so. Parenting is a necessity, and everything that comes with it, including the judgements of you, your actions and your character, are a reality. If your claim of “rights” doesn’t agree with that, it’s not in reality. It’s that simple.

LOL I truelly did laugh out loud at this. When I pointed out that you analysis of my child hood development was silly. I was not pointing out that my parents either did or did not have a significant role in my child hood development. Nor was I suggesting that parenting is or is not a neccassaty.
I was simply pointing out how silly your analysis was. As in, you attempted to analyis someones child hood development over the internet based on a few stories that they offered. Also the hilarity of your conclusions and the seriousness that you take yourself.

I have.

Again you and I are simply on different wave lengths. I point this out because you probably truely believe that your post are devoid of hoopla and that you are adressing an issue. When I read your posts I see them as filled hoopla and not just a frindly conversation where we each get to make points. Reasons as follows:

Based on your posts in this thread. Your style seems to be much like the current republican model, or the Karl Rove model of debate. For example, instead of simply making points that pertain issue brought up. As in the typical debates style of point - counterpoint. You carry on about your oppositions charecter, as in child hood anylis. You also go heavy on the tuff guy talk, as pointed out earlier, with comments like “you are avoiding the question”. It is very reminiscent of Bill O’Rilly. It comes off a bit like personal attacks rather then an enjoyable conversation or debate. Besides, your oppositions charecter is irrelevent. What is relevent is the points they bring up. So why even attempt to analys someones child hood?

And, as many others have pointed out, you have merely failed to recognize them. The reason why I feel compelled to speak in the first place is that you seem to have put ideology before reality, which is, in its extrema, wrongheaded and dangerous. Reconsider.

I have not failed to recognize what you believe to be points that you have made. Forgive me, but I either view them as personal jabs or not related to our disscussion. In both cases I recognize that I am a guest here and you are intitled to wonder off on random topics such, as the parenting thing your really really want to discuss. But you too must recognize that I am not required to respond to everything. Especially things that I don’t believe dignify a responce.

Further more. I don’t know why you say that many others have pointed out that I failed to recognize your points. I read through the comments again and I have not seen one responce from someone else that suggest I was not recognizing your posts. Beyond that I am unsure what it matters, only that perhaps that it might make me feel isolated. But even then, that would not make you or I anymore correct based on the number of ppl here that agree with either of us.

Also. I obviously don’t think that I put ideology before reality. You simply have no basis for a comment like that and I would love for you to prove what reality is.
I am guessing what you where probably trying to articulate is that you feel very strongly in your opinions. And you are frustrated that I view reality differently then you. I believe that is why you judge me as an extremist, wrongheaded, dangerous, and blah, blah, blah.

But I would like to point out that based on how strongly you apperently feel about this and me. It could be said that you are the extremist.

I don’t personly think you are an extremist. But its just some food for thought.

With rights come responsibilities. Unfortunately it feels as if ambulance chasers and the such are not so keen on that.

You’re right—many people think rights equal entitlements, when it’s more accurate that a right tends to be the benefit of acting responsibly.  It’s true most rights are inherent—right to impartial trial, right not to be bothered (in private space), but if you don’t act responsibly and respect the rights of others, then your rights to not be bothered are thrown out the windowby the verdict of your impartial trial.

LH: With rights come responsibilities

It’s a sad situation that it is a consequence of our system, idealistically they would be permanently established by fair balance of universally agreed principle, but I won’t hold my breath on that. I think currently we rely on those who squeek when squeezed.

I can’t be bothered to keep up with everything else going on in this thread - too much to read, too much going on

It’s true most rights are inherent

Actually rights are only ever given by society, otherwise it is leadership by strength alone

TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AN SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY.

A business owner should be free to designate the areas under their control as smoke free areas; I don’t know what the ‘with teeth’ means, but I think that I am in favor of it.

Banning potentially harmful activities in work places by fiat is perfectly acceptable and perfectly legal.  There are also limits placed upon chemical exposure in workplaces.  I believe that the health dangers of second hand cigarette smoke are well documented.  Smoking should be prohibited by OSHA in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars.

And I disagree, because we allow people do all sorts of crazy shit with enough insurance and waivers that makes “smoking in bars” look pretty tame by comparison. I don’t mind allowing business owners to call the cops on smokers who are smoking on his property without permission. I DO mind nonsmokers coming into a business where smoking IS allowed and declaring that they have a right to dictate how that business is run.

If people have the right to work in chemical plants, as longshoremen, as police officers, firemen, soldiers, and whatever else you’ve got going on then it’s absolutely not the environment which dictates the safety zone by which businesses may operate. You want to dictate the terms by which safety measures should be implemented to lessen the impact of suboptimally safe working conditions? Go ahead. Just don’t tell anyone that they can’t cater to a market just because you personally disapprove of it.

Seriously, it’s dangerously close to the laws which say you can’t have strip clubs too close to churches, or sell booze on Sunday, or curse on any channel on television, or any of the other things that otherwise reasonable people come to their senses about and say “Go ahead and live your life like you want to live it.“ Do you have a problem with the idiots like the Crocodile Hunter? Parachutists? Bus drivers in Baghdad?

Just because you can make yourself available to be endangered doesn’t mean it’s someone else’s fault, especially if you give people the means to illustrate and legally perform separation from the dangerous activity. I repeat, it’s not as if there couldn’t be a compromise: It’s that nonsmoking activists are performing a religious inquisition without the holy texts. No compromise is sought because they’re doing Good Works Which Shall Not Be Questioned.

Actually rights are only ever given by society, otherwise it is leadership by strength alone

It is my viewpoint that rights are not something to be given or taken away, they are inherent in people who have the ability to act rationally (and certain rights even in those that aren’t rational).  Just because the strong can pick on the weak doesn’t make it just, and simply because society refuses to ignore someone’s rights doesn’t mean they don’t exist.  Would you say slaves in the US didn’t have the right to escape from their owners 200 years ago?  They may have had no legal grounds, but they had every right (IMHO).  The rights of man and the laws of society are two completely different domains.

If people have the right to work in chemical plants, as longshoremen, as police officers, firemen, soldiers, and whatever else you’ve got going on then it’s absolutely not the environment which dictates the safety zone by which businesses may operate.

I agree.  I think that the flip side of letting people choose to drive in demolition derbies or take drugs for fun is also letting them choose to expose themselves to potential dangers for work as well.

MisterMook,

It’s that nonsmoking activists are performing a religious inquisition without the holy texts.

I actually agree with this in many ways. To succesfully quit smoking is a herculean feat, and in my experiences it is not helped along by the rhetoric of much of the anti-smoking movement, which can often be described as fanatical. That being said, we have well-documented evidence of the noxious effects that smoke has on bystanders. Non-smokers should not have to suffer the effects of a habit that they do not engage in. Some public smoking bans are necessary and appropriate.

Seriously, it’s dangerously close to the laws which say you can’t have strip clubs too close to churches, or sell booze on Sunday, or curse on any channel on television, or any of the other things that otherwise reasonable people come to their senses about and say “Go ahead and live your life like you want to live it.”

The main difference, of course, is that the activities you’re describing do not actually harm other people. The same cannot be said for the effects of second-hand smoke.

Do you have a problem with the idiots like the Crocodile Hunter? Parachutists? Bus drivers in Baghdad?

Again, these are flawed examples for comparison. I actually had quite a bit of respect for Steve Irwin because A.) he was entertaining, and B.) he raised awareness about the environment and other species. Yes, his excessive bravura did get him in the end, but the only person he hurt was himself (and his family through his loss).

I myself have parachuted twice. If done through a professional organizaton, the risks of serious injury or death are extremely low. As far as Baghdad bus drivers go, they are simply trying to make a living in an extremely volatile environment. If anything, they have my utmost sympathy.

I DO mind nonsmokers coming into a business where smoking IS allowed and declaring that they have a right to dictate how that business is run.

Are you talking about duly constituted authority enforcing laws, or are you talking about militant individuals?

You want to dictate the terms by which safety measures should be implemented to lessen the impact of suboptimally safe working conditions? Go ahead. Just don’t tell anyone that they can’t cater to a market just because you personally disapprove of it.

I don’t personally disapprove of smoking, I don’t care if people smoke.  The problem involves hazardous workplaces and employees being subjected to second hand cigarette smoke.  It doesn’t matter if it is a business office where non-employees are not normally present or a store or restaurant.

Seriously, it’s dangerously close to the laws which say you can’t have strip clubs too close to churches, or sell booze on Sunday, or curse on any channel on television, or any of the other things that otherwise reasonable people come to their senses about and say “Go ahead and live your life like you want to live it.” Do you have a problem with the idiots like the Crocodile Hunter? Parachutists? Bus drivers in Baghdad?

It is not a matter of telling people that they can’t live their own life, it is a matter of not exposing employees to hazardous materials, in this case it is second hand cigarette smoke.  There is evidence indicates that there is a 25% to 30% increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Ahh.. the smoking hotbutton - my favorite.

Intro - smoker 15 years, two packs a day +. More when drinking. (can smoke two packs in an evening.)

I achieved more (while smoking) than most people
get done all year. I’ve procured untold dollars
of equipment and made shit happen ‘now’ far quicker
than my bureaucratic brethren could ever do by
the dreaded meetings where copious amounts of stupid
requirements are proclified.

With that said, I cant say its an attractive habit.

I smoke less now that Im so busy. 10 or so a day.
no desire to quit, none to smoke anything more.

I was not pointing out that my parents either did or did not have a significant role in my child hood development. Nor was I suggesting that parenting is or is not a neccassaty.

The “I am making no claims” defense; except you are (see below).

This’s not some crazy half-analysis. We’ve got decades of study into the effects of parenting with virtually every condition you can imagine, all of which imply that parenting (and the parental environment) bear effects in the first place; effects which you are not (and never were) able to “choose” for yourself, anymore than you can choose your family. These effects existed long before you (and, odds are, your parents too) were even aware of them.

That means there exist conditions for which individuals, while still presented with choice, are compelled to some choices more than others, the mechanisms of which are not of their design. That is, no decision is utterly free from influence, and all choices bear influence on someone.

Further, many choices you make bear effects on others. Thus, it is no longer a matter of their personal capacity, since there may be a very large number of others who are affected by your individual choices. Not everyone is free from the effects of your choice.

This seems to be the issue of causality in a nutshell - the insane degree to which an individual choice might affect a large concurrent system. And, as has been pointed out (and falsely labeled as an assumption), this means that in order to be “free” of some effect, we must a) be aware of it and b) have the power and intent to act. In a system that relies on everyone being fully competent, we need to be fully aware of all of the extended effects of a single action (expert knowledge).

Clearly, we’re here contesting matters that we both consider to be real things, and as a result, it is certain that neither of us possesses an expert knowledge, and so a system which assumes everyone is perfectly competent is ill-suited and unreal.

As in, you attempted to analyis someones child hood development over the internet based on a few stories that they offered. Also the hilarity of your conclusions and the seriousness that you take yourself.

I figured what I was pointing out was obvious - apparently it needed further explanation. See, the thing is, you posted it as a contrast to my position. You said, here, let me explain, and you tabled a story of your childhood as an explanation. That goes from being mere storytelling to making material claims about our universe in some form or other. If my response was not to be taken seriously, then neither was your explanation.

Again you and I are simply on different wave lengths. I point this out because you probably truely believe that your post are devoid of hoopla and that you are adressing an issue.

Indeed. Let’s take a look:

hoop·la     /ˈhuplɑ/ hoop-lah
–noun Informal.
1.  bustling excitement or activity; commotion; hullabaloo; to-do.
2.  sensational publicity; ballyhoo.
3.  speech or writing intended to mislead or to obscure an issue.

Emphasis mine, since I figure you’re focusing on the third one. I don’t think activity or excitement detriment conversation. Sensational publicity? Only if you buy the idea that I’m out to make a sensational, public display of this thread. Third it is!

Intended to obscure? Mislead? Please explain; or, in the instance you’re using this word to mean something not available from dictionary.com, then define it and I can address that statement appropriately.

(bunch of stuff later) Besides, your oppositions charecter is irrelevent. What is relevent is the points they bring up. So why even attempt to analys someones child hood?

Because you included a story from your childhood as contribution to your position. I used it to attack the idea that “It is not mine or anybodies right to decide who can and who can’t make thier own competent choices.“ exists in reality.

My personal position is that rights in the traditional, inviolable, moral sense, don’t exist. Rights are an assurance of some aspect of our welfare; they are an exercise of power. The only “right” is that thing which we work to protect. Might makes and preserves rights. I can try to rely on others to preserve them, but that only goes so far. This is not to frame the issue as a matter of responsibility or morality, because both attempt to decide who “should” take a particular course of action, and if this “should” is not in reality, it is nothing at all. Simply, when preservation of my powers fails at some level, I am often the only person who has the power to reconcile them. When I am jogging at night, if someone attacks me, do you think I’m going to be able to call for (and recieve) help? I’d like to think so, but I can’t outright dismiss the idea that people would stick their heads in the sand rather than stand up. I am the best tool to act for my own welfare, especially in a compromised situation. If I am unprepared, then come what may; there is risk to my welfare which cannot be lessened.

Continuing.

I have not failed to recognize what you believe to be points that you have made. Forgive me, but I either view them as personal jabs or not related to our disscussion. (...)But you too must recognize that I am not required to respond to everything. Especially things that I don’t believe dignify a responce.

Forgiven that you don’t see the flaws I see in your own position; you wouldn’t be advocating it if you believed it was broken. That last part is particularly interesting, though: about not dignifying something with a response. You did not answer to the problem of determining when a person makes a transition from incompetence to competence. KPatrickGlover (KPG for short) set up two hypothetical (and not at all unrealistic) scenarios where he claims your position is inconsistent. Webs described why the world implied by said position would be undesirable (without authority there can be no regulatory bodies to protect people who are not aware and unable to distinguish truth from BS), and Ragman points to the fact that, historically, your position is represented in the laissez-faire movement, which was unable to accommodate the problems it brought about, and collapsed. Ragman also countered when you claimed that you didn’t assume that everyone be an expert in everything, by pointing out that a consequence of everyone being competent to make decisions is that they cannot be fooled: they must be aware enough to encompass the entire extent of their decisions for their welfare. Does this not represent expertise of the highest form?

True: some of these are real show-stoppers and don’t warrant a response. Not for a matter of indignation, though; it’s because there’s no point to make against them. They are accurate, with some flexibility assigned for that measuring point you have yet to answer to: what a person deems to be “competent”.

Further more. I don’t know why you say that many others have pointed out that I failed to recognize your points. I read through the comments again and I have not seen one responce from someone else that suggest I was not recognizing your posts.

I assume you mean points and not posts. It’s pretty hard to miss my hairy mug alongside each post. Webs comes to mind instantly. In fact, he also makes the claim that you’re missing my points (as well as those of unspecified others).

You simply have no basis for a comment like that and I would love for you to prove what reality is.

Can’t be done; is an orange real? No natural science “proves”; only models do. Yet, we have spaceships in orbit, so they must be on to something. We can debate whether or not we’re all in the Matrix and whether or not there’s something more: but for all matters where the Universe is the basis (reality), these things are not our concern. Anything beyond the scope of interaction with things in this universe is beyond the scope of human knowledge. My lack of omniscience doesn’t defeat me, though. Besides, as Elwed has said:

WV, you have started with this:

 

I believe society is smart enough to make decisions for themselves.

What you have to show is the following:

 

I believe society is smart enough to make smart decisions for (its members).

The onus is not on me to prove you wrong, but for you to show me why you’re right. You will need to define competence explicitly and, at the least, present your explanation from there.

I am guessing what you where probably trying to articulate is that you feel very strongly in your opinions. And you are frustrated that I view reality differently then you. I believe that is why you judge me as an extremist, wrongheaded, dangerous, and blah, blah, blah.

I only said I believed you were putting ideology before reality, and through that, I’d hoped to impart the danger of getting so stuck in the ideology that you can deliberately take actions which cause harm to others. I feel strongly in those opinions precisely because I know too many good friends who have harmed themselves and wished irreparable harms on others to protect some ideology they could not defend or detach from.

WV,

I’m very sympathetic to your position.  That said, as the law of the land currently stands, it’s a moot point.  Government can and does get to make the rules, whether you or I like it or not.  The battle on this one was lost long ago. Time to let it go.

It is not a matter of telling people that they can’t live their own life, it is a matter of not exposing employees to hazardous materials, in this case it is second hand cigarette smoke.  There is evidence indicates that there is a 25% to 30% increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke.

Sure it is, because no one demands that you work a certain job. It is not your right to demand that a job be safe, if it is understood by declaration that the job entails risks.

If someone sneaks in “well, we let people smoke here” without an employee knowing it then maybe I’ll buy the argument - but the compromise position allows that you make it clear that a certain job is risky. Maybe businesses have a hard time filling positions then and comply voluntarily to a smoke free work place but you’re not having any nonsense like “bans” from that. It’s all just liability and full disclosure, instead of the asinine “Well, smoking is dangerous and people can’t work where smoking happens. It’s ok to work in an under-regulated fireworks factory though, because it’s not as if those folks aren’t endangering their coworkers each day.“

The main difference, of course, is that the activities you’re describing do not actually harm other people. The same cannot be said for the effects of second-hand smoke.

Then you’re not listening with a full appreciation of liability: Any profession where one of your coworkers can by no fault of his own or incompetence kill you, harm you, put you into a dangerous situation or where the general public assumes a risk by entering the workplace or association with the grounds of the business is in a similar position. Almost all of those professions can and do endanger the general public, the people who perform the duties, and/or are allowed to cover the intermediary ground of risk by insurance and waivers.

If I’m a soldier I’m eighteen years old and they trust you to walk into firefights carrying hand grenades. How that isn’t dangerous to the other people I’m working with is beyond comprehension to me. And yet you simply sign a piece of paper waiving your right to bitch about it and they’ll hook you up with grenades, assault rifles, and after some minimal training ship you to stressful places all over the globe.

While it might seem strange to compare a bartender to a soldier, understanding that the bartender has a right to assign his own risk and take upon himself the risk of others too might help. What about a taxi driver? Taxi drivers risk people’s lives, all hinging upon their performance while driving. Driving is dangerous. How do taxi drivers afford the assumption of that risk? Insurance and licensing, which they announce to the public on those little stickers and such inside.

You can assume risk. You can assume risk for others. You don’t need to ban something outright to make something go away. Introducing government teeth into a psychological hysteria, even if it’s a well-founded hysteria, isn’t productive or sensible given the other similar legal grounds the concept covers.

Non-smokers should not have to suffer the effects of a habit that they do not engage in. Some public smoking bans are necessary and appropriate.

Some are because it’s within the government’s prerogative to limit the assignation of risk from its own properties and employees. I’m unconcerned with those: My issue with the matter is dictating those risks which are allowed by property owners to assume on their own property. Nonsmokers shouldn’t have a right to be offended if they enter a bar that has a “Smoking Inside” sign up in the windowand there are people smoking. They’ve assumed their own risk by entering the establishment as much as I do when I pump my own gasoline next to a huge container of explosive liquid managed by a snotty 17 year old with a mohawk. Similarly, no “right” assumes that an otherwise sane person can’t take even insane risks in the pursuit of profession. You have the right to be employed as a stunt man, and if your boss says “Jump off a bridge” then your proper option is to either do it or quit.

The issue is that there are several things going on here that get confused:

1. I’m allowed to let people do risky things on my property and under my employment, as long as I inform them of those risks and allow for some minimum safety measures to minimize the risks I expect them to deal with.

2. Customers are allowed to assume their own risk, as long as they’re informed of them and they can be reasonably assumed to be informed of them. By now I think it’s well documented that smoking is risky, so if you enter a smoking establishment then I don’t see what grounds you have for trying to press your liability onto anyone else.

3. Employees are allowed to assume their own risk and assume risk for others. The snotty mohawk kid is ensured with your safety while you pump gas and enter the convenience store, no matter how galling or unlikely that seems. He might have been informed “what to do when the store gets robbed,“ which is allowing him the option to assume the risk of working in a high crime establishment.

4. What someone does to their own body in the privacy of their own homes, where they are explicitly guaranteed of privacy, is their own business. That means that unless you’ve proposed waivers of those rights as a precondition of employment, or by an assumed condition (which as far as I know only starts applying to government employees who are different animals than privately employed people), you shouldn’t be able to impress upon me activities which I perform in my own home outside employment. A lot of people get stuck here when they start rambling about drug free workplaces, but drug free workplaces are usually preconditions of employment. I don’t have the right to tell my employees that they should smoke at home, and I don’t have the right to tell them that they can’t.

Now, all these get entangled by the rhetoric of the Antismoking True Believers, in the same way that Religious True Believers get confused when trying to make arguments regarding evolution and “kids not respecting their elders.“ They’re all individual assumptions that go hand in hand with a free society though. A free society doesn’t guarantee a safe society, it guarantees that people should have the right to assume risk (or not) as free men and women.

I’m not going to say that smoking is alright. I don’t even smoke. The constant ill-founded legal hounding of smokers as if the fact that it’s a dangerous, expensive habit isn’t enough is stupid and wrong though. Often what nonsmokers are claiming as “I shouldn’t be forced” to live with second hand smoke really amounts to “I shouldn’t be inconvenienced” by having to look for other options. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

MisterMook;  Are you also arguing that the OSHA and other workplace laws that protect workers’ health and safety should be repealed?  Is it OK for workplaces to stop providing respirators to workers?  Is it OK for workplaces to expose their employees to toxic vapors?