Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"You" in general. A person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins. Better?
I completely agree with that analogy, except you're using it wrong. You see, in that analogy, you are the one advocating to be able to swing your fist and hit everyone in the face by imposing your will on all business owners to ban smoking.
Your right to smoke-free air ends where the door to their business begins.
Quote:
Honestly, in general, I agree with you. I'm a liberal in the sense that I believe people should be free to do what they want (gasp!),
GASP! is right. You obviously have little understanding of what Liberals stand for. Could you mean Libertarian? There's a big difference.
Quote:
with the corollary "as long as it's not hurting anyone else".
Allowing smoking in private businesses doesn't hurt anyone that hasn't voluntarily accepted the risks. We each have a choice as to enter or not enter a venue that allows smoking. If you enter knowing that you may be exposed to secondary smoke, you have accepted and assumed the risks unto yourself.
Quote:
Smoking is known to be harmful. It's a person's choice to smoke,
On that same note, it's also a persons choice to enter a venue that allows smoking, is it not?
I don't think this argument holds up. I think people should generally be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't interfere or affect anyone else. Perhaps you would like to take your pants off after dinner to make yourself more comfortable? Should that be okay as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
I think it's presumptuous of you to say a smoker can go to a place that doesn't allow smoking and just step outside. Who are you to decide that for them? What if they want to enjoy a smoke at their table with a drink after eating? If you don't like, you can leave. Why is your comfort more important than theirs? And "health reasons" are crap. Yes, secondary smoke can hurt you. Prolonged exposure to it. Not an hour or two. So it is purely about comfort. And no, I'm not pro-smoking. I don't smoke. I'm just pro-freedom.
Your right to smoke-free air ends where the door to their business begins.
Does that mean your right to any kind of food safety requirements ends at that same door?
They both about the health of customers, so why should there be any difference? - although I know the answer to that one.... smoking and smokers, are special.
I don't think it's hard to draw a line -should I be able to start up my chainsaw after my meal?
.
As long as the owner doesn't mind..... I don't see why not?
Something tells me that most people wouldn't patronize a business that allowed such behaviour to go on, which would result in the loss of profit, which would most likely cause the business owner to ban the starting of chainsaws in his restaurant all on his own. Now replace "chainsaw" with "smoking"..... If the majority of people truly prefer to eat in smoke-free places, it stands to reason that owners will ban it all on their own without the need for big government to step in and do it for them.
The Free Market.... problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe90
I would also argue for the right for people to smoke,... just not in a restaurant.
People do not have a right to smoke wherever they want, just like people do not have the right to expect smoke-free air wherever they go.
It should be left entirely up to the property owner.
As long as the owner doesn't mind..... I don't see why not?
Something tells me that most people wouldn't patronize a business that allowed such behaviour to go on, which would result in the loss of profit, which would most likely cause the business owner to ban the starting of chainsaws in his restaurant all on his own. Now replace "chainsaw" with "smoking"..... If the majority of people truly prefer to eat in smoke-free places, it stands to reason that owners will ban it all on their own without the need for big government to step in and do it for them.
The Free Market.... problem solved.
People do not have a right to smoke wherever they want, just like people do not have the right to expect smoke-free air wherever they go.
It should be left entirely up to the property owner.
In other words, all health/safety regulations should be scrapped?
I think that's what is called the great leap backwards
Does that mean your right to any kind of food safety requirements ends at that same door?
They both about the health of customers, so why should there be any difference? -.
I would have no problem with a restaraunt opening up that is not bound by food safety requirments and other health department regulations, AS LONG AS customers are informed that those regs do not apply.
I have a feeling not many people would eat there { I know I wouldn't } and it would probably go out of business because people would excercise their freedom of choice and not go to a place that isn't bound by those regulations. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Repeal smoking bans.... let the free market decide.
Of that I have no doubt.... Your anti-freedom, big government ideology was a dead give away.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
