Do you agree with public smoking bans?

I like the smoking ban, for selfish reasons. I quit smoking, since I only was a social smoker. And I don't stink when I come home from a bar. I don't see why I should, either. Remember the definition of freedom: you have the right to swing your fist around all you like except when it meets someone else's nose - something to that effect. Smoking is a swing hitting someone else's nose, it is harmful and just unpleasant. But I am all for bars having licenses for smoking - where smokers can go. Just like restaurants and bars have to have liquer licenses. Then I can choose where to go. It's one of the few areas where I actually don't mind the government butting in.

0 Replies

The majority opf my friends smoke,does that mean I have to stop socialising with them and get new friends?

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

Remember the definition of freedom: you have the right to swing your fist around all you like except when it meets someone else's nose - something to that effect. Smoking is a swing hitting someone else's nose, it is harmful and just unpleasant.

On the other hand, if you enter a boxing ring when its operator has scheduled a fight, you implicitly volunteer to be in that fight and have your nose hit upon. Likewise, if you enter a bar whose owner allows smoking, you implicitly volunteer to have smoke blown into your face. Assuming you see no reason why organizing boxing matches should be illegal -- how would you distinguish it from operating a smoke-filled bar? As long as the owners' rules are clear and everybody is free to stay out, how do prohibitions improve the situation?

0 Replies

Thomas the one difference here is you are comparing two different things. It is the purpose of where you are entering. Assuming the bar is not a cigar bar, the purpose or function of a bar is for serving alcoholic drinks. The purpose of a boxing ring is to box. When you enter a bar, you are implying that you will be around people who are drinking. There could be other activities happening and allowed. I will give you an example of one that happened personally to me. A stranger kissed me. Now I am sure the bar allows kissing, but I did not imply by entering this bar that I wanted a stranger to kiss me (and I did not).

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

The purpose of a boxing ring is to box. When you enter a bar, you are implying that you will be around people who are drinking. There could be other activities happening and allowed. I will give you an example of one that happened personally to me. A stranger kissed me. Now I am sure the bar allows kissing, but I did not imply by entering this bar that I wanted a stranger to kiss me (and I did not).

But when a stranger kisses you when you don't want him to, he is committing a tort against you no matter what the bar's policy is. (Maybe even a felony, depending on the details of the situation.) It wouldn't make any sense for a bar to have a policy about something that is already covered by civil and criminal law, independent of the location where it happens. By contrast, it makes quite a lot of sense for bars to have policies on smoking, and on enforcing them -- given that some patrons consider smoking a normal part of hanging out together, and that other patrons dislike inhaling other people's smoke.

0 Replies

thomas, i would not go to a boxing ring. period. are you saying i and other non-smokers (the fact that i am a social smoker is beyond the point here) should stay away from bars? linkat is absolutely right bringing up kissing as an example. forget that it would be punishable by law, let's set that aside for a second. even if you get kissed by a perfectly healthy person, it is still unpleasant, and unwelcome. smoking is even more invasive to those that do not smoke. more than unpleasant, it is unhealthy, too. now please explain to me why should non-smokers be subjected to behavior that harms them? mind you i AM a smoker and enjoy a cigarette with my drink. but i will be the first one to step out, as i do. it is polite to begin with. plus, today non-smokers are in majority, hence majority bars should also be non-smoking. i have nothing against licensed bars where smoking would be allowed. those i would just avoid. but if all bars are smoking, it isn't fair towards non-smokers.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

thomas, i would not go to a boxing ring. period. are you saying i and other non-smokers (the fact that i am a social smoker is beyond the point here) should stay away from bars?

I am saying that you should make up your mind whether your pleasure from being in the bar exceeds your displeasure from the smoke, or from persuading your friends to frequent a non-smoking establishment with you. If it does, put up with the smoke. If it doesn't, put up with the loneliness outside the bar. Life is full of tradeoffs, and you cannot expect to have it your way in every regard. In other words, my short answer to your question is "yes". Yes, you should go somewhere else instead if you really, truly, mind the smoke as much as you say you do. But I suspect that you don't.

Dagmaraka wrote:

now please explain to me why should non-smokers be subjected to behavior that harms them?

Because when you choose an interaction with known terms, you don't have a legitimate complaint about the parts of the terms you don't like. As a parallel, consider the case where I go to the store to buy a diet coke. The transaction benefits me on the one hand -- I get the coke -- and harms me on the other -- I have to part with $1.50, or whatever the price is. It would be very odd if, having received the coke, I claim that the store taking my money has a negative effect on me, so they're robbing me, which they shouldn't be allowed to do. It seems to me that your argument about bars is analogous to my hypothetical diet coke case. It also seems to me that this very distinct from the case of the unwanted kisser, who is violating the known rules of interaction without your consent.

Dagmaraka wrote:

but if all bars are smoking, it isn't fair towards non-smokers.

To the extent that smokers really mind that, bar owners can make easy money by declaring their bars smoke free and raising their prices to reflect the benefit added for the non-smokers. To the extent this is happening, prohibitions are unnecessary. To the extent that it doesn't, this is strong empirical evidence that people don't mind smoke-filled bars as much as you think they do. Either way, I don't see how getting the government involved increases the general good. If you see your position as merely increasing your own pleasure at the expense of the smokers around you, I agree. But if you think there's more to it than that, I don't.

0 Replies

Now over 7 months in the ranks of the non-smokers, thank you, thank you. Yeaaaah, oh yeah and I'm pretty damn self-righteous about it too! :cool: Still not self-righteous enough to rule others behavior for my benefit let alone tell the guy with his neck on the chopping block how to run his business, though... I don't see me ever going there.

0 Replies

Nothing worse than a reformed smoker, unless it's a reformed whore.

Actually, I don't agree or disagree with the smoking bans, but I can tell you that I don't frequent bars or restaurants that strictly impose them.

0 Replies

Thomas, well then I feel blowing smoke in some one’s face should be a felony. They are endangering my life. Kissing is not endangering my life.

You are also saying that for some people smoking is a part of hanging out together, but it is not part of hanging out together for others. It is even more than disliking inhaling other people’s smoke, it is that it endangers other people’s lives. I would much rather have some one kiss me than blow smoke in my face. And since your argument is based on what is legal and not (at least in the kiss versus smoking situation), now that smoking in public places in many cities and countries is now illegal, there is little difference between an unwanted kiss and smoking. . It also seems to me that this is not very distinct from the case of the unwanted kisser, the smoker is violating the known rules seeing that smoking is banned in a public place and without my consent to blow smoke in my face.

And in the same vain, if as a smoker you do not like not being able to smoke in a bar, you have a tradeoff, go outside and smoke or stay in the bar and do not smoke. Smokers can now put up with the loneliness outside the bar. Life is full of tradeoffs (even for smokers) and they cannot expect to have it their way in every regard. In short, if you want to smoke, go to a cigar bar or stay at home and have your drink and smoke.

I do not look at this as ruling some one else’s behavior. I am not asking others to stop smoking, it is their person choice. I do however, object when it becomes a health issue and it is. I do not choose to smoke, but if some one is at a bar smoking, I have to subject my health to his poor habit. If smoking only affected the person who was smoking then fine, however, it is when it affects other people that it is a problem.

0 Replies

Lol Linkat... You really can't see the difference between regulating someone else's behavior and regulating your own? Shocked

Focus on yourself much? Laughing

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

It also seems to me that this is not very distinct from the case of the unwanted kisser, the smoker is violating the known rules seeing that smoking is banned in a public place and without my consent to blow smoke in my face.

That's fine as long as the government imposes smoking bans on its own facilities, such as airports and city halls. But bars are owned by private people, and your business with their operators is a private transaction. If bar-owners have the right to grant anybody the right to smoke in their living room, they should also have the right to grant anybody the right to smoke in their bar. In both cases, it's their property, so they should get to decide what rules apply on it.

Linkat wrote:

And in the same vain, if as a smoker you do not like not being able to smoke in a bar, you have a tradeoff, go outside and smoke or stay in the bar and do not smoke. Smokers can now put up with the loneliness outside the bar. Life is full of tradeoffs (even for smokers) and they cannot expect to have it their way in every regard. In short, if you want to smoke, go to a cigar bar or stay at home and have your drink and smoke.

Fair enough. I predict that under the rules you propose, every bar is going to re-label itself as a cigar bar to keep the smokers' business. As a result, your change of rules will have no effect -- except for the government's cost of making and enforcing laws that end up having no effect, and the restaurants' cost of re-labeling themselves. I don't think that's worth doing. Do you?

0 Replies

Bill, I am not regulating anyone’s behavior. As I stated before, people can smoke as much as they like that is not regulating their behavior. What I am saying is there is a difference once that smoke invades other people’s space. Then it becomes a health hazard. Similarly, if some one drinks too much alcohol, it is an individual’s behavior and I do not plan on regulating that by not allowing people to drink alcohol. However, once some one gets behind the wheel and drives drunk, it now becomes a safety issue. So therefore, it is o-k to drink yourself in oblivion, however, once that drinking becomes dangerous (like drinking and driving) then it is no longer regulating some one else’s behavior, but preventing a dangerous situation for others. This is similar to smoking. I have no issue with some one smoking and endangering their own health, but once it becomes dangerous for other then it is a problem.

Thomas – I can also state a similar argument again here with many other laws. Whether you are in a private establishment or a public one, doing drugs, murder, assault whether a private establishment would allow it or not, would still be illegal. Why? Because it endangers others (except maybe the drug stuff). With your argument then, all these items also should be o-k in private places as it is the government that imposes these laws. Also, I guess if a bar wants to allow unwanted kisses, they could go ahead and do that.

Actually, Thomas, in Boston, they do have such a law that allows for cigar or smoking bars. As of yet there have are very few such bars. I know of one in all of Boston (however there could be more) so in theory what you may say is true, but in realty it is just not happening. And since the ban, really there has been no change other than smokers stepping outside when they want to smoke and the air being cleaner and healthier in bars and restaurants.

0 Replies

Linkat, you are claiming space that doesn't belong to you as your own... and then seeking to regulate others behavior in it... as opposed to regulating your own choices on where to go. That, my friend, is regulating other people's behavior. The smoker, in no scenario discussed here forces you to be subject to smoke, regardless.

0 Replies

Well then Bill, the drunk driver who crashes into you, is also invading your space. I guess that space you do not have claim to as well. Or how about some one blowing toxic deadly fumes into your face, I guess that would be o-k too as you cannot claim that space either. Also, the smokes does invade space that belongs to me. For instance inside my mouth and nostrils and lungs. If the smoker could contain his smoke in area where it would not move into my personal mouth, nostrils and lungs then it would not be an issue. You cannot tell me that my mouth, nostrils and lungs do not belong to me.

The smoker does for me to be subject to his smoke. If I walk into any place whether it bar, restaurant, store, etc. where smoking is not the primary function of the establishment, and some one comes up to me and takes a smoke and then exhales, I am being forced to inhale his smoke. Why should I have to move, especially if I were to be standing there in the first place? In addition, I have heard arguments when you can move. In some cases, in some private venues you cannot. For instance if I were at a concert, I have an assigned seat, if some one were to smoke next to me, I have no option to move. If I walk into a restaurant and simply want to get some take out, while I am in line, some one lights up. Now I would have to in order to avoid the smoke, I would have to leave my place in line.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

With your argument then, all these items also should be o-k in private places as it is the government that imposes these laws. Also, I guess if a bar wants to allow unwanted kisses, they could go ahead and do that.

As a matter of principle yes. Murder is a hard case, because it's not murder when you volunteer to be killed. But or example, I do believe that when you volunteer to join the army, you don't get to complain about being shot at by the enemy. As a practical matter, death is unpleasant, and few private establishments have offsetting benefits to offer, so it makes sense to have an unalienable right not to be killed. About doing drugs, I have no objections at all. And if a sex club announces that kisses are okay under any circumstances, and you frequent it, you don't get to complain against unwanted kisses anymore. It's your choice, and your problem to live with it.

Linkat wrote:

Actually, Thomas, in Boston, they do have such a law that allows for cigar or smoking bars. As of yet there have are very few such bars. I know of one in all of Boston (however there could be more) so in theory what you may say is true, but in realty it is just not happening. And since the ban, really there has been no change other than smokers stepping outside when they want to smoke and the air being cleaner and healthier in bars and restaurants.

I am surprised, and suspect that getting a smoking bar licenced must have a hefty price tag attatched to it for bar owners. Does it?

0 Replies

LOl Linkat... the space I'm referring to is the bar, not you mouth... but that's pretty inventive. Laughing

The fact remains; you want to regulate the behavior of others in someone else's establishment. That's not your place, IMHO... and it is a desire to regulate other's behavior, instead of your own, in FACT.

0 Replies

Well, Thomas I can’t argue with you, if you believe in that principle. I don’t agree with it only because I put safety and health at a higher level.

To be honest, I am not sure how difficult or expensive getting a smoking bar license is. I do know it is very expensive to get an alcohol license in Boston and pretty much all of Massachusetts. I tend to think it is more likely that the bars do not bother going through the hassle of a smoking license as the ban has not effected their bottom line dollars. Most smokers I know just put up with it and go outside if they want to smoke.

Bill please refer to my comment above that Thomas has commented about in regard to private places. I have no argument if you take the same stance that Thomas has, like I said before, I prefer putting safety and health over some one else’s behavior. As much as I appreciate the inventive complement, it really isn’t - in a crowded bar, smoke does go into your mouth, nose and lungs – i.e. second hand smoke.

0 Replies

I don't agree with you either, Thomas. And I like smoking in the bars. But while you say there may be some smoke-free bars that I can choose to go to (usually a handfull in cities without a smoking ban), I say it should be vice versa. There should be bars that allow smoking and have a license for it. Your example with coke doesn't work, sorry. Buying a coke and parting with my money doesn't injure my health and it is a voluntary transaction. Inhaling someone else's smoke just isn't. I agree with Linkat, health and safety come first. This from a smoker. Bye.

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

But while you say there may be some smoke-free bars that I can choose to go to (usually a handfull in cities without a smoking ban), I say it should be vice versa.

No, you misrepresent what I'm saying. I am saying that the rules in each restaurant ought to be whatever its customers want them to be. What its customers want them to be is best measured by their dollar votes, their willingness to be this restaurant's customers rather than that restaurant's customers. Establishments compete for custumer satisfaction on all kinds of features on the free market, and the results of that competition generally do give customers what they want. I see no compelling reason why the dimension of smoking rules should be any different, and you haven't offered me any reason why society would benefit from having one central rule made mandatory (with a few exceptions sold to upperclass establishments at a stiff price).

Contrary to what you insinuate, none of this implies that I want non-smoking bars to have a low market share. Like Occom Bill, I don't think it is my place to impose any particular market share on the rest of society; and neither is it yours or Linkat's or Uncle Sam's. That was my whole point.

dagmaraka wrote:

This from a smoker. Bye.

And this is from a non-smoker. It was nice talking to you too.

0 Replies

Do you agree with public smoking bans?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know