Public place. I said that. So, my answer is something else. I would expect him not to smoke around me if I was in his house out of common courtesy but of course I don't believe the government should be involved in any way.

I'm just going to respond each time with "Answer the Question" every time you don't. So:

Answer the question.

So wait, then under what bizzare definition of words are you being forced to change what you do? If you had some bar you were going to and had "homesteaded" a smoke-free-bar-doing zone of some sort you MIGHT be able to make this argument, but now you're saying that going to a bar that has always had smoking and having to smell the smoke there is CHANGING what "you do" when it's always been that way? Or, you've never been there in the first place and NOW you want to go there, but in that case you're the one changing what "you do". So either way, you're "I don't want to be forced to change what I do" argument is completely and utterly bankrupt.

Except that there are already some (in some cases sure, too many) restrictions on businesses doing whatever they want to. For instance, the bar down the street from me can't just have a rock concert that blasts me with noise at 100 decibels at midnight. Nor, for that matter, can the factory, or the restaurant just spontaneously pollute the air with whatever they want to.

If you want to get super nitty and say "well, you should make the individual smokers liable then since they're the ones causing the damage -- the restaurant owner has nothing to do with it", then show me a functional system that will take all that into account that doesn't involve ZOMG GOVERNMENT/SOMEONE ELSE INFRINGING ON OUR FREEDOMZ. And just ignoring that it's a problem by saying "each individual source of damage is too small to worry about, so you should just deal with it" doesn't count.

what about his kids, I wouldn't be opposed to a ban on parents smoking in a house with kids

Holy crap!

Ok, so you see how the bolded are ridiculous statements and don't make sense with your public places comment?

Just for the record, I already stated that I'm fine with anti-smoking laws. But you have to acknowledge that PVN (and others) have a point and in turn argue that the benefits of the law outweigh the negatives of restricting bar owner's rights.

Similar to a previous comment I actually have no desire to get into that debate because it ends up coming down to a lot of subjective values and is pointless. Mostly I just posted because Goodie was annoying me with his arguments.

So when I go to the local cigar shop to buy cigars for my dad's birthday, should everyone in there have to put out their stogies while I'm shopping?

Ah, the old "we already tell you what to do, ergo us telling you what to do is justified" argument. Works every time!

Answer the question.

I don't know if the benefits outweigh the negatives or not, and it doesn't really matter to me.

lol pvn

(The counter-argument of "I should be able to do whatever I want to do, even if it kills someone indirectly", is not terribly compelling.)

Um, no. I don't. In public places, they should be restricted by law. In private homes, they should just have the come courtesy to not smoke around non-smokers.

Are there competing interests? Sure.

Do I think that when there are competing interests, the onus ought to be on the person doing the active damage to other people's health? Um, yeah, I do. (If there were a strong case to be made that somehow depriving a smoker of smoking for an hour or two would be as deleterious to their health as their blowing smoke in my face is to me, this would be a very different discussion.)

Does PVN even recognize that there are competing interests? LOL, obviously not.

Am I reading this right? You don't care if your view has more of a negative affect? Really?

Ah, see I believe the onus should be on the people that are infringing on other people's rights. *

Your point is certainly valid for the smoking in public buildings argument.

Edit: * - Just to be clear the people in this debate that are being infringed upon are the propery owners. It is NOT the smokers or non-smokers.

Should hitting people be illegal.... inside a boxing ring? Getting hit is probably bad for your health. I don't see why I should have my not getting hit lifestyle all changed around just for mike tyson's benefit if I get into a boxing match with him.

where does the "right" to 100% control over the air quality inside one's business come from?

Doubles down on it!

I mean, I care personally. I don't think the purpose of "laws" is "to make my personal preferences the rules for everyone."

Let's say you're in the fifth row at the boxing match. Is it OK if Mike Tyson comes out of the ring and punches you in the face? That would be a more apt comparison.

OK. what about bars?

One person mentioned it and I think it's a decent analogy. Do you think that property owners should be allowed to use asbestos? The rights of them to use asbestos is being infrindged upon but it's for the greater good. I think this is a very similar argument.

Um... the same as the right to 100% control my wall colour?

I mean, shouldn't the default position be - "The person that owns the property can do what they want with it"? And if that's the case isn't it necessary to show why doing something with the property shouldn't be allowed when you want to make that activity illegal?