cool so stop talking about mandates for private places

No lie, I haven't seen one analogy that you've cited that holds up. A patron of a loud concert is going to that concert to hear music loudly. They know what they are getting themselves into and the concert is the sole purpose of the venue.

This is not the case for the public places being discussed in this thread.

Really? First, I think the vast majority of people in this day and age understand exposure to second hand smoke is bad. Second, I think consumers should be forced to make a lot of decisions about what is good/bad about themselves. I mean, lots of people probably don't know how bad drinking or eating Macdonalds is to their health but I don't think we should make it illegal.

general logic, human history, and non idiocy

I've been to concerts that were louder than they needed to be or that I expected them to be. Very few people go for "loud music" they go for "music".

But then again, I also support laws on limiting the decibel levels of music at concerts.

Why do you keep doing this?

Number 2 is where you're struggling with logic. I don't just "not like" smoking. It causes harm to me physically. Are you really ignoring this? It's pretty much the entire argument.

only in some confused minds, bars are private property.

I get it, you think that a bar is a private place. I don't. I don't care what the law says. I define public places as anywhere that serves the public or is open to the public.

only in some confused minds, IRL bars are private property.

So if I hire a doorman at my bar, is it now public of private?

Have you read the entire thread? The poster to which you responded has pretty adamantly declared that the science behind the notion that secondhand smoke is bad is pretty much junk and bs.

It probably needs to be pointed out that...

(a) Those arguing against smoking bans ITT reject the entire concept of public accommodations. In general, they champion the "rights" of racists to discriminate also.

(b) These same people seem to have forgotten where "private property" comes from -- it comes from governmental violence and fiat.

(c) They seem to be advocating for the "rights" of sadists to build booby-traps on their owned "private property" (as long as they post a sign that says "booby-traps might be present", of course). Leave an antique latching refrigerator out near where children play -- doesn't matter if that's a ZILLON times more dangerous than removing the door.

(d) A lot of the smoking bans are not based on the customers safety. In Cali for example its perfectly legal to subject customers to second hand smoke. There is only restrictions, with tons of loopholes BTW, of subjecting employees to second hand smoke.

who owns the bar? you? the government? joe the drunk? or the guy who's name is on the deed/licence/every payment that goes out the door? if it is you or the government then fine you have a point otherwise gtfo.

not a very convincing argument, especially the human history part

So you oppose most/all government regulation then? I don't think there's a viable argument we can have without it devolving into an argument over regulation then.

If everyone knew how bad smoking was for you, I imagine we'd have less smokers. The reality is that most studies are flawed, measuring the damage of smoking is hard, and if people don't see immediate results they don't trust those results. That's why we make so much money playing poker, because humans have a detachment from the long run.

So while you may know if smoking is allowed or not, in a world of imperfect information and with a species of people who instinctively ignore the long run, it doesn't change much.

The biggest thing is that this is just a ban in places of business that we're talking about, we're not saying you can't make poor decisions or whatever. We're just saying that if you're in a place of business, you should go outside to smoke. It's not a big deal, it's better for the health of everyone, and it's a minor inconvenience.

So your belief is that there are some non-trivially sized group of smokers that smoke because they don't know its bad for them?

That's absurd.

consumers in this case aren't actively consuming second hand smoke the way that they are McDonalds, though I'm all for the government having some say so in regulating what McDonalds puts in their food knowing that it's not realistic or feasible for the average consumer to research and understand all the heinous crap companies put together and sell

and I would bet that even in this day and age the average person does not think of second hand smoke as a health problem/is not really aware of the risks

even if businesses disclose that they are using asbestos it is still not really reasonable to put the onus on consumers to read up and weigh the risks before entering a building that uses it

IMO

really? I think that while many people know some of the "facts" about smoking they really don't understand what it means or how to interpret statistics

Every pack of cigarettes contains a big, very clear, warning. There have now been decades of commercials about the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke and decades of school anti-smoking programs.

I think the word is out.

so what you are saying is that people who start smoking are making an active decision to kill themselves?

P.S. this is about second hand smoke anyway

This thread's going supernova any second now.

You think everyone who smokes thinks it's bad for them? You've never known anyone who treated it like global warming? Some people smoke and roughly know how bad it is for them, some smoke and have an idea about it being bad for them, some smoke denying that it's bad for them, and some treat it as a joke acting like it's what's keeping them alive. What I'm saying is a reasonable portion of the other groups would probably stop if they had the facts, which don't really exist in a way that anyone will acknowledge. Mothers who don't make the mental connection that their killing their kids would probably top the list.

Either way, it's not really a point worth arguing.

Why are we having the 2nd hand smoke conversation for the 1,000th time? Haven't they already banned it everywhere already?

I haven't read the thread. Has smoking in public places been compared to segregated lunch counters yet?