well Im glad for you , but like I said I dont think that having to use the government to protect yourself from the government is the best use of resources. I'm nit ok w/ this regulation of "public health" but I think it is an alternative to a ban.

I'm not suggesting a ban because I think smoking is immoral. I think it's dangerous to public health. And I think that because of scientific studies, not because of personal moral opinion. That's how it's different from your Christian example. I'm not trying to impose morality, I'm trying to impose standards of public health.

I have no problem if you think smoking is such a minor health concern, or if you think that banning it in a restaurant is SO BURDENSOME TO PERSONAL FREEDOM, but do you really think you should be able to anything you want in your restaurant that has its doors open to the public? Can you pump an odorless invisible gas that makes people hungry but gives them brain cancer? They would never know that you're doing it, so they can't make an informed choice to avoid your restaurant. But it's your restaurant so you can do ANYTHING IN IT NO MATTER WHAT, RIGHT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iERLtsBIqDg

Not smoking, no, just smoking around others.

1. Caring about "public health" is a moral decision.

2. It's not dangerous to "public health", it's dangerous to the health of people who CHOOSE to enter my restaurant. If you want me to post a giant billboard in front of my restaurant that says "ZOMG, WE ALLOW SMOKING IN HERE, YOU'RE GONNA DIE IF YOU ENTER HERE!!!!" that might be more reasonable, but not allowing me or my customers to smoke is nothing of the sort, it's just tyranny.

The moral opinon is in caring how people's health is affected.

And this is morality. Your morality. If you didn't care morally about other people's health, you wouldn't be doing this.

Anything, so long as the people who enter KNOW that they are voluntarily consenting to it.

So long as they know about it, sure.

No, not no matter what. I certainly have the responsibility to inform people that they are going to enter an environment with second hand smoke. I will post a sign at the door. If you don't like it, you're free to turn around and walk away.

I guess you're right, that if you don't care about public health, then a ban wouldn't make sense. However, you could make the "moral" argument about anything. You happen to care about private property rights and think they are the pinnacle of what's important. Caring about private property rights and thinking that they are more important than public health in all circumstances is also a "moral" argument if we go by your standards of what "moral" decisions are.

By the way, out of curiosity, why do you think you have the responsibility to inform people what kind of environment they're going to enter?

1) If you dont' like making a lot of money on tips and seeing hawt chicks....quit yer job and get the **** out of the bar.

2) Show me the SCIENTIFIC STUDY that says going to a bar 3 hours once a month where people smoke is going to give you ****ing cancer.

3) Prove to me that that little bit of smoke you inhale at a bar is worse than the air you breath from Ford or Chevy. Then PROVE to me your ****ing liver won't fail before your lungs from the 17 Bottles of Jack Daniels a month you drink over the .35 % of 1 cigareete smoke you inhale a month from going to a smoky bar. Let's ban people and kids from standing in front of camp fires to cook marshmallows because the second hand smoke is going to ****ing kill them.

**** arguing with people who do not have the capablity to determine what the paramiters of a study are.

I can show you a study right now that shows that SEX kills more people every year than second hand smoke.... SHOULD WE BAN ****ING

Ya know what my whole rant is basically useless. Trying to explain to people that we need less laws on the book instead of more is ****ing pointless.

My mommy divorced my daddy....... "Government will u be my mommy ?????????"

sigh

govman 4 prez

I mean king.

Holy **** .... Camping is DEADLY Bears, Snakes, Scorpions, Spiders, Centipedes, Falling Rocks, Falling Trees, Quagmires, Bogs, Quicksand, Sexual Predators, Gettting Lost, Freezing, Overheating, Drowning, getting Impaled, Rape, Torture, Sickness, Hunger, Thirst, Jason Voorhees. Man you can die everywhich way there is when you go camping.

WE NEED TO BAN ****ING CAMPING.

ON the other hand...

I work 16 hours a day hate my life, wife, kids, ****ty job... I'm going to go to the bar and have a beer ....

I can die from DUI. And some BULLCRAP study about secondhand smoke and what someone in the bars cigarette is doing to me.

...**** CAMPING

You're absolutely right that I should have to prove #2. But again, my point is NOT that anything dangerous should be banned. My point is, that there is a balancing test between how dangerous something is to the public versus how much personal freedom is restricted by the proposed regulation of that thing.

We can disagree on how dangerous smoking is, or how restrictive a ban in restaurants is, but can we agree on the framework??


Edit: And just to reiterate, I'm talking about public health, ie. the health consequences on the public, or in other words, other people. I'm NOT talking about the personal health consequences of an activity (in which I agree with you all that government should have no hand in).

I believe it has been mentioned before, but the public exists as nothing but individuals. There is really no such thing as "public health" because the public is not a singular entity.

It is an individual that choses to go to a place where smoking is allowed. That is a "personal health consequence."

People have a confirmation bias. This means that you've already decided that secondhand smoke is not dangerous. Therefore you give a lot of weight to studies that show that secondhand smoke is benign and you think that studies which show it to be dangerous are biased or bullcrap.

A rational individual tries to get rid of the confirmation bias as much as possible an look objectively at the scientific studies to try to find what is actually the truth.

After having looked at the actual studies, I've come to the conclusion heavily on the side that secondhand smoke is dangerous, but again, my only way to "prove" this is to rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies, and what almost all of mainstream science believes.

Lisa De Leuuwe ???

Could u imagine a porn star who went to bars and got second hand smoke AND then by accident inhaled some second hand phallic ejaculant while working...

INSTANT LUNG CANCER.

And a lawsuit to boot.

ahh and then MORE stupid government laws ahhh what the protectors want....AND WHAT THEY NEEEEED.

The public does exist. There is such a thing as public health, public safety, etc.

Another example of "the public" is that when an individual commits a crime, it is considered a crime against the state, and the state prosecutes the person. This is because we all, as a collective, have an interest in making sure that those who break the law are brought to justice and suffer consequences. Yes, the individuals involved in the crime also have stakes in the case, but so does the public as a whole.

This is a load of crap. Your making stuff up to benefit your argument and putting words in my mouth.

I'm tired of the dishonesty of people who want to IMPOSE things on me.

I HAVE NOT decided second hand smoke is not dangerous..... I'm waiting for a real study to be done.

I HAVE decided that CAMPING is in itself 1.4 trillion times more dangerous to a persons health than going to a bar where people are smoking.

Even AT 1.4 TRILLON times the danger I'm not going to stop going camping or going to private clubs where I can smoke....

At least until IMPOSERTARDS come to my town and get ANTI CAMPING laws and anti private club smoking laws passed.

Some people have decided it's their lot in life to be the IMAGINARY public defenders. They will WASTE their entire life trying to get passed laws that tell other people what they can and cannot do.

And the day camping get's banned in my town because of these imposertheirwilltards. .000000000000000000000000000000001 percent of the population will REJOICE. And then 99.9999999999999999999999999999 percent of the population with groan........(The sad thing is the imaginary public you have made up never does anything about it.....)

That is until you take away their guns..... Imposers

It exists as an abstraction, a convenience of language. There is no actual singular entity of "the public" or "society" that can act, rationalize, has rights, etc.

No, lots of things are considered crimes against the state that don't concern me one bit and I have absolutely no stake in.

No their isn't. It' baffles me that people still argue their is.

1) You still say stuff like "The police protect the public safety" Yet when I get raped in my house and the police come ONLY I GOT RAPED. And since I got raped and they will never catch who raped me... They have protected NOTHING.

But in the end if they catch the rapist they will claim they have "protected the safety of the public" which could turn out to be 7/350 million (if you just count the states but if you say public in reality you mean everyone and should be in the billions)

7 INDIVIDUALS out of 350 million to BILLIONS is not even what you would consider "public"


Or when the suicide bomber blows up a building and kills 3000 people ??? 3000 INDIVDUALS out of 350 million to BILLIONS is not the public.

Even if you get down to locals or townwships your "protecting the public stinks" I dont' have time right now to make a real post about it mebbe later"

All you want to do is impose your will on other's.

If you can sleep at night OR IT HELPS you sleep at night.....

Well in reality that's good because it's serving a good purpose.

But it does NOT help me sleep at night knowing more stupid laws are going on the books....

So in reality your actions are affecting me and others is it now ok for us to use force to defend ourselves from you ?

Have you read any studies that show that secondhand smoke is bad? There have been so many and they've all been real. I don't think there are any scientists nowadays who dispute that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Why do you automatically discount them?

How exactly is a ban in a restaurant something that is imposed on you. I'm tired of this. I'm going to turn these arguments around on their head. NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO SMOKE IN THE RESTAURANT. You don't HAVE to smoke. You are free to leave the restaurant and go smoke if you want. Why do you think it's like a GOD GIVEN RIGHT or something to be able to smoke a cigarette in a restaurant?

This camping example IS NOT like my smoking ban idea. Camping may be dangerous to the person camping, and that's fine with me. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO TO YOURSELF. I care what you do to OTHERS.

If the "public" doesn't exist, then what does this mean:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are these words meaningless? We're the founders disillusioned to think that there exists the public, or some "common" interest?

We don't. If the restaurant owner doesn't want to allow smoking, fair enough. We just think the restaurant owner should be allowed to allow us to smoke.

It is pretty much exactly the same.

Camping ban = saves you from going into the forest and getting mauled by a bear

Smoking ban = saves you from going into a restaurant and getting surprise attacked with chemical weapon

This. It's not about the rights of the customers.

Similarly, your previous "should you be able to smoke in a hospital" objection was off-base. If the hospital wants to allow smoking, that's their business.

The Christian example isn't trying to impose morality, it's to impose standards of spiritual health. We're talking about your eternal soul here!

Putting up crucifixes would not be very burdensome to personal freedom, it only takes a few seconds to put a nail in a wall.

You can't have one without the other. DUCY?

bump