woohoo, douglips, simulpost! 
Not so fast. Even some hardcore Libs understand that sometimes the government must intervene for the common good, until the market can correct itself and, in this case, offer more healthy envirmonments. Similar to the right to yell “fire” ending at the door to a crowded movie house.
Sometimes the winds of change blow too slowly.
I don’t think the clean water/clean air analogy works. First, the danger of second-hand smoke is an open question. Second, assuming that smoke is dangerous, the danger is readily apparent to the customers. They can see the smoke and cigarettes whereas you can’t really eyeball a glass of water and see if it is dangerous.
I also don’t buy into the idea that a non-smoker (such as myself) has some fundamental right to dine in a totally smoke-free environment. If you don’t like the smoke, don’t eat at the restaurant. The fact that you want to be able to both eat at a given restaurant and be free of smoke doesn’t mean the government should step in and guarantee you’ll get your way.
Amen, sister! I quit smoking after I moved to Minnesota. I decided bundling up to go smoke outside in sub-zero weather just wasn’t worth the cigarette.
That said, after I quit, I was diagnosed with asthma. It becomes very hard for me to breathe inside a smoky area. I generally put up with it by choice when I hang around people who are smoking.
Normally, I’d say that the government shouldn’t regulate smoking inside restaurants, (I was a smoker, remember), but I do see the need for something enforceable, like a city ordinance or a state law. There are far too many rude people who light up where they shouldn’t. Maybe after a few twenty-five-dollar cigarettes, they’ll learn some manners.
Cigar and pipe smokers should just be shot on sight 
Robin
Public places, eh? Forgive me if I forgot about the last time my tax dollars ever opened a public restaraunt. The government shouldn’t regulate the food industry either. To think that any company who wants to make a profit would poison its customers is to place no stake in the greed you accuse business owners of having in the first place: you can’t make money off a dead person.
The smoking issue is a bit more murky because smoking truly only causes cronic problems, not acute ones. For you to put second-hand smoke on the same platter (nice metaphore here) as botulism is absurd. One is clearly more immediately life threatening than the other. While I agree that smoke is harmful to your health, I cannot agree that it needs to be any more regulated or taxed than it already is. I think the restaraunts’ creation (albeit at the gov’s “request”) of non-smoking areas is as far as it needs to go.
If you do not like apple computers for whatever reason you do not ban them, you stop bying them. Unless you feel that a person has no right to their own mind, body, and decisions thereof, I suggest all non-smokers be satisfied with the moocher-based lawsuits and the current regulation and be done with it.
I can’t believe an AMERICAN said this. “I have no problem with ‘Let people do what they want with their money (i.e.-run their own business how they see fit)’ unless I don’t like what they are doing with it.”
If you non-smokers were such a damn powerful and almighty-rightous force, * you could have made all the money in the world by offering non-smoking restaraunts, air travel, and so on*. In other words, every time I hear a non-smoker cry that its for the public good, I know they mean “the non-smoking public.” And when they try to force their ideas on the general population, I know its because they can only settle disputes while behind Big Brother. Surely they haven’t the fecundity or resources to * do something about it themselves*.
Do you live on the same planet as I do? Take a historical look at pre-regulation practices in the food industry. Or look at what has happened with mad cow in Europe (post discovery of a causal connection) including unscrupulous operators attempting to sell diseased product…
If you take a step back from your libertarian utopia to grapple with the real world, you’ll find there is a never ending supply of folks willing to sacrifice long term gain for short term gain. In order to maintain confidence and keep the death toll down, a nice bit of government regulation is just what the doctor ordered.
I for one am thankful every day that pharmacuticals and biotech have to meet regulations. Keeps us in business by keeping out the fly-by-night operators and by keeping us honest. Helps us in the long-run.
Sheesh, no wonder no one takes you libertarians seriously.
Tell that to asmatics.
Well, I would have no problems letting smokers poison their bodies if their fucking smoke wasn’t in my fucking air. Frankly, I could care less if smokers want to ruin their lungs, so long as I don’t have to breath it.
Wow, lots of ignorance to fight on this one.
aynrandlover: Public places, eh? Forgive me if I forgot about the last time my tax dollars ever opened a public restaraunt.
Since you do not seem to understand the meaning of the well-known technical term “public place”, here is a typical definition:
You will note that the phrase “such parts of buildings and other premises whether publicly or privately owned which are used by the general public…” obviously includes restaurants.
*The government shouldn’t regulate the food industry either. To think that any company who wants to make a profit would poison its customers is to place no stake in the greed you accuse business owners of having in the first place: you can’t make money off a dead person. *
First, I never “accused” these “business owners” of “greed,” and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth. Second, I have no problem with your advocating zero government regulation for the food industry; as I noted in my previous post, if you want to argue on general antiregulation principles then in order to be consistent you should oppose all regulation. I don’t, however, agree with the position you advocate, and I doubt that many others do either.
*The smoking issue is a bit more murky because smoking truly only causes cronic problems, not acute ones. *
As I noted in my first post, the true health hazards of second-hand smoke are often exaggerated, at least when considered in light of our present state of reliable medical knowledge, and the Master himself has pointed this out.
*For you to put second-hand smoke on the same platter (nice metaphore here) as botulism is absurd. One is clearly more immediately life threatening than the other. *
If you reread my posts, you will see that I do not claim that smoke in restaurants is a health hazard on a par with botulism, and in fact I explicitly said (twice) that there are valid arguments to be made in favor of the position that smoking bans are unnecessary and/or ineffective as public health measures. Again, please do not ascribe to me statements I didn’t actually make.
The point I was making, and which most posters seem to have understood, is not that you can’t argue against smoking bans, but that you can’t convincingly use sweeping antiregulation rhetoric in the particular case of smoking bans if you are at the same time willing to accept other forms of regulation for public health and safety.
*While I agree that smoke is harmful to your health, I cannot agree that it needs to be any more regulated or taxed than it already is. I think the restaraunts’ creation (albeit at the gov’s “request”) of non-smoking areas is as far as it needs to go. *
Then put that view to your city council, which has a legitimate interest in regulating things that are harmful to the health of the public, but also in refraining from over-regulation where the resulting benefits would be negligible. Personally, I do not care what your city council, or anybody else’s, decides to do with respect to smoking bans. But I dislike seeing emotional illogical rhetoric used in place of carefully reasoned argument, and that is what I criticized about the OP’s post (and yours too, for that matter).
I had this post all ready to go for aynrandlover, but, Kimstu (one of my heroes 
) beat me to it.
as far as the OP. I understand both sides. Frankly I haven’t decided what side I’m on here 'cept as a former smoker, am glad there’s non smoking sections for most places. I reject the arguement in the OP, as Kimstu has pointed out their fallacies. Asthmatics have my sympathies as well. But I’m not certain that I’m up to making an all around ban until we are able to show there’s no reasonable comprimise, or do a better job demonstrating the ill effects to the general public of second hand smoke. I find it personally objectionable, but then, I also find Patchoulli oil, and jerks talking on cell phones in restaurants to be personally objectionable.
~~> I’m glad you think so.
aynrandlover: Public places, eh? Forgive me if I forgot about the last time my tax dollars ever opened a public restaraunt.
~~>Note, this is a typical LEGAL definition. The OP is not about “does this fit within current legal bounds” but “should it?” In other words, it was a question of opinion. Otherwise, the obvious answer would have been, “Yes, they can,” and the post promptly removed. As a matter of opinion, then, you should not find it strange that I do not accept the government’s definition of a “public place”. The laws I choose to follow, I choose to follow because I agree with them. The government does not create morality, much to many people’s dismay.
~~>Perhaps I was hasty in placing you with the same group of people who feel that business can’t regulate themselves due to their own greed. You simply must feel that business owners can’t regulate themselves because they are socially inept. That might be wrong too. Perhaps you feel that only government agents are capable of any form of regulation. But I don’t know, because one doesn’t justify regulation by saying “but it wouldn’t happen if there weren’t regulation” because, then, who babysits the babysitters? So I have no basis to understand your desire for regulation. It is not your right as an American citizen or a human being to eat food at someone else’s place. Thus, it should not be regulated.
~~> What, we can’t agree on somethin’?
~~>Withdraws harsher comments. However, I still feel that by supporting any regulation you only enable further regulation to be imposed. Once you start regulating, in other words, it becomes impossible to stop. The only way out of it is to stop all regulation. To me, then, anyone who feels anything should be regulated in that it only might cause harm to a person or their property is to be equal with any successive regulation (as the Master noted on gun control…you might not feel that way, but you’ve only helped the ones who do)
~~>Forgive me if I do not notice this “public” you speak of, but only individuals who do not like smoke. I am missing the forest for the trees? Or is majority rule absolute? I do not expect people to start smoking because I like it, and I would only like equal treatment, or complete disregard, in return, but not complete disregard for my treatment.
Again, I apologize for harsher comments, but hope you see where they came from.
arl: The OP is not about “does this fit within current legal bounds” but “should it?” In other words, it was a question of opinion. Otherwise, the obvious answer would have been, “Yes, they can,” and the post promptly removed. As a matter of opinion, then, you should not find it strange that I do not accept the government’s definition of a “public place”.
Very well, but I don’t think it was the OP’s intent to question the validity of all existing restaurant regulation. Wildest Bill seemed to me to be asking whether smoking bans were appropriate (not just legal) in the context of existing regulatory practice, so I think it was reasonable to answer that question using the standard definition of “public place.” If you’d rather use your own definitions, perhaps you could warn us first.
*Perhaps I was hasty in placing you with the same group of people who feel that business can’t regulate themselves due to their own greed. You simply must feel that business owners can’t regulate themselves because they are socially inept. That might be wrong too. Perhaps you feel that only government agents are capable of any form of regulation. But I don’t know, because one doesn’t justify regulation by saying “but it wouldn’t happen if there weren’t regulation” because, then, who babysits the babysitters? So I have no basis to understand your desire for regulation. *
Well, many other posters here as well as myself can give long and detailed explanations of the reasons we’re skeptical about completely laissez-faire/libertarian governmental systems. There have been a number of threads on this subject prior to this (“Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian” is one that comes to mind), so you might want to start by looking through those.
*However, I still feel that by supporting any regulation you only enable further regulation to be imposed. Once you start regulating, in other words, it becomes impossible to stop. The only way out of it is to stop all regulation. *
Well, welcome to GD, arl, and I predict you’ll have an interesting time here. We haven’t had a visit from a full-metal-jacket libertarian in quite a while (I think waterj2 imports one from time to time to make sure we are appreciating him as he deserves :)).
I dunno, I reread the original post a few times. I don’t think he was keen on whether or not it was within government bounds as “I think they are regulating us to death”, he darn well KNEW anything was within their bounds, but that it should NOT be in their bounds.
Ah, well…if only our government was more like sdmb, maybe we’d all see how futile it is.
Especially smoking regulations.
Oh, and I’ll take the full metal jacket part But Libertarian? Now that’s just harsh :rolleyes: