No smoking...

[mojo1701]

True. You can smoke within your own private property where I am usually not welcome.

My point exactly.

 

[Ranger REG]

The funny thing about rights is they are not supposed to supersede the rights of others. Otherwise, they are not rights at all.

But doesn't smoking supersede my right to breathe free air, one of the essential things that keep me living? As I said, to deprive me of my free air by overwhelming it with your smoke is considered a threat to my life, especially when I'm not inhaling through a filter that is in those cigarettes. That is secondhand smoke.

 

[mojo1701]

But doesn't smoking supersede my right to breathe free air, one of the essential things that keep me living? As I said, to deprive me of my free air by overwhelming it with your smoke is considered a threat to my life, especially when I'm not inhaling through a filter that is in those cigarettes. That is secondhand smoke.

For example, if I kill a man, and I go to jail, then the right of a safe community supersedes my right of freedom.

 

[Nightcloak]

For example, if I kill a man, and I go to jail, then the right of a safe community supersedes my right of freedom.

Communities don't have rights, only individuals.

If you kill a man, you have violated his rights in the ultimate fasion and under the law lose your rights as punishment. We'll, usually, courts are a funny thing indeed...

 

[Nightcloak]

But doesn't smoking supersede my right to breathe free air, one of the essential things that keep me living? As I said, to deprive me of my free air by overwhelming it with your smoke is considered a threat to my life, especially when I'm not inhaling through a filter that is in those cigarettes. That is secondhand smoke.

I agree 100% with you on everything but one crutial point to the debate. No one is forcing you to not breathe the air you want. If they were then I would be the first in line to say you're rights are violated and even go so far to say you could seek criminal or civil restitution.

But you do have a choice. You can choose how this issue is handled in your home or any other properties you own. Government land is "owned" by the public (in theory) and thus you can organize your fellow man to vote on how such property is used in the democratic process.

But it's the property that is owned by others that I have the issue with. We enter someone elses property by choice. To tell them what to do with their property is no different than a smoker telling you that he can smoke in your house because it is his right. I would defend your right to exercise control over your property in the same fasion I'm defending the rights of others to do with their property as they see fit.

 

[Ranger REG]

So, where does a business establishment that caters to customers that the owners and/or manager cannot discriminate fits in? Private property or public?

 

[Kanegrundar]

So, where does a business establishment that caters to customers that the owners and/or manager cannot discriminate fits in? Private property or public?

The day is fast approaching where they will be forced to discriminate. Granted, they will likely not have a say in how they decide what to do with their own business, which is extremely undemocratic, IMO. Here in the KC area, many restaurants are becoming smoke free, and those that offer both options are doing a lot to keep the smoking areas seperate from the rest of the establishment. Smoking is still allowed in most bars, but there are a few places that offer a smoke-free enviroment and I think that will grow in time, but most places like that will likely still allow smoking. After all, they gain a lot of income from selling cigarettes at $5 + a pack to patrons.

Kane

 

[Nightcloak]

So, where does a business establishment that caters to customers that the owners and/or manager cannot discriminate fits in? Private property or public?

Now that is a great point.

I'm not sure if I can address the point without crossing the line into the "politics-no-mans-land". Don't want to do that to the mods here, this discussion probably has them on edge already. I’m going to stay philosophic on ideas and then attempt a graceful bowing out before that happens.

The points I have been making are on how things "should" work under a system that respects individual rights and by extension - property rights.

But as you pointed out. We currently have a lot of precedents in the system to take into consideration that work differently.

I won't address discrimination. I do not want to open that can of worms.

To address your excellent point in the best way I can, however, in the last 75 years various social issues have been addressed by society by making statutes that give the state the right to mitigate the property rights of owners. These are specific laws to rectify whatever society has determined to be a problem of its day. I think we can all safely agree that these issues were/are problems that do need to be considered.

That is the nature of this debate in general. How things do work (those with your point) vs. how things should work (those who share my point). On the road we are on, you are right. Under such a system, the anti-smoking laws do have a precedent and can (and most likely will) be universal law. I'm the guy on the side of the road waving a stop sign, telling anyone who will listen that the road we are on is going places we don't want to end up at. That we should look at that road and build a better one that addresses the important issues we want addressed without impeding peoples rights.

Thank you for the great dialog. No wonder I love this place

 

[Kanegrundar]

That is the nature of this debate in general. How things do work (those with your point) vs. how things should work (those who share my point). On the road we are on, you are right. Under such a system, the anti-smoking laws do have a precedent and can (and most likely will) be universal law. I'm the guy on the side of the road waving a stop sign, telling anyone who will listen that the road we are on is going places we don't want to end up at. That we should look at that road and build a better one that addresses the important issues we want addressed without impeding peoples rights.

This states what I have been trying to get across as well (and failing miserably at). There has to be a better way than handing so much power to those in charge.

BTW, I am trying to quit. It's rough. While once I quit I'll want to go to more smoke-free establishments, but I would MUCH rather prefer that individual owners listen to their clinetelle to make the decision for themselves instead of being told what to do.

Excellent points, Nightcloak.

Kane

 

[Nightcloak]

This states what I have been trying to get across as well (and failing miserably at). There has to be a better way than handing so much power to those in charge.

BTW, I am trying to quit. It's rough. While once I quit I'll want to go to more smoke-free establishments, but I would MUCH rather prefer that individual owners listen to their clinetelle to make the decision for themselves instead of being told what to do.

Excellent points, Nightcloak.

Kane

Thank you. And good luck quiting!