The era of unregulated cigars may be going up in smoke

[CdnLimitada]

My residence is neither a public business nor a place of employment, both of which are governed completely differently for reasons obvious to anyone. There is no logical equivalence.

I don't disagree with this generally, but it's not always applicable, especially when it comes to public health and adjudicating conflicting rights, such is the case here.

This is more faulty logic. Of course any answer would be arbitrary, which you seem to think supports the position that government should never interfere. But turning the question around, how high would the risk have to be in order for the government to step in? 50%? 90%? At some point someone has to stop people from killing each other.

Instead of dealing in hypotheticals, I'll say that a 25% increase in the risk of heart disease, stroke and lung cancer among non smokers is more harmful than taking away my right to smoke in a bar or restaurant, or an owner's right to allow smoking. You're free to disagree, but I think we all know the defense of the smoker in this case can only be a selfish one.

Again, this logic just doesn't follow. Homes and businesses are always subject to separate laws and regulations. This conclusion is conjecture at best, irrational fear at worst.

I said in against it. I can support banning smoking in restaurants and bars and oppose banning smoking altogether. The rationale behind the two scenarios is vastly different. They aren't using the second hand smoke argument to ban smoking altogether. They're trying to keep us from killing ourselves, which is not protecting anyone's rights.

Of course it's getting harder to smoke in public. I'm in favor of that, and I refuse to support what I believe to be a position that puts non smokers' health in jeopardy just because I'm afraid of some perceived slippery slope effect. If the end result is that I can't smoke anymore, I'll be upset, and I will fight it tooth and nail. But I'm not compromising my beliefs to fight a battle I don't agree with 20 years upstream. The truth is there's a whole universe between not smoking in restaurants and not smoking in my home.

This is only relevant if you don't think second hand smoke is harmful. I'll ask again, is that part of your argument? If so, we're both wasting our time.

Again, I'm happy to take up arms to fight for my right to smoke as long as I'm not harming anyone other than myself. Truth be told this is the only position that has any chance in the court of public opinion anyway. If your position doesn't allow for the notion that non smokers' health risks should be heavily considered, good luck to you. You're going to be cannon fodder in the end.

You say this, but it's all conjecture starting from a view that government is only concerned with erosion of personal liberties. Of course that's at the heart of our disagreement. I certainly don't begrudge you that. I enjoy the respectful debate, and hope nothing I've said has been taken as a personal offense.

Cheers

Chris

PS: I hope this formats properly as I've typed it out on my phone via tapatalk while enjoying a refreshingly vibrant RyJ Mille Fleur.

Chris was WAY better at expressing pretty much spot on my take on it. Awesome. This is a fun debate.

[CdnLimitada]

I do not owe my employees a safe and healthy workplace. They should be accountable for their own safety. You feel my place is unsafe, by all means don't work here. No one is forcing you to. No one is forcing you to walk through my door. My place is privately owned and the public is invited, not forced, to come in. They are also free to make up their own mind as to the safety of my place and chose not to come in. But instead of being accountable for your own safety you chose to support regulations that force me to comply with your version of safety. Tell ya what wabashcr, you go out and buy a bar and make it into your perfect picture of a safe for all establishment. I will stop by and have a burger and a beer and respect your rights and not smoke. I wont try to regulate you you over to my side of thinking, I promise.

Do you own your own business? If you do not, how would you like it if your employer had the right to remove all things encumbering profits like safety, healthcare, sick leave, vacation days, etc.? I imagine your choice would be to leave that work place but where would you go if all places are similar? I see serious flaws in counting on people's good nature to have things run well. That is also a slippery slope! My take again is that there is a difference in a person's imagination of the way things should be and what reality is. Who would actually work in your establishment? Who would come in and use your service or product? It is a serious question as if we all had bosses or business owners that didn't give a crap about our safety or well being and had a take it or leave it approach, how well would things run?

[wabashcr]

Chris and Pigfish...great discussion and I love how polite it is.

A couple of points for Chris to consider...

Several of the local governments in my area have made multiple family dwellings (e.g. Apartments, condominiums, townhomes, etc) no smoking zones. This makes it illegal to smoke in your own home. If you were to say then a person should buy a free standing single family home then wouldn't you also be saying that the members of society that cannot afford a house cannot smoke in their home while those who are wealthier do not have their rights encumbered?

I believe you also made the point in which smoking outdoors has a negligible health impact on non-smokers. If that is accurate, I should be able to smoke in a public park. And yet that is now illegal in the city I reside in.

There will be a day when government not only comes to your door but insists on having access to your home. They will start with you cannot smoke in your backyard because the smoke can go over your neighbor's fence. Then you will smoke in your house and they will tell you to close your windows. Then they will tell you you cannot smoke in your house because you are not the only person in your house.

I think we should refocus on not the trees but the forest. Current government will is consistently anti-smoking. It is harder to smoke now than in the past. That is the plain and unmistakable truth of the matter. The goal is to end smoking...not cigarette smoking or pipe smoking or cigar smoking...smoking of all kinds....except maybe marijuana...and I don't know how that is the exception to the rule!!!

With that said,

Gentlemen, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

I think you should be allowed to smoke in an apartment or condo if the building owner permits it. Again, if you're only putting your own health at risk, have at it. I do support bans on smoking in rooms or cars with children.

I also think it should be legal to smoke in parks, but I understand why municipalities charged with maintaining parks would want to ban it. I don't think smoking should be banned in all outdoor public spaces across the board, allowing for some restrictions on a case by case basis. When smoke is merely offensive to someone, and not harmful, it becomes a matter of courtesy and decorum, not law.

I understand that smokers' rights are eroding quickly. I just don't buy the notion that you have to be all in on one side or the other, that you're either all for smoking everywhere or against it everywhere. I also don't think smoking bans I disagree with are a result of smokers acquiescing to an oppressive government. I don't believe supporting a ban in restaurants will embolden the government or enable them to do more.

I think if it were that simple, the anti-smoking mob would have done away with smoking ages ago. Most people don't smoke. But most non smokers are probably at least willing to let people smoke if it doesn't harm others. Most probably don't care as long as it doesn't bother them. Once that sentiment turns, all the lobbyists and tobacco money in the world won't do any good.

I certainly respect where you're coming from, even if we don't quite agree. Cheers.

[Fugu]

Great debate and certainly not an easy black-and-white topic. While I can follow Chris' argumentation very widely, and agree on most matters to the very core of its contents, I also see Ray's caveat that once you accept one regulation, government will inevitably go and take it to the next level. And this is how it will happen here! One day, we simply won't have the option to choose, whether we will be allowed to smoke in our own backyard or not. It will be decided upon for us!

Most governmental decisions are not based on rationality, that we must not forget. This is not how it works. I know the game, dealing with communal and state policies in a certain sector regularly, and can tell you, this is not how it works. We can debate as much as we want on rational motivations. Rational arguments are just only very rarely the basis on which political decisions are being made. However, that being said, we shouldn't be passive about it.

Its a nice academic discussion, but when it comes to politics and governmental decision making its a different game, don't let yourself be lulled!

Once that sentiment turns, all the lobbyists and tobacco money in the world won't do any good.

For me, smoking cigars also is a cultural goods. This sentiment or said yet "tolerance" of the non-smokers, Chris, is about to turn very quickly with every realm that is taken off of the cultivated smoker. We do actually witness that already.

[shlomo]

Govt regulation on a wide variety of subjects are necessary. Painting all regulation as personal infringement is foolish.

People are generally pretty stupid and while the govt can certainly be made up of these stupid ppl, there is enough turnover that stupidity gets weeded out over time......mostly....

Govt regulations that make sense, yet limit our personal freedoms;

Voting age

Driving age

Gun registries

Certain forms of taxation

Not allowing murder, rape, larceny

Child labour laws

Workplace safety laws!

[Fugu]

Of course, society needs rules and legislation for a peaceful coexistence, no question... But the main problem is, today, a lot of these rules are not worked out among specialists and experts in the field, but instead by lobbyists and administrational technocrats, often behind the scenes and often without any democratic mandate or legitimation. One of the reasons why I'm in favour of setting up more instruments for an effective bottom-up control.

[scar]

For those who see banning smoking in bars and restaurants as reasonable, do you somehow believe you are entitled to be there or work there? My bar is my private property, just like your home. I can invite people into my bar just like you can invite people into your home. As a guest in your home I should have the right to force you to change the way you run your household so I feel safer right?

Lets say you hire someone to do some maintenance around your house. He feels your home is not a safe workplace so he forces you to change it so he is comfortable. After all he is entitled to be there, work there, and be safe. That is how You think right?

If you feel my bar is not safe, go across the street where the owner chose to have a smoke free environment. Or better yet, spend your own money on a bar and make it your own personal safe place. That would be accepting responsibility for your own safety. But that's way to much work for you to do I guess. It's much easier to let someone else do all the hard work then you step in and force them to comply to you. But not in your home right?

Wake up people. They're not taking away your liberties. You're giving them away. Worse, you're giving mine away too. But again, that's easier than being responsible for yourself. Right?

For those of you who get it, accepting responsibility for yourself, bravo, you're a better person for it.

[NapaNolan]

Everyone is welcome to their opinion and welcome to share it, but...

When you share your radical views and they do not align with mine, you lose some credibility.

Not targeting anyone specifically here, but just because you can share your opinion doesn't mean you should.

[planetary]

Thank you, NapaNolan. This trip down the Ayn Rand rabbit hole aside, the main issue from the article seems to be the upcoming FDA decision on if, or how, to change the treatment of cigars. The piece doesn't seem to clearly lay out the context or current status, so I'm not sure it's all that interesting.

What is interesting is how the potential lifting of the embargo would interact with these regulations, should they change. I'm not sure how that could play out.

[scar]

Everyone is welcome to their opinion and welcome to share it, but...

When you share your radical views and they do not align with mine, you lose some credibility.

Not targeting anyone specifically here, but just because you can share your opinion doesn't mean you should.

If I don't agree with someones views I take responsibility for myself and stay away from them. I expect the same in return. I don't force my views on you don't force yours on me. If that is radical I am guilty.

[PigFish]

Freedom is radical! I am not making a joke. It is tyranny that is typical.

There is a funny thing about the word tyranny. It just has the 'extremist sound' does it not? But there is such a thing as both soft and hard tyranny.

For the most part I had walked away from this but I have changed my mind. Ultimately, if I can convince just one person to chose liberty over larger government and more laws I will do it.

If you have the intestinal fortitude, please read on!

First Chris it has been fun talking this with you. No offense taken and none intended!

Me, I am going to talk to the membership as the gap between the two of us cannot be bridged. Not even over a good cigar! This is not personal mind you, but philosophical.

Rhetorically, ladies and gentlemen, Chris and those with his mindset will be responsible for an eventual smoking ban or an affective ban via tariff and taxation. Ultimately, those like Chris that do not respect the liberty of others will be the cause of liberty to be lost for all. His reasons, I will take on his word, he is considerate of his fellow man. He respects his safety at the cost of his liberty. I think he believes that is the best choice here. I believe him when he says it. In this way he is actually generous, he is willing to trade his freedom (and that of others) for a perception of safety for another.

This is a kind offer, but does he have the right to offer it? Yes, if his neighbor asks him not to smoke while they are eating. But you see ladies and gentlemen, government has stated that there is no possibility of that. People are too selfish and greedy, the inn keepers are evil and bad and hate their employees, and that they in government must tell them how to operate because no two people ever agreed on anything or solved any problem at any level before government intervened. Statistics were generated and that is it, the argument is decided, rationality being set. The villain was chosen. There was not another thought given to those in the industry working this out for themselves. We have the rational, the statistics and the villain, all in place, now get in line and do what you are told, like it or not!

Liberty was never even a consideration.

Is this new? No! Our founders (USA) and framers of our federalist system were famous for quoting and I am paraphrasing, one who will sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither. You see they understood the philosophy of free people and fought against the known threat that is centralized powerful government. It is simply not taught today!!! It is never considered.

This entire thread basically makes my very argument. Government, armed with ostensible good will, can and will remove your freedom to exist without intervention and torment, one, well detailed and explained, rationalized, argument, at a time.

Governments arguments are made by your very neighbors, whom are ostensibly well meaning, just like Chris. Does there appear to be even the slightest concern for the freedom aspect in their argument, the right and desire of free people coming together to make a decision for themselves without a new law? Please look at the basis (not the detail) but the underlying assumption of these laws. The assumption is, that the free market hurts people, and they, the masterminds (do gooders and power brokers in government) must intervene. With a population full of people like this, nothing is off the board. I have to ask you. Where is the proposed end? Does government ever plan to withdrawal and contract?

There is always room for a new law, as stated, because 'this situation is different' and what is basically unstated, 'you are too stupid to make it right yourself(s).'

You see Chris here says that this process is all okay until it comes to his front door. As others have explained, it already has! Chris is already a smoker by the way, he believes in his right to smoke. Imagine what your good willed and intentioned neighbors that don't smoke think of this conversation and your right of choice. They too are happy to legislate your rights away. There is no reason to smoke at all, and of course you are the reason that the healthcare system does not work. You see tyranny is often assisted by a scapegoat, I like to call them the villains!

The cigarette was the first villain, they needed the vilification to tax it and win legislation against the companies, so they could tax them retroactively, meaning through the court system... Now that they are vilified, you are the villain! Of course if the national health system is running a deficit it could never be the masterminds fault. No, never! There has to be a new villain so that they can tax more. The reasons are always the same! Today it is the smokers fault, then it is the fault of fat people, and those that drink soft drinks... Man, you guys don't see the similarity here? You really don't see the conceptual parity here to government overreach whether we are talking tobacco or sugar (from another thread)? You know that history has shown this vilification process has reached levels of blaming races and religions... right???

Can never happen here you say! Yeah, that is what they all have said.

This is rule by the mob.... There is no mooring to a principle that freedom must be protected. Every detail of every aspect of life is different, no situation is the same. There is a reason, different or the same, you pick it, a villain and a victim, a reason, a dozen reasons to kill your freedom to make a choice yourself. Kill the philosophy of freedom and freedom too dies with it!.

You see, I don't think that some of my mates really understand the nature of natural rights and freedom. They see it as negotiable and transient... I digress!

There is a reason to put a stoplight at every corner then. Why? Because they are different. Why do it then you ask? Well, the one next to it has a light at it, so there is a precedence to put one here as well! No matter what argument is made, the choices of precedent or differential are just randomly pulled out of a hat. Whether it is detail, or precedent, your freedom always loses! Government always grows!

Frankly my friends, I cannot fight this mindset. Freedom is a concept, one generally only quantifiable, once gone! Ultimately, as long as freedom is not to be considered until it knocks at your own door, you will lose it. History proves it!

History is full of "ginning" up the populace to hate something. Restricting it or taxing it, mostly to raise revenue... This is the road to serfdom. In its worst form it manifests itself into riots, because people are not getting their 'fair share.' It can eventually lead to genocide!

If you people are all concerned about the well being of man, why would you overlook all of history and ignore the very process that has enslaved your fellow man in other countries throughout history? The philosophy of mastermind and control, the ones that lead to wars and even genocides? Why is this little, itty bitty, stupid little detail that can be negotiated in the workplace so damn important that the iron fist of government must control it? I can only say, a fire starts with a first spark!

What is it that many like to say? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. While many of you are stuck in the weeds vilifying the bar keep, your country is slipping out of your fingers. You think me paranoid, I see the bogey man you say! People are you blind? The "prevention" is in preserving your liberty! Your liberty!!! The bloody thing that made it possible for you to smoke and go to the bar in the first place and you are willing to trade it away for the 'fatherly' hand of government, their promise to help you, save you, protect you.... What from, second-hand smoke and the ******* bar-keeper! You really need protection from the bar-keep! Man, you people (rhetorically) are pitiful if you need to be protected from the guy who owns the bar! How about exercising your free will and going to Chuck-e-cheeze!

Can you imagine sitting with your mates and admitting that you are afraid of the guy at the bar because he lets his customers smoke!!! You are actually so fearful of it in fact, that the LAW NEEDS TO STEP IN!

I have to ask some of you here. Do you sleep with a light on??? I mean really. Are you that afraid of living? Do you really need to be told what to do... in every situation?

Want to work in a smoke-free bar. Get your statist friends together, try a little capitalism and cater to your own set! The organic vodka bar! Smoke free, lead free, freedom fee, free love, free condoms, free loaders and all... Take EBT cards, I don't give a ****... How about you drink at home and let me smoke where I want to smoke? How about you start by modifying your behavior before you go on about mine? Ever think of that...? No I guess not... Freewill demands free thinkers.

I am getting off this road. And, I hope my friend Chris here, has not convinced too many of you to trade your freedom for the false god of safety. It is not a philosophy where individual liberty thrives nor even survives. While not intentionally, he is the reason why you will lose your right to smoke. You see, he hopes it stops at his front door. The non-smoker, he does not want to stop! The do-gooders around us, they see a reason for the government to decide everything. They probably cannot balance their own accounts…

Government is made of good people like Chris. Then again there are those that are not so good. They are willing to use the good people to gander power. They are all using Chris' argument, and when you ignore individual liberty, it is a good argument, shallow, but good. After all who does not want to save a life?

Kudos to your Chris, I don't have the balls to stand up in a cigar forum and defend those who rob me of my liberty, and you do! When your cigars are taxed out of existence, perhaps you will learn your lesson.

You appear to be a sharp guy, I wish you were on my side!

When you just brush away the prime reason that you can smoke in the first place, your right to do so, and ignore it, you can see my basis for distrust in government in every aspect of Chris' arguments. It is well meaning people, just like Chris, that I fear (rhetorically) the most!

So once again to the reading public. If I ask you directly, lets not label, but simply state Ray’s mindset as position “R” and we state Chris’ mindset as position “C.” Which one is causing your loss of ability to smoke and the taxes on your cigars to increase?

When the next law is passed about smoking, or the next tax is passed, are the folks that are doing the passing taking position “R” or position “C?” I mean can you even see “which” position they are inclined to take, or did I totally lose you?

You guys are focusing on the one tree, the one detail while your forest is being decimated. The right to smoke is only one small part of your freedom. Me, I am concerned about the whole forest. I chose this detail, to find a common ground. Man, if you cannot convince cigars smokers that they are being rights-raped, the position for freedom is likely lost!

Chris’ position is the far easier to defend. It is detailed, pseudo-scientific and ostensibly generous. You guys don’t think that I see it? I think he has done a fine job at supporting it. As a twist I will add that with his position I can argue that every endeavor of mankind should be regulated and restricted! I mean that really is how easy it is to defend the protectionist position. I leave you with this. Follow Chris... lose your liberty!

Great debate mate(s). Have a nice weekend, all of you!

-Ray

[Zigatoh]

So one rule or restriction leads to another and inevitably we're going to start a war on some race or religion because of this for some reason?

The other choice being complete freedom where I can smoke cigars where I like (seeing as being able to smoke seems to be why we must be so free) and obviously do whatever else I like. So I choose to smoke in this really posh house I saw while going for a drive in this car I borrowed while drunk, the house owner didn't like it much so I shot him.

It's a really nice cigar by the way.

Or maybe Some rules are good? Freedom can and will be abused, and yes the making of rules can too.

We elect our government, we can have a say or even run ourselves.

[scar]

I don't think all laws are bad. Never said I did. For the record, my bar passed all the required inspections, including a health inspection, to make my guests safe. But for some that's is not enough. It will never be enough for some. Not until it comes to their door.

If my second hand smoke filled dungeon is too much for you, put your big boy pants on, make a decision for yourself, and stay out. I don't need your views of what is safe forced down my throat or the laws that go with it. The day you no longer have a choice and are forced to be in my bar I will rethink my position.

[PigFish]

I know that I tend to be wordy… Maybe this will help!

I am at a loss here boys, so there is not much more than I can do but have some fun with what is left of the topic.

Follow the bouncing ball!

We have a statute (a law). That statute defines criminality.

With me so far?

With criminality defined, we have also defined a role for law enforcement, for law enforcement to take action, and the courts, and the entirety of the criminal justice system. That means when we see it, we should summon the cops!

To recap: We have a law, and when it is broken, the remedy is generally involving law enforcement, citations are written, and or people go to court, or to jail… and so on and so forth!

Together here so far? Good!

We have three guys in the bar, including the bar keeper. One guy lights up a cigarette!

I want a show of hands of those that think that it is a good idea to call the cops!

I mean really! This is what it boils down to? Some of you guys/gals think that this is a good use of the law, law enforcement and the entirety of the criminal justice system… to stop a guy from lighting a cigarette in a bar!???

You guys think that the cops should be called, come out, and stop a guy for smoking, issue him a fine or take him to jail…!? Same for the bar-keeper cause he let it happen!?

REALLY! That is the role of government as you see it? That is justice and represents the civil rule of law… This action and reaction makes total sense to you??? What is more you are okay with it?

God help us… Mankind is lost!

-P

[Fugu]

One additon perhaps as a clarification. I don't know what the exact reasoning had been in the US or Australia for the smoking ban in bars and restaurants. In Europe, it was not (just) protecting the clients. And smoking guests need no protection of course. No, the final total ban was due to protecting the employees! And that is - quite logically and inevitably - because there is conflicting legislation in action: Anti-discrimination act.

We had (and still have) a very long political debate, why it shouldn't be possible then to have exclusively smoking and excl. non-smoking establishments. So that, as others here proposed, everyone could have the chance to choose freely where to go and where to work.... In principle, there even was no major political objection against that. But - not possible, because ALL potential employees need to be given equal chances when applying for a job. Therefore, the bar/restaurant-owner just cannot post a job exclusively for smoking staff. The non-smokers MUST have the same right to apply for said job! So, as a consequence, there are no smokers' pubs, bars or restaurants!

You may ask why it then isn't even possible to allow family-owned or single-owner (read = smoker) bars or pubs, i.e. without further personnel, to be operated as a smokers-establishment? Not possible because that could mean a competitive advantage... or could force smaller operations to get rid of their few employees...

This is a fine example of where regulations, originally meant with good-intention went completely astray. And where it had better been left up to the parties involved to negotiate instead of having the government stepping in. Common sense, ppl, common sense!

The anti-discrimination legislation alone, as well-intended as it may have been, has serious consequences for an employer's free decision - resp. his own right to freely decide - on whom to hire. They are now always facing the risk being taken to court by rejected applicants who claim discrimination...


That being said, while I see both sides, and I am not an anarchist or fatalist (like Piggy... ) but I can see and share a lot of his concerns, likewise I do with Chris' underlying sentiment and basic principle, although appearing contradictory (in a nutshell: No freedom on the cost of my fellow brother's and sister's freedom). Therefore, I am still up for a better organization of legislative processes. Perhaps idealistic, may be, but I think one needs to tackle these issues in a differentiated way. Appears still worthwhile trying for the better. This is the best system we have come up with so far, and I cannot see where we would be, would we follow the alternative path of complete personal and selfish freedom. That would be going back to the beginnings of civilization. I am not so sure whether I'd prefer that.

So, how about doing something proactive and proposing the CC for the UNESCO cultural heritage program?....

Cheers

[PigFish]

I prefer empiricist, you have been warned!

One thing for sure, a good smoking bar can be overpopulated! -Piggy

[scar]

LOL

[Fugu]

I prefer empiricist, you have been warned!

Oh, that we share !

[PigFish]

Oh, that we share !

Oh.... after all this then, you are going to pretend to have something in common with me!!! Yeah, right...

You...

you....

you.....

Smoke Nazi sympathizer... You!

-R

[StumpyJoe]

I think you should be allowed to smoke in an apartment or condo if the building owner permits it. Again, if you're only putting your own health at risk, have at it. I do support bans on smoking in rooms or cars with children.

I also think it should be legal to smoke in parks, but I understand why municipalities charged with maintaining parks would want to ban it. I don't think smoking should be banned in all outdoor public spaces across the board, allowing for some restrictions on a case by case basis. When smoke is merely offensive to someone, and not harmful, it becomes a matter of courtesy and decorum, not law.

I understand that smokers' rights are eroding quickly. I just don't buy the notion that you have to be all in on one side or the other, that you're either all for smoking everywhere or against it everywhere. I also don't think smoking bans I disagree with are a result of smokers acquiescing to an oppressive government. I don't believe supporting a ban in restaurants will embolden the government or enable them to do more.

I think if it were that simple, the anti-smoking mob would have done away with smoking ages ago. Most people don't smoke. But most non smokers are probably at least willing to let people smoke if it doesn't harm others. Most probably don't care as long as it doesn't bother them. Once that sentiment turns, all the lobbyists and tobacco money in the world won't do any good.

I certainly respect where you're coming from, even if we don't quite agree. Cheers.

Cheers Chris,

I see your points and have some follow up questions.

You replied that if my home is an apartment and the owner of the apartment building allows smoking that I should be "allowed" to smoke. How does this not apply to the situation of the bar-keeper? He owns the bar just as the apartment owner owns the apartment building? Is it because there are separating walls in the apartment building?

What if the bar had separating walls? Would it then be permissible for the bar-keeper to allow smoking then?

What if I am a non-smoker who shares a wall with your apartment and I complain that I can smell your smoke through the wall? Because that complaint will be made. What if the walls are well sealed, however, I smoke a cigar on my patio and your patio door is open?

Another point you made about smoking in parks should be allowed. But at the same time you recognize the city should be allowed to ban it. Which is it? Is your hesitation because of people littering the park with cigarette or cigar butts? That's called littering and a person can be cited for that. Is there another reason to ban it that I cannot see?

And I also do not understand the case by case basis. If as you say my smoke in an open air environment has a negligible affect on another person's health what other cause can there to be to ban smoking in that situation?

Your point about the anti-smoking "mob" is very interesting. It conjures the idea of mob rule, doesn't it? It certainly does for me. I fear the idea of mob rule, when the majority can rule over the minority because they will it. That is not a democracy, and yet that is what I think our esteemed colleague Piggy is pointing out. While I m not a libertarian, I understand that laws are made for two reasons...for the greater good and to protect the minority. One should not supersede the other. It is a tough balancing act and right now I ask you to see how the laws are not balanced with the concerns of the minority.

Yes there is a lot of money in tobacco and that has done a great deal to stem the tide of legislative death for tobacco. The attack on tobacco is now being waged on the taxation of tobacco. I ask that you look at the prices that our Australian BOTL pay (the price difference posted on the 24:24 are brutal) and compare that to what we pay. I cannot afford to buy a box of cigars that costs $600-800 to purchase. That will drive myself and others to stop smoking...I am being very realistic about this. When that happens there will be less money in tobacco and the laws to stop smoking will have less resistance to be passed. We are moving in that direction.

As for our friend Scar, he owns his establishment and he should set his rules. If I don't want smell smoke while drinking it's easy enough to choose another bar. But I can understand the issue of the employees. Let's look at a possible solution to this dilemma.

The free market. Scar creates a new bar which allows smoking. All potential employees are told this when they are applying for a job. As an adult they make a decision to work for Scar. Everyone is an adult and acts like it. Now let's assume that employees start complaining and Scar reminds them what they signed up for. Some employees decide that they made a rash decision working at Scar's joint. Scar may have to increase wages to get employees to work at his establishment. He may have to provide additional health insurance or even look into life insurance policies to entice people to work there.

Let's say Scar's business model now provides to the community an environment where people can smoke and drink. If Scar's business model is not viable his bar goes out of business. However, if it is successful isn't he providing something to society which allows adults to enjoy themselves as adults in an adult setting. What is wrong about that? Should that be illegal?

Hope you could lend me your thoughts. Interesting discussion.

[TomF]

For those who see banning smoking in bars and restaurants as reasonable, do you somehow believe you are entitled to be there or work there? My bar is my private property, just like your home. I can invite people into my bar just like you can invite people into your home. As a guest in your home I should have the right to force you to change the way you run your household so I feel safer right?

Lets say you hire someone to do some maintenance around your house. He feels your home is not a safe workplace so he forces you to change it so he is comfortable. After all he is entitled to be there, work there, and be safe. That is how You think right?

If you feel my bar is not safe, go across the street where the owner chose to have a smoke free environment. Or better yet, spend your own money on a bar and make it your own personal safe place. That would be accepting responsibility for your own safety. But that's way to much work for you to do I guess. It's much easier to let someone else do all the hard work then you step in and force them to comply to you. But not in your home right?

Wake up people. They're not taking away your liberties. You're giving them away. Worse, you're giving mine away too. But again, that's easier than being responsible for yourself. Right?

For those of you who get it, accepting responsibility for yourself, bravo, you're a better person for it.

No, this argument is a fail. Your bar may be your private property, but you are you holding it out as public accommodation. It's not the same as your private ownership of your home. By this argument you could deny entry on the basis of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. Do you think that the Civil Rights Act should be overturned?

[scar]

Civil rights. Really? It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to justify the fact that they would rather force their opinion on others than think for themselves.

[TomF]

Civil rights. Really?

Do you deny it?

[scar]

Yes, I deny I am violating civil rights by allowing smoking.

[PigFish]

No, this argument is a fail. Your bar may be your private property, but you are you holding it out as public accommodation. It's not the same as your private ownership of your home. By this argument you could deny entry on the basis of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. Do you think that the Civil Rights Act should be overturned?

People...!

Yes, I said I was giving up on you!

Are you following this? Do you see the concept of precedent here and how one well intentioned law forms another. That the concept of specificity means nothing as an argument here! You think you are protected via specificity and the detail of "your" private property verses the other guys! Think again! Can you see the how the law that was (specifically) designed to protect a minority group has been twisted to justify the "lording" over private property and how it now appears to encompass smoking???

Keep posting mates! My point is being made beautifully!

Man, when it comes to the government door, you leave it open and the wrong dogs always come home!!!

Cheers all! -Piggy