Question for Libertarians who sport the legalization of marijuana

[tod evans]

Because not smoking doesn't infringe on anyone's right to reasonable use and enjoyment.

You're right, but complaining sure does, in fact it's worse than smoking.

Smoking does.

You're wrong.

Smokers don't have a constitutional right to fill a room in a publicly owned building with smoke. I will await the twisted interpretation that allows it.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, smoking makes some people happy. Where is your constitutional "right" to deny them this pleasure?

It is not unreasonable or whining to expect them to step outside to do their smoking. It's just common decency.

As it would be common decency for a nonsmoker to step outside instead of whining or trying to enact laws to avoid being a decent human being.

End result is neither smokers or whiners have more of a realistic leg to stand on and you're just pushing the P/C angle..

[angelatc]

there's private ownership of the air now?

If you want to eat in a place that does not allow smoking, then by all means do so. But you have no right to demand a restaurant owner make his customers stop smoking just because your delicate little system can't tolerate it. Passing laws to make other people cater to the endless needs is not the freedom position.

Again, you're young nd you do not now other way. It seems horrific to imagine that people used to be allowed to do as they pleased. The best part? Non-smokers weren't whiny! Nobody cared who smoked where. T'was a wonderful way to live.

[angelatc]

It's just common decency.

From an etiquette standpoint, you're wrong. From a libertarian standpoint, you're wrong.

[LibertyEagle]

I differentiated earlier in the thread, smoke anywhere and everywhere outdoors, however indoor limitations are agreeable.

You believe that for private property too? In other words, do you believe you have the right to dictate to a private property owner whether they allow smoking in their own establishment?

Please demonstrate how air is private property. If its not property, then they don't own it, its more of a public good, available for public discussion and regulation. If it is property, then the business owner is responsible for the property inflicting harm on others, and can be held responsible for the harm toxic chemicals cause their patrons.

FYI Ron Paul proposed a private ownership of air system as an opposition to clean air regulations. This would allow individuals to seek restitution from polluters through the courts.

Oh wow, spud. You need to think about this. If I own a business, I should be able to decide whether I will allow smoking or not in it. As a customer, you have the right to choose not to give business to my establishment, because of my choice. That's where your rights end.

[angelatc]

Fifteen miles? I know I could do it.

Not me. I was probably in better shape when i smoked. Of course I was a lot younger then. I started when i was 16, gave it somewhere in my 30's. I miss cigarettes.

[Suzanimal]

Not me.

Fifteen miles isn't that bad. I bet you could if you had to.

I was probably in better shape when i smoked. Of course I was a lot younger then. I started when i was 16, gave it somewhere in my 30's. I miss cigarettes.

It's strange, I love cigarettes when I'm drinking around other smokers but I don't regularly smoke. I can take them or leave them.

[Anti Federalist]

Again, you're young and you do not know other way. It seems horrific to imagine that people used to be allowed to do as they pleased. The best part? Non-smokers weren't whiny! Nobody cared who smoked where. T'was a wonderful way to live.

Things were really better then.

This is not just middle aged grousing. The amount of freedom lost in the last 30 years is pretty stunning.

[spudea]

You believe that for private property too? In other words, do you believe you have the right to dictate to a private property owner whether they allow smoking in their own establishment?



Oh wow, spud. You need to think about this. If I own a business, I should be able to decide whether I will allow smoking or not in it. As a customer, you have the right to choose not to give business to my establishment, because of my choice. That's where your rights end.

My line of thinking is very simple. Releasing toxic chemicals into the air carries with it a certain responsibility. The initial responsibility should lie with the initiator of the release. Therefore responsible for the safety of others in the general vicinity. Can others use their personal responsibility to move away from the initiator? sure but it doesn't change the fact the initiator carries the initial responsibility not to harm others with toxic chemicals. If a business owner wishes to state it is okay to release toxic chemicals in their establishment, that's fine, they now own the responsibility for those toxic chemicals and carry the responsibility of the safety of the patrons. If they do not wish to provide restitution to their patrons for exposure to toxic chemicals, they need to present every patron with a description of the risks and require a hold harmless agreement prior to entry.

Think ski resorts or rock climbing establishments require these types of agreements due to the bodily harm that is possible.

[angelatc]

Things were really better then.

This is not just middle aged grousing. The amount of freedom lost in the last 30 years is pretty stunning.

Yeah, we are screwed. I was driving around a young state rep candidate and we were discussing freedom. I told him that not only were we allowed to smoke on airplanes, we did not need anything except a valid ticket to board. And when we got off the plane our family was waiting right there at the gate. He literally could not imagine what that was like, and therefore today's gyrations are not any big deal. Make them more efficient? Sure! Abolish them? That seems like crazy talk to people under 35.

On a side note, I went to rent a car for a recent day trip. While I was there, a 60 year old woman came in and asked if the vehicle she was getting was non-smoking. The staffer told her that all their cars are non-smoking, and if someone smokes in one they're charged a hefty fee. She said that she needed to ensure nobody had ever smoked in that car. The staffer said their cars rotate from location to location and so there was no way for her to know the whole history of every renter that had ever been in it.

That was not good enough. This woman pulled out a filtration mask like they sell at Home Depot and said she would need to sit in the running car for a minimum of 30 minutes before she could commit to taking it. It took everything in me not to burst out laughing. (If I worked there, I would have suggested she take her own flipping car, but then I probably would have been fired. ) When we left, she was sitting in the car, wearing her mask. The husband was standing outside, looking at his phone.

That's bat$#@! crazy and we should not have to cater to it.

[69360]

You're right, but complaining sure does, in fact it's worse than smoking.

You're wrong.


Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, smoking makes some people happy. Where is your constitutional "right" to deny them this pleasure?



As it would be common decency for a nonsmoker to step outside instead of whining or trying to enact laws to avoid being a decent human being.

End result is neither smokers or whiners have more of a realistic leg to stand on and you're just pushing the P/C angle..

You'll always lose this argument, because air doesn't normally have tobacco smoke in it. Smokers don't have a right to change that for their pleasure.

One of the basic principals that 99% of people here agree on is "do whatever you want if it doesn't affect others" Smoking in an enclosed public space does.

I'm certainly not PC. I don't care what you smoke. I can personally tolerate smoking up to a point.

[angelatc]

My line of thinking is very simple. Releasing toxic chemicals into the air carries with it a certain responsibility. The initial responsibility should lie with the initiator of the release. Therefore responsible for the safety of others in the general vicinity. Can others use their personal responsibility to move away from the initiator? sure but it doesn't change the fact the initiator carries the initial responsibility not to harm others with toxic chemicals. If a business owner wishes to state it is okay to release toxic chemicals in their establishment, that's fine, they now own the responsibility for those toxic chemicals and carry the responsibility of the safety of the patrons. If they do not wish to provide restitution to their patrons for exposure to toxic chemicals, they need to present every patron with a description of the risks and require a hold harmless agreement prior to entry.

Think ski resorts or rock climbing establishments require these types of agreements due to the bodily harm that is possible.

My line of thinking is simpler.

You can just make the world a better place, starve the lawyers, and stay the hell home. Leave other people alone. Literally. Stay away from them. Dont demand or even suggest rules, paperwork, disclosures, agreements...nothing.

Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.

(And by the way, everything is toxic. So just stop. Leave other people alone.)

[Ronin Truth]

My line of thinking is simpler.

You can just make the world a better place, starve the lawyers, and stay the hell home. Leave other people alone. Literally. Stay away from them. Dont demand or even suggest rules, paperwork, disclosures, agreements...nothing.

Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.

(And by the way, everything is toxic. So just stop. Leave other people alone.)

+Rep!

[spudea]

My line of thinking is simpler.

You can just make the world a better place, starve the lawyers, and stay the hell home. Leave other people alone. Literally. Stay away from them. Dont demand or even suggest rules, paperwork, disclosures, agreements...nothing.

Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.

(And by the way, everything is toxic. So just stop. Leave other people alone.)

I mean it's ok if you believe in anarchy, just don't delude yourself.

Edit: Libertarianism does accept laws and rules when actions affect other people.

[Suzanimal]

My line of thinking is simpler.

You can just make the world a better place, starve the lawyers, and stay the hell home. Leave other people alone. Literally. Stay away from them. Dont demand or even suggest rules, paperwork, disclosures, agreements...nothing.

Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.
Leave other people alone.

(And by the way, everything is toxic. So just stop. Leave other people alone.)

+Rep!

+ rep

I think angela's goin' soft, she didn't even call spuds a liberal.

[angelatc]

I mean it's ok if you believe in anarchy, just don't delude yourself.

Edit: Libertarianism does accept laws and rules when actions affect other people.

We respect the right of a property owner to ban smoking. No way do we support required disclosures, nor any of that other "simple" stuff you clearly put a lot of time into.

We all know smoking is dangerous, even though the anti-freedom folks dramatically inflate the repercussions. But to clarify the libertarian position:

if you choose to hang out in a bar where the owner allows smoking, you are also responsible for the horrible horrible things that will certainly happen to you later. If you own such an establishment, you are not.

If you choose to work at such an establishment, you are responsible for the horrible horrible things that will certainly happen to you later on. If you own such an establishment, you are not.

Leave other people alone. We are not responsible for the decisions that other people make, and we believe they have the right to make decisions. Especially decisions we disagree with. And even bad decisions.

[tod evans]

Smoke Nazi's are Nazi's...

If you screwballs can accept burnt petroleum and methane you've got absolutely no logical reason to snivel about plants.

Use all the P/C anti-smoke rhetoric you like but in the end you want government to force other people to do what you want for a totally illogical reason; "I don't like the smell"...

[69360]

Smoke Nazi's are Nazi's...

If you screwballs can accept burnt petroleum and methane you've got absolutely no logical reason to snivel about plants.

Use all the P/C anti-smoke rhetoric you like but in the end you want government to force other people to do what you want for a totally illogical reason; "I don't like the smell"...

I wouldn't want the guy standing in front of me in line inside a public place to be running a gasoline engine either.

I think what I have posted in this thread is very fair and reasonable. I can't see a reason for banning smoking anywhere outdoor or any private place.

[Christian Liberty]

I prefer restaurants that don't allow smoking but it should be their choice.

[Natural Citizen]

Used to be, there was a smoking section and a non-smoking section. Why can't we go back to that?

For example...Good Evening, Mr. Natty C. Welcome to our restaurant. Would you like to sit in the smoking section or the non-smoking section?

[MelissaWV]

I prefer restaurants that don't allow smoking but it should be their choice.

Exactly. For what it's worth, I'm at the younger end of the good ole days Angela was mentioning. There were not smoking sections everywhere. I remember parents at birthday parties and the like, at whatever business was hosting the party, swapping out to go smoke. It wasn't just to get away from the kids for a little bit. In establishments which catered mostly to kids you didn't generally light up right next to them. There were sometimes designated areas, but mostly the parents went outside. On the other end of the spectrum, anyplace with a bar --- yeah that includes family bars like Fridays or Chilis or whatever --- has ashtrays at the ready.


* * *


As to the people complaining that smokers are releasing toxic chemicals without your consent, I agree that a lot of fumes in my face are unwanted and pretty nasty. That's why I'd like you to please refrain from driving near me. The crud coming out of your car is pretty damned gross. Perfume and cologne and other stuff people splash all over themselves makes me sneeze and my eyes water. And good Lord those of you who cut a fart in an elevator need to be treated with at least this much disdain.

[MelissaWV]

Used to be, there was a smoking section and a non-smoking section. Why can't we go back to that?

For example...Good Evening, Mr. Natty C. Welcome to our restaurant. Would you like to sit in the smoking section or the non-smoking section?

Because every non-smoking person says they are downwind from the smoker sitting in the smoking section, or gives the side-eye when the non-smoking section is full and and there are seats in the smoking section.

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly. For what it's worth, I'm at the younger end of the good ole days Angela was mentioning. There were not smoking sections everywhere. I remember parents at birthday parties and the like, at whatever business was hosting the party, swapping out to go smoke. It wasn't just to get away from the kids for a little bit. In establishments which catered mostly to kids you didn't generally light up right next to them. There were sometimes designated areas, but mostly the parents went outside. On the other end of the spectrum, anyplace with a bar --- yeah that includes family bars like Fridays or Chilis or whatever --- has ashtrays at the ready.


* * *


As to the people complaining that smokers are releasing toxic chemicals without your consent, I agree that a lot of fumes in my face are unwanted and pretty nasty. That's why I'd like you to please refrain from driving near me. The crud coming out of your car is pretty damned gross. Perfume and cologne and other stuff people splash all over themselves makes me sneeze and my eyes water. And good Lord those of you who cut a fart in an elevator need to be treated with at least this much disdain.

I think its fairly obvious that you consent to being exposed to smoke when you choose to enter a restaurant that allows smoking. I also think that its pretty clear that somebody smoking outdoors but on their own property isn't doing anywhere near enough damage to "the air" for that to be actionable.

But the true public is more difficult, and that's one problem with the true public. In the vast majority of cases the property should be private anyway, and it being public creates a potential conflict that needn't be there.

I'm inclined to say if it must be public, probably still better for government to involve itself less, but its already involving itself by having the public thing.

[Natural Citizen]

Hey, no smokin in here. Orders the smoked salmon...

[presence]

Do you also support the elimination of laws banning

Yes.

[Suzanimal]

Yes.

+rep

[helmuth_hubener]

... require a hold harmless agreement prior to entry.

Think ski resorts or rock climbing establishments require these types of agreements due to the bodily harm that is possible.

And they shouldn't have to!! You just summed up the whole problem with your attitude. They didn't used to have to. People going skiing were somehow able to notice that THEY WERE GOING SKIING! That that was the very thing they had paid good money to do. It goes without saying that all humans had the capacity built in to sense and assess this as a risky activity. Even infants!
The overbearing, tyrannical liability system we suffer under is one of the most anti-libertarian abominations the tyrants have managed to concoct. It is insanity. It legalizes, and then mandates, insanity. Normalizing insanity, making all of society insane, is extremely destructive.

So get over it.

Toughen up.

Take responsibility.

Declare Your Independence from wimpiness. Declare Your Independence from the snowflakeitude imprisoning you.

[helmuth_hubener]

I'm inclined to say if it must be public, probably still better for government to involve itself less

Yes, and 99% of people who prize liberty share that inclination. It is that inclination that inclined them to be interested in liberty in the first place.

[Anti Federalist]

I mean it's ok if you believe in anarchy, just don't delude yourself.

Edit: Libertarianism does accept laws and rules when actions affect other people.

And you just can't, can you?

It's a pathology, cloverism, the need, the absolute moral imperative that there must be a law, that this must not be allowed.

[Anti Federalist]

And they shouldn't have to!! You just summed up the whole problem with your attitude. They didn't used to have to. People going skiing were somehow able to notice that THEY WERE GOING SKIING! That that was the very thing they had paid good money to do. It goes without saying that all humans had the capacity built in to sense and assess this as a risky activity. Even infants!
The overbearing, tyrannical liability system we suffer under is one of the most anti-libertarian abominations the tyrants have managed to concoct. It is insanity. It legalizes, and then mandates, insanity. Normalizing insanity, making all of society insane, is extremely destructive.

So get over it.

Toughen up.

Take responsibility.

Declare Your Independence from wimpiness. Declare Your Independence from the snowflakeitude imprisoning you.

Safety is death to Liberty.

[pcosmar]

Question-for-Libertarians-Authoritarians

Lets change the parameters.

Why do you insist of forcing your views on others??