About the smoking legislation

[d'Anconia]

About the smoking legislation...

I used to be totally against this law but then someone pointed out that smoking is simualr to any other harrasmant such as "throwing (soft) objects at other customers" as this person said. I was astounded to see that I have no counter-argument.

Does anyone know how to counter this claim?

Excuse me if this post is a bit unorganized.

(I tried posting this in the debate forums but it didn't apear... I don't know if this is the right section)

[mmmcannibalism]

About the smoking legislation...

I used to be totally against this law but then someone pointed out that smoking is simualr to any other harrasmant such as "throwing (soft) objects at other customers" as this person said. I was astounded to see that I have no counter-argument.

Does anyone know how to counter this claim?

Excuse me if this post is a bit unorganized.

(I tried posting this in the debate forums but it didn't apear... I don't know if this is the right section)

The private property owner(owner of the restaurant) has the right to set the behavior standards of his property. If people are at your house allowing or disallowing smoking is your choice; same principle applies to a restaurant.

[Lasse K. Lien]

To answer your friends argument, his principal is accurate - if you want to allow your costumers to throw soft objects at eachother in your bar or restaurant that is your privilege as the owner of that establishment.

Nobodys forcing anyone to use your facilities.

However, since the market demand for bars where the throwing of objects are permitted are somewhat absent it would be quite a silly rule to implement. But there should be no legal barrier to doing so (I actually kinda doubt there are such restrictions today )

[SapereAude]

I agree with the above posts.

In a private business it should be for the owner to set the policies.

His comparison is completely off-base. A business model could be one where people who want to throw things at each would be the clientelle they want- think of paintball, laser tag and such..

Someone who doesn't want to get shot with a kind of painfull ball of paint should not go to a paintball arena. Same applies with smoking- if you don't want to be "assaulted" by secondhand smoke go somewhere that doesn't allow it.

Even before smoking was banned just about everywhere in public many bars and restaurants chose to be non smoking or to allow smoking only in the bar area.

Some areas have taken the ban to extremes. In some cities business owners are getting ticketed for people smoking on public sidewalks in front of their buildings- sidewalks the owner has no control over. One business I know got ticketed (abt $1000 I think) for people smoking at the bus stop in front of his business.

I can see non-smokers finding the smell, the smoke and the health risks irritating (I happen to be a smoker myself). But when you start creating laws to dictate that others may not annoy you it opens up a whole slew of rights violations.

There's been chatter in some places about not allowing people to smoke in their own homes and cars if they have children- child abuse, they say.

[d'Anconia]

I need to present these arguments to him and I'll come back and report.

I'm pretty sure I used those arguments before... but I kinda forgot the counter argument.

This person isn't just some control freak liberal or a fanatic conservative... so his reasons are a bit better then that.

(I'm really sorry about the horrible writing style and spelling... It's late as I haven't much time lately. I will try to improve in the future)