Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom
According to Prof. Aeon Skoble, smoking bans are on the rise in America. At first glance, this trend seems to stage a battle of rights. The smoker claims to have the right to smoke, while the nonsmoker claims the right to clean air in "public" places such as restaurants and bars.
Smoking Bans: Banning Freedom
In many jurisdictions across the country, we’re seeing more and more bans on smoking in public places. This seems like it’s a conflict of rights because the smoker claims, “I have the right to smoke, don’t I?” Whereas the nonsmoker will claim, “I have the right to breathe clean air, don’t I?”
But in many of these areas the concept of “public places” includes bars or restaurants. And in an important way, those aren’t public places. Those are private places. The bar, the restaurants, those have owners, just like you own your home. If you’re in my house, you don’t have the right to smoke unless I say that you can smoke. And if I’m in your house, I don’t have the right to clean air unless you say I have the right to clean air. When I’m in your house, we will either smoke or not smoke, depending on what your rules are. When we’re in my house, we’ll either smoke or not smoke depending on what my rules are.
And just as you should be expected to set the use rules for your own home, surely the restaurant owner should be able to set the use rules for what goes on in that restaurant. You don’t have the right to complain that there’s smoking or that there’s no smoking, because it’s not your restaurant.
The restaurant owner knows his or her clientele, knows whether it’s the sort of establishment where it would be more advantageous to allow smoking or to ban smoking. Why not let the restaurant owner make those decisions for that establishment, just the same way that you get to make those rules for your own home?
You’re not required to go to the restaurant in the first place. If you would like to go to a restaurant where there’s no smoking allowed, then you should go to a restaurant where there’s no smoking allowed. If you’d like to go to a restaurant where there is smoking allowed, then you should go to that kind of a restaurant.
But to frame that in terms of rights is to miss the point of whose rights are in question. It’s not really a matter of smokers’ rights versus nonsmokers’ rights. It’s really a matter of property owners’ rights. You have the right to smoke in your property, and you have the right to have a smoke-free environment in your own property. But you don’t have a right to one condition or the other in somebody else’s property. The property owner’s rights are the ones that should determine the rules for use of that property. You don’t have rights that override the property owner’s rights. If I’m in your restaurant, it’s up to you whether I can smoke or not, not up to me.
Right-click the link below and select "Save Link" or "Save Target."
Comments
Smoking should be banned. because the smoking addiction is increasing the number of health issues. The smoking or Tobacco addiction is the very common issue in all over the world. It also affects on the social health and increase the health cost of the countries. It is also like a drug addiction which is dangerous and cause of death in many countries.
The notion that smoking increases health care costs is a myth. Smoking does not increase health care costs for the simple reason that smokers die at a younger age. The lifetime heathcare costs of a non-smoker that lives to the ripe old age of 90 will far exceed the lifetime healthcare costs of smoker that dies in their 50s. As for the idea of banning smoking, I would refer you to the video "What You Should Know About Drug Prohibition". The same concepts discused in that video apply.
He addresses business owners' rights and customers' rights but what about employees' rights? Isn't the main purpose of the smoking laws to protect the health rights of employees who are forced to serve the smoking customers? It's easy to say to a customer, if you don't like smoke you can visit a different non-smoking restaurant. But it's harder to justify a business owners' right to say to their employees that the hazardous to your health work conditions are just part of the job. We have other regulations to protect employees from unfair and dangerous working conditions. Would Prof. Skoble also say those regulations infringe on the business owners' rights? The rights of the individual prevail no? And in this case the employee is the individual.
I wonder what Prof. Aeon Skoble would say about university smoking bans. I go to a public university in Texas and they just banned all tobacco products on campus, not just cigarettes. Is that fair, morally or legally justifiable? I wonder what he would say.
The analysis is to simple - my property at home is different that a public accommodation.
There are a number of behavior appropriate for home, which are reasonable to restrict in public settings. We can debate if smoking is one of those - the air breather in me is glad for this, the libertarian not so much so.
The thesis of the video is wrong -- Home and my Public Resturant are different.
1. In my home I can refuse to admit any person for any reason - including personal traits such as belief and ethnicity. This would not be acceptable in a public establishment.
2. In my home I can dress or not as I wish. (oh, goodie)
3. In my own home few health and safety requirements are imposed around food preparation...most people eat restaurant food like some health department regulation. Yes it could be done privately as Kosher inspections are -- but really which is more credible.
4. As employees must work long shifts in establishments which have smoke in the air, and such smoke is linked to cancer, it is reasonable (though still perhaps not desirable) to limit smoking to personal spaces. But there is nuance beyond, "well, I can do it at home....which is also a place I own."
I disliked how the one punk was portrayed as an avid smoker. However, after two seconds of reflection, I realized that this was actually an accurate portrayal of every punk kid I know...
The smokers need is to gradually suffer freely at will and to ignore all other health concerns that may help to prevent it or help save their life. They need everyone to leave them alone, shut-up, and to let things be on their own accord without any worries or guilts. They want to be entirely left alone while they are in their own process of neglecting their health, to be experiencing suffering & damaging health, and while committing self idling suicide. They just can't pass this horrendous opportunity up, they need to experiment it for themselves, they are their own guinea pig or self test results. Also, they need to feel self health inflictions, feeling the ill-effects from the products, feeling regrets or remorse or pity that they caused upon oneself, and whatever negative & unhealthy experiences or choices they had made. And I believe they call this the good life, to have their large cake to themselves & to swallow it whole (but not to be literally taking exactly in that way, just only using it as an expression).
Okay, ZJForsytheIL is right. You’ve got to get that grammar fixed. I don’t usually resort to mentioning grammar and spelling, especially when I am being critical of someone’s work, but it is difficult to know what you’re saying in some parts of the post. With that said, I’m going unpack and pick apart your post piece by piece. Here we go:
First, you wrote, “The smokers need is to gradually suffer freely at will and to ignore all other health concerns that may help to prevent it or help save their life. They need everyone to leave them alone, shut-up, and to let things be on their own accord without any worries or guilts.”
I think you were trying to talk about “the smoker’s need”. Are you suggesting that smokers have the intrinsic quality (or a deep-seeded need) as part of their identity or character to be ignorant of health concerns? Is this the same need that makes smokers anti-social and guiltless?
Or, are you (which is hard for me to believe) making the normative claim that smokers DESERVE to be ignorant to the truth surrounding smoking and health effects. Are you making the abhorrent moral judgment that the ethical action for people to take is keep smokers in willful ignorance? I give up. What are you saying?
Second, “They want to be entirely left alone while they are in their own process of neglecting their health, to be experiencing suffering & damaging health, and while committing self idling suicide.”
Now you are making claims about the smoker’s wants. It is clear that people can make poor decisions even when all the knowledge is presented. That is one of the realities of the human condition, the vicious nature of all people, or the fallibility of all things.
You say, “They just can't pass this horrendous opportunity up, they need to experiment it for themselves, they are their own guinea pig or self test results. Also, they need to feel self health inflictions, feeling the ill-effects from the products, feeling regrets or remorse or pity that they caused upon oneself, and whatever negative & unhealthy experiences or choices they had made.”
Once again, are you suggesting that smokers deserve to feel the results of self-experimentation, effects, and regret, or are you saying it is a possessed need, maybe from addiction, that causes them to feel these things?
Either way, I have to suggest that, it is a smoker’s choice that makes them smoke. It may later be from addiction, but still, it originates as a choice from the individual. Even after the smoker is addicted, it is a choice to keep smoking. No doubt it is a hard, and more complicated one, but people are punished, and rightfully so, for making erroneous decisions or poor choices all the time even when they are in difficult situations.
Finally, you wrote, “And I believe they call this the good life, to have their large cake to themselves & to swallow it whole (but not to be literally taking exactly in that way, just only using it as an expression).”
Are you suggesting that the good life is base or primal hedonism, that we are to eat cake beyond what is good for us? That’s ridiculous, but I’d definitely legally allow you to eat cake until you died if you wanted (so long as you could provide evidence that you were still of some rational capacity). Rationality dictates or shows itself in different ways to different people, and yes, some people are more rational than others. But it is because of this fact – the fact that we can never prove a moral judgment through scientific methods – that we should not use force against others’ choices. We can't claim to know moral truths for others all the time, and we never have the moral authority of forcing moral paternalism. Just because liberty requires us to allow people to behave in some ways that are irrational or even damaging to themselves, it does not give us cause for intervention through coercion. One of the frustrating realities of applying ethics to a particular situation is having to accept the fact that if we’re not free to do the wrong thing, we’re not free at all. That’s not a defense of hedonism, or licentiousness, but it's a defense of tolerance, proper humility, and liberty.
Yeah, you're wrong, and you're grammar is really atrocious. If you are ESL, you can write up your post in a word document first, which usually can assist with grammar issues, and then copy and paste.
This is a property rights issue. I don't think you've mentioned property rights once. If you don't think smokers should get medical treatment, then drinkers should be denied medical treatment, obese people who refuse to fast should be denied medical treatment, not to mention athletes and police officers and firemen and paramedics and soldiers and actors who make drastic body changes, all of whom engage in apparently dangerous activities. If you start down that road, where does it end? You might want to remember that a good deal of medical procedures and medications all come with health risks, so would you suggest people who experience dangerous side effects from prescriptions or surgeries should be denied treatment as well?
Another problem with your thoughts is that what you're suggesting would essentially be a restriction on the largely privately owned medical field, telling them who they can and cannot treat. The percentage of smokers with or without medical insurance is probably proportional to the percentage of non smokers, making their "drain" on available medicare negligible. The cost of treating lung cancer compared to ALL other medical costs derived from unhealthy activities is pathetically small, and thus their effect on insurance premiums is also negligible.
Lastly, what if anything your post has to do with this video is lost to me. This is a forum to discuss the fight for liberty, and you should concern yourself with that aspect of the issue, not your twisted personal views on... health, or whatever it is you were trying desperately to say.
To ZJForsytheIL:
The smokers property rights is their smoking habits with many health complications being put upon themselves, to maintain & possess their tobacco/nicotine products at all times, and to always have access in buying from any retail stores. They want the harmful nasty products to control their very health/lives, drowning in their self miseries & how addiction is ruling them.
The non-smokers property rights is their own good health, living & loving their life without the ill-effects put upon them by the smokers, and to breathe/inhale clean fresh air. Their health and lives will always belong to them, they live freely and happily.
Smokers wants rights & freedom to smoke wherever, whenever, however, and to whomever with as they so pleased (even in the presence or infants, children, elderlies, non-smokers, and health conscience individuals).
Non-Smokers seek rights & freedom to be not exposed to smoky atmosphere, hopefully try not to inhale/breathe in toxic fumes into their lungs, and to hopefully live healthier long lives.
Smokers disrespect the air that anyone breathe or inhale. They just literally cover-up or mask-over the good clean air with their massive bad smog. They control the air quality by polluting it further whoever happens to be in their presence. Why, they don't even respect their own health/life either, including their children and other family members.
Non-smokers want the smokers to respect the air they breathe/inhale and to respect the health and lives of others by stop/quit smoking forever. They care about people's health/life and the environment.
Smokers seem to believe that the more air pollution there is in the world the better for them to keep on smoking because they will just blend in with the rest of the atmospheric toxins everywhere. And they might lead to believe that no one would notice or suspect a thing. They want to hopefully smother or suffocate the world. Dying ends all life.
The non-smokers and/or health conscience individuals believe that they should help our air, water, environment, and people's health/lives to make better or to improve things. There is nothing wrong with that, the need to help goes a long way. It helps heals and restores life.
You clearly have no conception of property rights.
To Riley -PUBLIUS- Inks,
You are referring to claiming material things/physical objects which can be made of temporary use from a piece of written title paper. I am regarding to human health/lives in which we all permanently belong to ourselves of once in a duration of lifetime existence. Concrete objects can be replaced, repaired, restored, trashed, damaged, ruined, demolished, moved, transferred, and/or be vacant. But, people on the other hand are quite fragile, sensitive, intelligent, comprehensive, breathing & living, caring & loving, emotional, and so irreplaceable. I believe that all living beings are generally the number one priority over all concepts and aspects of life.
Seriously NeverSmokedEver? Do you have NO respect for freedom or individual choice of others? You have All the answers as to what is best for them?
I bet YOU engage in activities that are considered unhealthy or risky...but that you consider them Enhancements to your life and choose to do them anyway.
Do you or have you ever smoked pot? Bungee jump? Hang glide? Ride a bike? Drink a beer? Drink hard liquor? Eat junk food? Jaywalked? Drive over the speed limit? Had sex?
Seriously, I am 48 and have Never smoked either--but reading your ignorant, know-what's-best-for-everyone-else response makes me want to.
Get a life. Your OWN.
The article talks about tobacco/nicotine smoking and property rights, in which I have already explained to ZJForsytheIL earlier. It is not exactly what you want/hope to read or to coincide with your thoughts but that is my own opinion on this matter. I believe it is the most undeniably correct and appropriate response given here, whether you like it or not. I still have the right to form an opinion and/or comments to which I believe.
I have many families and friends that I know who does smoke and still does, and I am not one of them. In fact, I live my life separate from them and I choose how I want to live, which is living smoke-free. My children are living smokeless lives and my grandchildren too. We don't like any type of smoking, we hate smoked filled air, and we don't do any smoking. It bothers us and our health. We know that all smoking products is unhealthy and expensive, we can't afford to lose our good health over it. We don't like being sick, for it makes us weak & endure such sufferings from it. We love to remain healthy, protecting our health/life our own way the best we can, and to live life its fullest for as long as possible.
We are trying hard of staying away from people who do smoke, including family and friends. If we do happen to see them, it will be for a very short visit and not for very often either, including holidays & birthdays. We like it that way and so do they. We live our lives in our own way and so they live theirs their way, that is how it is going to be and always will be.
Call it dysfunctional or estrangement, or both. It has been this way for so many years and we are quite used to it this way. It doesn't bother us at all, as long as we have each other, that is all that it matters.
NeverSmokedEver: To quote you, "We live our lives in our own way and so they live theirs their way" ...THAT is what this article is about and I'm glad you can respect that.
I'll be the first one to agree with you that most all evidence says smoking is a bad health choice, and I, too, avoid people and places that smoke. But I very much support their right to live their lives as they please because it's the Basis of a Free Society. And that principle is SO important.
This is similar to how important it is to let the KKK speak out with their hate speech. Their message may be terribly offensive, but we Must allow it for the sake of the greater principle of Free Speech.
Someone once said "If your principles don't cause you inconvenience, do you really have any?"
Again, I'm glad you can appreciate smokers' choice to live as they do, and your own choice to live as you do.
There is something to point out that's missed. Sensing that you like the idea that my family and I lives separately from the rest of the relatives who do smoke, and you feel the situation is respected by their right to continue on their usual bad habit, and so you obviously linked to believe that's great. Did you ever think about the lives of their children/offsprings and what their lives is like having to be living in a household filled with smoke. No, you have not. The children are being brought up by their smoking parents (this has been going on for many generations, if not longer, like our ancestors before us). They are the ones who are being exposed to and suffers from the 2nd hand smoke and 3rd hand smoke daily. I feel so sorry for them. It puts quite a strain on their health so therefore it would be quite hard for them to live healthy lives. They seemed to haven't any rights at all, no one lends a helping voice for them, and no one seems to care for them much. Who will respect the air they breathe/inhale and who will respect their health/lives, well for sure it won't be their smoking parents, you can definitely guarantee on that.
Their health/lives seems to be already predetermined without receiving any good intentions of what might be expected upon in life by their smoking parents before they were born and also throughout the entirety of their child's life. Therefore, it is most certainly the smoking parents who should have been intuitively/instinctively anticipating their child's future and to hopefully help prevent it from ever happening had never surfaced, and it has never ever occurred to them. They are just way too busy fueling their needless and impulsive addictions. Nothing or no one seems to matter much to them, as long as they are content with their gratifyingly engrossed & disgusting fixations.
The only rights that's taken advantageously is the inconsiderate & selfish smokers themselves. They control the very air their children breathe/inhale. The young ones are literally forced to take it into their lungs whether they like it or not. They are so forced to learn to ignore/tolerate it (what other choices is there), to suffer from it (for there is no way of escaping it), and eventually to learn to live with it (succumbed to unfavorable conditions). That is how it is in most homes, the smokers rights/privileges seems to be more prominent over their own children's health/lives. Don't get me wrong that the smokers don't love their children, they do indeed love and care for them, but not enough to quit/stop smoking for them. Their relentless impetuous cravings/urges always comes first before their little ones, that is so very truly sad and so very unfair.
To anthonyvardiz,
Yeah your stupid Amen to an unhealthy lifestyle, yippee, NOT, or is it so. All you need now is to jacking up the cost of health insurance premiums and all medical expenses. Demanding to seek professional help when needed and/or expect to have medical team perform services on you that you cause your own health to fail deliberately (like who cares, it's your life). The hospital is there for you during your time of need, have an open door policy and doesn't reject any type of care (whether with health insurance or not) to all smokers especially.
The job of the medical professionals is always at your service when you ignore your own health and the doctors advices/warnings, and allows you to continue doing stupid smoking habits no matter what. Life is great knowing that there will be always someone who cares and provides medical services when you can just simply enjoy the good works of another. Who needs the healing process when you have the carefree life of smoking to death. And, you can afford to make yourself even more unhealthy with all its ailments, you're fixed for life the way you always want it to be. Your tobacco/nicotine products and you will totally remain as an inseparable pair, you will never depart from it, you so badly and desperately need it. You just can't seem to live without. No one knows your trouble but you alone.
To neversmokedever,
My Amen was to the conception of private property rights, not to smoking. If people want to smoke, then yes, their costs for health insurance will go up, but this is a great market mechanism to STOP smoking.
I am so glad you make assumptions about my life. I am sure you want to control it as well.
To anthonyvardiz,
Au contraire, it is the majority smokers who are controlling the very air that we all breathe/inhale, including to themselves. They literally commit to steal/rob it away from the rest of us by masking/covering the atmosphere with their hideous smog, and this common practice is still continuing on today. Our own private property rights goes to everyone's self health/lives which belongs to the individuals. We need to say in how we want to protect ourselves from such irresponsible, careless, and abusive smoking invasions that affects us so.
I do hope our Government, Medical & Health Care Industries, any Health Conscious Individuals, Anti-Smoking Groups, and/or Clean Air Act bans these tobacco products from all marketing shelves everywhere. And of course, you can count on those mentionable people instead, stated in this above paragraph. They have the authority over such important matters.
Amen!