Should smoking be banned in restaurants

If a restaurant allows smoking, and

I smoke and I'm ok with banning smoking in restaurants, but banning smoking in bars is stupid. If your whole business model is based on people having a place to drink literal poison, it seems a little weird to be worried about health concerns.

That is a self-centered viewpoint. Your opinion is not universal; part of freedom is the right to make bad decisions. Nobody should have the right to force people to conform to their ideals. Some smokers would argue that a short but (in their opinion) happy life is better than a longer life without what they perceive to be the bringer of their happiness. Nobody has the right to dictate to another individual what their morals or way of life should be so long as their way of life does not harm another (IE: a sadist does not have the right to harm somebody).

The only argument against cigarettes is the fact that second hand smoke harms other people. But if it did not, or if smokers only smoked around other smokers / not around non-smokers, then who are you to stop them? That's selfish, and it infringes on their rights.

Rights only extend to the point where rights can harm another person's liberties. If you want to smoke, but another person does not, then you should not force them to smoke. The opposite is also true: if you don't want to smoke, you should not force somebody else to stop smoking. A murderer has no right to take your life. But what somebody does to themselves, and only directly to themselves (indirectly harming somebody by dying is selfish, but I am not counting that), is their business. People have the right to be selfish, because - at their core - most (if not all) people are inherently selfish. You have the right to be idealistic and optimistic. I have the right to be a cynic, a realist, and a staunch believer in freedom of speech / expression to their absolute extremes.

For the record: I do not smoke, because I like my life. I just believe in the rights of everybody. If I want my freedoms that I enjoy, I must give others the rights, whether they conform to my moral standards or not.

I agree.

@jedixman: So you don't care about other people life?

It's been banned for a long time where I am.

It's not my place to infringe on somebody else's rights. It's also not the right of a third part to enforce ambiguous life choices as long as they do not impact the lives of another. When you take away the rights of people whose views you do not agree with, then your rights can easily be taken away. Who draws that line? You? Me? A third party?

The answer is nobody. The only line is as I said: when your "rights" harm another individual. That's as far as it goes. It is a very distinct line.

Its banned in all indoor places where I live. Bars, strip clubs are all no goes. Anyone wants to smoke you gotta do it outside.

Some places don't even allow E-cigs or vaping inside either.

Most smokers I know don't have a problem with it. They have no problems going outside. Many smokers I know don't smoke in their own homes or vehicles either.

@jedixman: Then why are there laws against pot/maharajah/meth ect...

I'm saying that there should not be laws against drug use. I'm not speaking of the way things are, but how they should be. I am expressing my opinion on how things should be. In my hypothetical world of near-limitless free speech / expression, that would not be banned, though DWI would be and should be a serious crime.

Laws are also made by governments created by humans. Anything created by humans will be flawed and laden with bias.

@jedixman: I just don't want to see people harming themselves

That is their prerogative, and I won't stop them. Just like people shouldn't have the right to stop me from doing what I think is right just because they think it is wrong. Morals are subjective.

@jedixman: Just wondering. What do you think of alcohol?

Not only are you hurting yourself. But your more likely to hurt other as well

People should be allowed to drink. If they become abusive, there are consequences and they should be prosecuted; same for driving while under the influence. I, personally, do drink alcohol but I do not get drunk on alcohol. I am not sure why you're asking, though. Alcohol is legal and it should be. Blame the actions of the person, not the substance.

I told you, and it always defaults back to this for me: rights end when your "rights" (directly) harm another individual.

@jedixman: The right to smoke is harming yourself

And that is their right.

@jedixman: It's a stupid right

You think it's a stupid right, they do not. Your opinion does not hold more weight than another individual's opinion - if anything, the opinion of the person whose life it is directly affecting has might weight.

Smoking should be banned. Period.

Cigarettes and E-Cigs should be illegal.

Pilasy:La Voix d'un homme

Hold on, since when was smoking allowed in restaurants in the first place? I thought they banned it. Well at least "here".

@rouflex Am I right?

There should be a smoking area.

Am I the only one who gets a headache from second hand e-cigarette smoke? The weird thing is, I'm perfectly ok around regular cigarette smoke.

Yes. The idea of smoking in a restaurant just sounds gross, annoying, and inconsiderate and had I not grown up at the tail-end of a time when there were restaurants that had smoking sections, I don't think I'd ever believe that it actually happened. Because it just sounds so....wrong. Heck, it still surprises me that airlines let people smoke on planes well into the 1980s.

Already is where I live.

But I vote yes for where it isn't.

@jedixman: So if I understand you correctly you would also legalize "heavy drugs"?

In a medical point of view I am violently against this approach. For some of these drugs, the addiction is coming VERY quickly, with a dependence incompatible with a social life, acute health issues+++ and chronic ones even more. Most people are aware of a few of these dangers, almost nobody (outside the medical corp) realize all the risks.

Marijuana is a social debate with reasonable arguments on both sides.

The "heavy" drugs are right now (relatively) hard to get for regular people and change this would have dramatic medical consequences.

And that's their problem. People reserve the right to ruin their own lives, and I won't stand in the way of that. We can disagree with them, and even urge them not to. But in my opinion, nothing should be forbidden as long as it does not result in the harm of another person. If somebody does drugs alone, doesn't force people to do drugs, and even dies doing it... well, that is the result of their own choices. The responsibility falls solely on them. In the end, it was still a decision.

It's a radical approach. But to protect my essential liberties and yours, I have to protect the rights of individuals whose views and decisions I don't agree with. All or nothing; otherwise, you are giving somebody the right to decide what is right and what is wrong, and their opinion may not conform with yours or mine, resulting in the loss of rights.

Isn't smoking already banned? I'm pretty sure in my state, you can't even smoke in any buildings anymore. The only exception to this rule may be your own home, but that's about it.

@jedixman: :D

I understand your general position. In the case of the "heavy drugs", again, if you legalize it, some people, especially the young and/or uninformed ones, may try it, just out of curiosity, simply because they have access to it. Put the bags of cocaine in the supermarkets (and if it's legal, there won't be any reason for not having them) and millions of people will suddenly die. On the same page, would you like also to remove from the MDs the monopoly of prescription?

(I have some anarchist friends that are in favor of it)

@jedixman said:

Thats almost impossible though, because people don't exist in a vacuum. Not that I disagree with you, as far as banning smoking, but unless you are speaking in a theoretical, hypothetical bubble scenario, everything that a person does affects others in some small manner, some way. Smoking for example, many of the health problems that arises eventually can require resources to deal with and treat. If a society expends resources to help such individuals, well thats resources that could be spent on other things. So either pay a certain price now, or pay it later. Sometimes the negatives of the pay later idea are more significant than the positives. This is similar to many things. So the rights if individuals to make choices needs to be weighed against individuals ability to be, in an ideal sense informed, mature, responsible about their decisions. Which is a factor in how societies form rules, guidelines, so on. This is (one reason) why smoking is so heavily taxed, its dangerous in the sense of how addictive it is. When something is highly addictive it can disable an individuals ability to think in a mature, informed and responsible manner. This is (one reason) why we have limitations on the sales of smoking (age for example) but there are other complicated factors at work too. Some children may have good parents, educational systems, and so could probably , generally make better decisions regarding choosing to smoke than many adults. This is why assigning responsibility… can get tricky, because no single individual has the power or capacity to be solely responsible for something. Again in less we are talking about a vacuum hypothetical or being colloquial.

This is why types of government exist, the idea of a neutral third party to protect the interests of many, to settle he said she said situations. If you live in a society you have already, to an extent, given others the right to decide what is right or wrong, which isn't always the same thing as an opinion. Ideally one would hope those people are good at deciding what is right or wrong and or that the system that empowers them can rectify errors, produce better results with time.

Cigarettes, yes. Electronic cigarettes are fine.

If the businesses dont want it their restaurants then yes, let them decide

It depends on either situation. We're both speaking in hypothetical slippery slopes that go to extremes.

I would like to say that, despite what I have said, I am okay with the regularizing of drugs (among other things, such as prostitution, which is a debate for another time). Of course I know that hardcore drugs probably shouldn't be legal. My overall point from the get-go is that self-harm is the responsibility of the person who makes the decision to hurt themselves.

Every event has ramifications. Everything causes ripples, which is why no one moment in the universe is like another. That said, I was speaking of direct harm, as in second-hand smoke. I wasn't talking about indirect or even the emotional harm of losing a loved one to drugs.

I do disagree, though. In the end, the decision is ours. In the world we live in - and I am speaking of the average citizen, not somebody who is impoverished - there is no excuse for ignorance. You make the choice to be ignorant, and you made the decision to smoke that first cigarette in the first place.

But then you're saying that the majority is always right.

Again: I am speaking of the individual's rights to make (what we perceive to be) poor decisions, not the indirect harm that his/her decision will have on others.

@jedixman: Direct harm is a relative value. If laws were based on "direct harm", severely drunk drivers would be allowed on roads, but a consequence of being severely intoxicated is impaired driving skill and capacity. Hence endangering others, hence. No individual can only inflict direct harm, so as much about consequences needs to be considered and is attempted as far as decisions, laws around prohibiting things. Do you believe that people should be allowed the choice and freedoms to build nuclear bombs and detonate them regardless of consequences to others? Say for example if they aim was just "direct harm" to themselves?

Its not about agreeing or disagreeing. What I said isn't my opinion, preference or belief. Factually speaking individuals do not have the capacity or power to make decisions without external influences which rejects any notion of ideas like "full responsibility" or "absence of responsibility" or "complete freedom" or "complete choice" rather. Rather its measures, scales, degrees, far more complicated. Disagreeing is like saying I have the choice to fly, I just choose not to. Assigning responsibility to individuals tends to do with identifying and recognizing their power, authority and ability to exercise control and influence in a situation. So for an individual to have full responsibility for something, they would have to have complete control, authority, and ability in a situation. Adults smoking usually don't have that. Obviously thats not to say that we should excuse ignorance. Its just that ignore as well isn't a off and on switch. How many average adults do you think are experts on the effects of nicotine on the human body? The effects of water on the human body? What the various parts of the human body is caused? Advertising and how it works on the subconscious? Psychology? Biochemistry? How addiction works on a chemical scale? The history of tobacco production and laws governing it? How the human brain develops and how that affects its various capacities? How humans perceive time and consequences? If they aren't knowledgeable on those subjects, then they are ignorant in a sense. I aren't an expert on a lot of those things, so in a way I am a bit ignorant as well. Are you an expert on all those subjects?

Also… no I am not saying the majority is always right. I am saying that in some forms of government the majority can dictate what is accepted and understood as right. I am also saying that consensus is pretty important and helpful. When you use words for example, is that your opinion on how words should be used? Or are you going by a pre-established standard that attempts to be neutral? I mean even with language that can evolve, and even with language two individuals can disagree about the definition of the word, but lets say you punch someone but claim you didn't because you don't recognize or accept that particular action should be referred to as a "punch" well most likely that won't matter to the majority around you. Not based on their opinion, but what they believe as fact, and established as such by consensus and certain types of consensus, authority, so on (which may not always be the majority context dependent)

To clarify I am saying that individuals actions have consequences, of both a short term, medium and long term nature and with increments in-between. Concepts and ideas such as freedom, aren't absolutes, they often infringe on each other and have positive and negative values. The freedom of an individual to drive drunk is different to the freedom of an individual to smoke is different to the freedom of an individual to participate in rock fishing, is different to the freedom of an individual to eat an apple. There are risks and positives to each of those actions and they differ, some of them, the general society, experts, have considered not worth the risk, as far as consequences to value ratio (drinking heavily and driving). Some however are okay (eating an apple) some are based on what we know of short term consequences, some long term. There are still people alive today who lived in a time when smoking was advertised as being healthy and good for you. I'd be hesitant to be so quick to call those people ignorant. Of course one reason why smoking hasn't been banned, isn't so much freedom, but money, and so the process of raising prices has become a thing but there is some… discussion there as well, because of how addictive nicotine is, the idea of increasing prices to discourage buying can lead to addicted poor people spending more and more on their addiction than food. Either way the health problems such people end up with, ends up being a drain on resources. Again, not saying that smoking should be banned, food consumption is an even bigger problem.

Personally I prefer better educational structure and incentives (as opposed to banning things), give people more choices and help them avoid bad life decisions. Chances are you were fairly fortunate, as was I. Our intellectual capacity for example, but that in itself arguably means we have more capacity for responsibility as far as our decisions than say many others.

Not at all, it will do my asthma well.

@guardiandevil83:

They do. Hideous.

But interesting.

Oh, and there`s those who get an unhealthy reaction even out of those. Probably me too, if I were to be in a room filled with the smoke. Luckily it dissipates surprisingly quick.