The proposed law

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I use that expression after I eat food but nobody's suggesting banning me eating food in public. The point is that it's a desire for something. Needs aren't fixed things when you're talking about people. Potentially everything is psychologically addictive. You can't make a blanket statement covering what everyone, everywhere, ever felt about having a cigarette though.

Besides, he's talking crap anyway because even if you've never smoked (i.e. not addicted) the nicotine in a cigarette gives you a very mild buzz anyway.

[JonnyBGood]

I get my buzz off beating communists with sticks.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I see. So they don't care enough to let it interfere with their social life, but letting the state wade in with coercive measures is all good? That's a kind of worrying philosophy which seems to dominate public life these days.

Perhaps, but the problem remains and if no-one is going to deal with it individually, maybe it then falls to the state to resolve the issue.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Perhaps, but the problem remains and if no-one is going to deal with it individually, maybe it then falls to the state to resolve the issue.

I don't see people willfully doing themselves harm as a "problem" per se. I know the dangers of going into a smoking environment, I still choose to do it. What's the problem?

[Deepflow]

its pretty obvious what peoples 'problem' with this is.

its also pretty obvious that the harm of banning smoking outweighs the harm caused by this 'problem'

notice how i used apostrophes around the bits i didnt like then? clever eh?

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I use that expression after I eat food but nobody's suggesting banning me eating food in public. The point is that it's a desire for something. Needs aren't fixed things when you're talking about people. Potentially everything is psychologically addictive. You can't make a blanket statement covering what everyone, everywhere, ever felt about having a cigarette though.

You need food to survive.

You need cigarettes for.. ______ . ?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You need cigarettes for.. ______ . ?

The same reason you "need" booze, loud music, etc?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You need food to survive.

You need cigarettes for.. ______ . ?

Nah man, over here in Ireland we live off regular injections of various drugs and minerals. It's doing well so far

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The same reason you "need" booze, loud music, etc?

Drink is a social lubricant. Loud music. Does it have to be loud? I dont know. I prefer listening to Del Amitri on volume setting 5. Its not harming anyone.

You arent trying to bracket cigs in with drink and music in the "entertainment" category surely, theres no entertainment in fags

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Drink is a social lubricant. Loud music. Does it have to be loud? I dont know. I prefer listening to Del Amitri on volume setting 5. Its not harming anyone.

You arent trying to bracket cigs in with drink and music in the "entertainment" category surely, theres no entertainment in fags

Entertainment is a personal subjective choice. Otherwise I'd be outlawing goths, rap music, hippies, sitcoms and people who refer to themselves in the third person.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You arent trying to bracket cigs in with drink and music in the "entertainment" category surely, theres no entertainment in fags

What Jonny said. You seem to be implying that because you don't enjoy it, it's OK to ban it.

Plenty of people get enjoyment out of cigarettes. I personally despise the habit, but my subjective opinion isn't relevent.

A lot of people don't like drinking, and if we lived in a Muslim state, they'd be banning it too.

[Deffeh]

Its not because i dont enjoy it. Its because its pointless, and harmful to others. The existance of goths, rap music, hippies, sitcoms etc might be irritating but its not directly harmful.

If people have to smoke, then they should do it alone. (Though im all for whoever said double the price and make smoking patches etc free). And im arguing again that a cig doesnt provide entertainment, it provides craving relief. Why do you think smokers above the age of 13 dont say to non smokers "Try it, you have to give it a shot, its really good" ?

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Yes but the point is that what other peopel do is none of your bloody business.

What you are advocating is that everyoone should be forced into a social straight jacket where the slightest behaviour that is deemed by the majority to be without a good reason is outlawed. That's kind of fascist dude.

It is if im breathing in their fumes. You crazy liberals live in one hell of an antisocial soceity.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Its not because i dont enjoy it. Its because its pointless, and harmful to others. The existance of goths, rap music, hippies, sitcoms etc might be irritating but its not directly harmful.

If people have to smoke, then they should do it alone. (Though im all for whoever said double the price and make smoking patches etc free). And im arguing again that a cig doesnt provide entertainment, it provides craving relief. Why do you think smokers above the age of 13 dont say to non smokers "Try it, you have to give it a shot, its really good" ?

There are people who argue that marilyn manson's music and rap music has contributed to various murders. There's the well known case of the kid who tried to climb walls after watching spiderman. Goths don't wash, stink up public transport, are excessively loud, hurt themselves by piercing their body and encourage anti-social behaviour. Sitcoms provide a warped, idealised view of reality that recent studies have shown to adversely affect children who watch them before interacting normally with the other sex leading to relationship difficulties in later life.

Oh and if someone told me they didn't drink alcohol I wouldn't go up to them and say "here, you have to try this drink - it's fantastic".

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

If people have to smoke, then they should do it alone.

Alone?? So if two smokers want to smoke together, you're against that?

If two smokers and their friend (non-smoker) want to sit together for the evening and the two smokers smoke, that's not right? What are you going to do, ban non-smokers from marrying smokers?

I presume you meant "in private" rather than "alone". You're only breathing in fumes when you CHOOSE to go to places where people are allowed to smoke. I am all for banning smoking in truly public places. Two guys smoking in a bar somewhere doesn't hurt you until you actually wander in. So long as there is a sign saying "This establishment allows smoking" I don't see the problem.

I think it's pretty warped to imply that valuing other people's freedom is "anti-social".

[Deepflow]

i enjoy smoking, before i was addicted i did too. Thats kind of how it happened. I enjoy the feeling of smoke in my lungs, i enjoy the feeling in your mouth when you take a drag, i enjoy the feeling of having something that can harm people in my hand (thats probably just me, but hey), i enjoy posing with cigarettes (thinking i look cool, objectively im aware that i look like an idiot killing himself slowly, but thats entirely besides the point).

you dont get that from cigarettes, fine. But i do, and plenty of other people do too. except for the third one, thats probably just those with S&M tendencies.

im sure i dont enjoy a lot of the things you do (whatever they are) but im not trying to stop you. Personally i think drinking as much as you do is stupid, and its probably doing more damage to you than the cigarettes ive had so far have done to me.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There are people who argue that marilyn manson's music and rap music has contributed to various murders. There's the well known case of the kid who tried to climb walls after watching spiderman. Goths don't wash, stink up public transport, are excessively loud, hurt themselves by piercing their body and encourage anti-social behaviour. Sitcoms provide a warped, idealised view of reality that recent studies have shown to adversely affect children who watch them before interacting normally with the other sex leading to relationship difficulties in later life.

Oh and if someone told me they didn't drink alcohol I wouldn't go up to them and say "here, you have to try this drink - it's fantastic".

Hence why i made sure to say directly, rather than indirectly. People will always be idiots like spiderboy. Not all goths dont wash but they do still exist and i want to hit them all and tell them life isnt so bad. Everything you do, everything you see every day affects you like it or not. My life would be completely different today if i woke up and there was no coke in the fridge. So what? A lack of coke, tv, movies, goths, none of them give you cancer.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Alone?? So if two smokers want to smoke together, you're against that?

If two smokers and their friend (non-smoker) want to sit together for the evening and the two smokers smoke, that's not right? What are you going to do, ban non-smokers from marrying smokers?

I presume you meant "in private" rather than "alone". You're only breathing in fumes when you CHOOSE to go to places where people are allowed to smoke. I am all for banning smoking in truly public places. Two guys smoking in a bar somewhere doesn't hurt you until you actually wander in. So long as there is a sign saying "This establishment allows smoking" I don't see the problem.

I think it's pretty warped to imply that valuing other people's freedom is "anti-social".

If two smokers want to smoke together thats fine. If a non smnoker is happy with getting cancer then thats their choice.

But this choice thing is absolutely ludicrous. Why on earth should the status quo be that places such as pubs, should become breeding grounds for cancer? Why is that the normality? Because its tradition? When i CHOOSE to go to the pub, i CHOOSE to go and have a drink with friends, maybe watch some tv, maybe win or lose a few quid in the puggy. I dont EVER choose to breathe in smoke fumes while im eating my atrocious pub grub. Its enforced on me. Its absolutely ludicrous that if i want a drink i have to bear this, that its made more difficult for me as a non smoker than it is for a smoker to enjoy a pub. Im not the one with the anti social habit, why should i be inconvenienced?

[Deepflow]

its absolutely ludicrous that scallys arent all killed at birth. They are a detriment to my health and frequent pubs.

[at0mic.c0w]

like Deffeh said.

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

When are you breathing in their fumes and exactly what harm does this do to you exactly that you could not avoid?

Thew world is full of risks. Are you suggesting that we should never leave our homes?

Am I at fault if I choose to walk along a local road every day which I know reckless drivers occasionally speed down, and one day I'm hit and killed?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Hence why i made sure to say directly, rather than indirectly. People will always be idiots like spiderboy. Not all goths dont wash but they do still exist and i want to hit them all and tell them life isnt so bad. Everything you do, everything you see every day affects you like it or not. My life would be completely different today if i woke up and there was no coke in the fridge. So what? A lack of coke, tv, movies, goths, none of them give you cancer.

Alright, we're not communicating. For one thing psychological damage is very, very real and often totally unavoidable.

However let's put it this way.


Example 1.

Smoking is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go to clubs and pubs which permit smoking they breathe in the smoke passively. This may lead to disease in later life and is a health risk.


Example 2

Loud music is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go to clubs and pubs which play loud music they listen to it by virtue of being there. This may lead to hearing problems in later life and is a health risk.

Example 3

Chocolate is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go swimming in a giant freaking chocolate pool they inevitably swallow some of it . This may lead to weight problems in later life and is a health risk.

You're in these various establishments because the owner has given his consent for you to be. In these establishments you have no "extra" rights. If the owner allows people who smoke to use his establishment as well then you have a few simple choices

a) avoid the smoke, go home, set up a fascist dictatorship in your back garden and put your cat in a gas oven

b) go to a club which doesn't permit smoking. enjoy life

c) go to a club which permits smoking. enjoy life but die five years earlier.

The one thing you can't do is tell people which basic rights they cannot allow people on their own property. It is a basic right to be free to do with your body as you please.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i enjoy smoking, before i was addicted i did too. Thats kind of how it happened. I enjoy the feeling of smoke in my lungs, i enjoy the feeling in your mouth when you take a drag, i enjoy the feeling of having something that can harm people in my hand (thats probably just me, but hey), i enjoy posing with cigarettes (thinking i look cool, objectively im aware that i look like an idiot killing himself slowly, but thats entirely besides the point).

you dont get that from cigarettes, fine. But i do, and plenty of other people do too. except for the third one, thats probably just those with S&M tendencies.

im sure i dont enjoy a lot of the things you do (whatever they are) but im not trying to stop you. Personally i think drinking as much as you do is stupid, and its probably doing more damage to you than the cigarettes ive had so far have done to me.

As far as im aware its still illegal to be drunk in a british pub. Also, i may drink too much but as of yet i have not attacked anyone or their possesions, have not lost anyone any money, have not given anyone cancer. My drinking damages me and me alone.

I cant argue with how you feel personally about cigarettes but i can tell you for a fact your glamourising it to an extent that isnt even funny. I see my mum smoke 20 a day at home and cough and say she wishes shed never started and your giving me all this "it feels good in my mouth" bollocks? Let me tell you; you probably smell like shit, anyone who kisses you is gonna say you taste of shit, and you sound like the ****ing marlboro man.

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

You have to do a hell of a lot of passive smoking to get cancer from it and even if you avoided all that and went to live in an oxygen tent in the alps you might get cancer from something else anyway.

So because im going to die anyway it doesnt matter if its up to other peoples anti social habits when its going to happen to me?

[lokken]

Since when have non-smokers had a choice not to go into pubs that allow smoking, or for that matter, smoking areas in pubs. From personal experience, that's far from the case.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

If two smokers want to smoke together thats fine. If a non smnoker is happy with getting cancer then thats their choice.

But this choice thing is absolutely ludicrous. Why on earth should the status quo be that places such as pubs, should become breeding grounds for cancer? Why is that the normality? Because its tradition? When i CHOOSE to go to the pub, i CHOOSE to go and have a drink with friends, maybe watch some tv, maybe win or lose a few quid in the puggy. I dont EVER choose to breathe in smoke fumes while im eating my atrocious pub grub. Its enforced on me. Its absolutely ludicrous that if i want a drink i have to bear this, that its made more difficult for me as a non smoker than it is for a smoker to enjoy a pub. Im not the one with the anti social habit, why should i be inconvenienced?

Go set up a pub and ban smoking please.

As a friend of mine enjoys saying "life sucks? shut up and deal with it." You do not deal with it by enforcing your personal preferences on other people on their property.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Example 1.

Smoking is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go to clubs and pubs which permit smoking they breathe in the smoke passively. This may lead to disease in later life and is a health risk.


Example 2

Loud music is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go to clubs and pubs which play loud music they listen to it by virtue of being there. This may lead to hearing problems in later life and is a health risk.

Example 3

Chocolate is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go swimming in a giant freaking chocolate pool they inevitably swallow some of it . This may lead to weight problems in later life and is a health risk.

Example 1

I go to a pub and smoke a cigarette. this is a health risk for me and anyone present.

Example 3

I go to a pub and eat a bar of chocolate. this will make me fat but is not a health risk for anyone else

do you see the difference Mr. JBG

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

its absolutely ludicrous that scallys arent all killed at birth. They are a detriment to my health and frequent pubs.

I'd be all for this if there was any scally/ned verification. Some people dont deserve life.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Alright, we're not communicating. For one thing psychological damage is very, very real and often totally unavoidable.

However let's put it this way.


Example 1.

Smoking is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go to clubs and pubs which permit smoking they breathe in the smoke passively. This may lead to disease in later life and is a health risk.


Example 2

Loud music is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go to clubs and pubs which play loud music they listen to it by virtue of being there. This may lead to hearing problems in later life and is a health risk.

Example 3

Chocolate is bad for you, but some people enjoy it for various psychological reasons. However when people go swimming in a giant freaking chocolate pool they inevitably swallow some of it . This may lead to weight problems in later life and is a health risk.

You're in these various establishments because the owner has given his consent for you to be. In these establishments you have no "extra" rights. If the owner allows people who smoke to use his establishment as well then you have a few simple choices

a) avoid the smoke, go home, set up a fascist dictatorship in your back garden and put your cat in a gas oven

b) go to a club which doesn't permit smoking. enjoy life

c) go to a club which permits smoking. enjoy life but die five years earlier.

The one thing you can't do is tell people which basic rights they cannot allow people on their own property. It is a basic right to be free to do with your body as you please.

Its a basic right to me for people to do with their own body what they please so long as their actions are not harmful to others. Smoking is harmful. Where is this association from that suggests alcohol and smoking are related? Why isnt smoking permitted in private libraries? Should there not be ashtrays on little study desks in private schools? (im obviously avoiding government owned facilities as they are undisputably under government regulation).

What about the creation of smoking huts? Lets call them suts, like pubs but primarily for smoking. People can apply to be a suts establishment where smoking is permitted. They can then get a liquor license if they want. Im not about to argue that. The sut is for smoking, drinking is secondary. People come to smoke, and drink

At a pub people come to drink, secondary is smoking.

Thats the way i see it

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

But this choice thing is absolutely ludicrous. Why on earth should the status quo be that places such as pubs, should become breeding grounds for cancer? Why is that the normality? Because its tradition?

Who cares if it's normality? That's not relevent.

Basically, you want to hang around with a bunch of people (i.e. the customers of the pub). Some of these customers are doing something which is annoying / harming you. If you don't like it, leave. Or speak to the landlord and suggest he has non-smoking nights or somesuch.

Stop trying to enforce your wishes on other people's spaces (i.e. pubs in this case).

[lokken]

Everyone would go to the smoking houses as at least one of their friends probably smokes and would insist on going there.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

Example 1

I go to a pub and smoke a cigarette. this is a health risk for me and anyone present.

Example 3

I go to a pub and eat a bar of chocolate. this will make me fat but is not a health risk for anyone else

do you see the difference Mr. JBG

Pick driving a car down a road then, or the loud music one.

Its a basic right to me for people to do with their own body what they please so long as their actions are not harmful to others. Smoking is harmful. Where is this association from that suggests alcohol and smoking are related? Why isnt smoking permitted in private libraries? Should there not be ashtrays on little study desks in private schools? (im obviously avoiding government owned facilities as they are undisputably under government regulation).

The point is that it's the owner's choice over whether or not to permit smoking. If the owner banned non-smokers from his pub would that be okay? It's his choice over whether or not to let you on his property. How about if they let in people who were okay with smoking, regardless of whether or not they did it themselves?

What about the creation of smoking huts? Lets call them suts, like pubs but primarily for smoking. People can apply to be a suts establishment where smoking is permitted. They can then get a liquor license if they want. Im not about to argue that. The sut is for smoking, drinking is secondary. People come to smoke, and drink

At a pub people come to drink, secondary is smoking.

Thats the way i see it

Don't be silly. People can do what they like with their property. If they want to permit smoking, sell alcohol and play loud music so be it. If they want to ban smoking, sell pink sombreros and play mexican music so be it. Unless they start murdering and killing people it's absolutely no business of the state whatsoever. Saying that a pub is primarily for drinking is just a personal judgement, backed by the opinion of the majority. If I got eight hundred million people to agree it's primarily for drying umbrellas would it be so?

[Nondescript Human]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

No i'm suggesting the opposite.

But surely if any damage incurred through passive smoking is our own responsibility because we could have avoided it, any action on such public property is permissable as we could choose not to go there and thus not expose ourselves to these risks? In this case, I would feel extremely uneasy going anywhere.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I don't think smoking can be called anti-social, many smokers socialise and no doubt as a social prop it encourages sociality, you on the other hand by insisting that smokers should be alone are anti-social.

General post in support from experience.

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

But surely if any damage incurred through passive smoking is our own responsibility because we could have avoided it, any action on such public property is permissable as we could choose not to go there and thus not expose ourselves to these risks? In this case, I would feel extremely uneasy going anywhere.

Public and private property are rather different things.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Why isnt smoking permitted in private libraries? Should there not be ashtrays on little study desks in private schools? (im obviously avoiding government owned facilities as they are undisputably under government regulation).

I think you're confused here. Myself and Jonny are not arguing for smokers rigths. We're arguing for the rights of property holders (or property owners for Jonny I guess). Private libraries should allow smoking - if the people who run them WANT to. We're not saying landlords SHOULD allow smoking, merely it's their choice.

I want to give people maximum freedom, not force them one way or another. As I've said repeatedly, I hate the smell of smoke, and would be quite pleased if the clubs, etc I go to outlawed smoking. But I don't want the state telling the people who run these clubs, etc what to do.

[LHC]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Why isnt smoking permitted in private libraries?

Because people don't want smoking in private libraries, and the owner chose to ban it. If they didn't people would choose to not go there.

In the same way, a pub owner should be able to choose whether or not to ban smoking on their property.

[JonnyBGood]

An example which should hopefully bring home my actual point here is as follows.

Every weekend me and about five-seven mates of mine play poker in one guy's house. Three of our group smoke. Personally I dislike the smell of smoke, especially as the smell gets in my clothes. Now when we're over there they either smoke out in the back garden or in the room where we play (which is next to the garden). We don't have a majority vote over where they have to smoke if they want to, it's up to the guy whose (or who's?) house it is to decide. Geddit?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Similarly with Smoking in the open air it does no harm and in a pub you know what to expect.

It does a bit of harm outside (not just to the environment) - if theres no wind and you're around people smoking you'll feel/smell/breathe it.

Also - why is drinking in a pub synonomous with putting up with smoke? Its not.

And yes I know pubs could choose not to let ppl smoke but they know that they'd lose business. However, if they were all forced to do so at the same time, then the majority are happy - its a case of govt intervention to help reach the case the majority wants.

Yeah I know you've covered all this above, just wanted to put my opinion across

Edit: hehe my post count

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

As far as im aware its still illegal to be drunk in a british pub. Also, i may drink too much but as of yet i have not attacked anyone or their possesions, have not lost anyone any money, have not given anyone cancer. My drinking damages me and me alone.

I cant argue with how you feel personally about cigarettes but i can tell you for a fact your glamourising it to an extent that isnt even funny. I see my mum smoke 20 a day at home and cough and say she wishes shed never started and your giving me all this "it feels good in my mouth" bollocks? Let me tell you; you probably smell like shit, anyone who kisses you is gonna say you taste of shit, and you sound like the ****ing marlboro man.

im gonna give up before im your mums age anyway. If i give up before im 30 it does minimal damage anyway. Thats ten years ive got.

hey, i may be glamourising it in your eyes, but thats how i feel about it right now. If i change my mind, youll be the first to know, i promise you. Also, if i gave up smoking, id have to give up weed, and im not planning on doing that any time soon either.

I wash and deodorise enough to not smell like shit, i havent had any complaints about my taste either. Although that could just be down to politeness, but whatever, i make up for it.

Your drinking damages you alone, thats probably true. It doesnt make it any more worthy a pursuit however.

And for the record, i was anti smoking bans before i smoked. I just dont believe that its fair to smokers, at all, for the relatively little harm they do to others that they should be persecuted in such a fashion.

[Nondescript Human]

Surely you must either:
(a) argue that it is not the responsibility of the state to encroach upon individual liberties in any way, meaning that one person harming another is permissable and thus enabling smoking in public, torture and murder,
or
(b) argue that it is the responsibility of the state to prevent one person harming another in any way, and that smoking in public, torture and murder should thus be prevented.

In other words, either you acknowledge the role of the state in preventing one person from harming another or you do not. To pick and choose between the intentional and unintentional, delayed and immediate or anything else is inconsistent.

Why should the state be allowed to prevent you from murdering me over a period of a day but not twenty years?
Yes to both or no to both are the only options.

[Deepflow]

for ****s sake! how many people a year actually DIE from passive smoking anyway?

[Deepflow]

also nondescript, there is no reason theres shouldnt be a compromise, no reason whatsoever.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Stew

It does a bit of harm outside (not just to the environment) - if theres no wind and you're around people smoking you'll feel/smell/breathe it.

We have these things called 'Motorcars' which release noxious gases in rather larger quantities, and more constantly, and more reliably, than someone smoking on a road. They do more damage to your health, more damage to the environment, and make the air smell worse.

Banning smoking outside because at some point you may possibly be near someone who's smoking and if the wind conditions are just right you might smell something just is ludicrous.

ps.

I agree with Dante entirely in this thread. Perhaps some sort of tag-team is in order.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Nondescript Human

Surely you must either:
(a) argue that it is not the responsibility of the state to encroach upon individual liberties in any way, meaning that one person harming another is permissable and thus enabling smoking in public, torture and murder,
or
(b) argue that it is the responsibility of the state to prevent one person harming another in any way, and that smoking in public, torture and murder should thus be prevented.

In other words, either you acknowledge the role of the state in preventing one person from harming another or you do not. To pick and choose between the intentional and unintentional, delayed and immediate or anything else is inconsistent.

Why should the state be allowed to prevent you from murdering me over a period of a day but not twenty years?
Yes to both or no to both are the only options.

I personally believe in (c), which is 'The state should encourage the rights of the individual as long as the rights in question do not impede others' right of choice', which is kind of the argument in this thread. Forcing all the pubs to be non-smoking is a reduction of rights, because it restricts people from dictating what legal activities are allowed on their property. Forcing all public buildings to be non-smoking isn't a decrease of rights, because the only group being forced into accepting a situation are the government themselves, and saying that a law is bad because it reduces the rights of the government is a zero-sum game at best.

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Saying that a pub is primarily for drinking is just a personal judgement, backed by the opinion of the majority.

Nah, it's a Platonic essence.

[queball]

More of my incoherent rambling!

Who owns a pub? Who we traditionally call the owner, with a set of deeds, only has some rights. The council has other property rights, the government has some property rights, and neighbouring property owners, water companies, etc might have further rights. The Irish parliament certainly has the legal right to impose weird laws; one rule is that this should involve reparation to anyone who loses out, but the pub owners don't generally lose out by this. Saying the state doesn't have this right is taking away rights from the state, and so the voters and the public. I don't see why either is a priori worse. A Rothbardian argument is that there is only one obvious owner and anything else is heresy; a utilitarian argument is that it is better to give rights to individuals because this allows various benefits. So Dante supports squatters' rights, and has to place specific emphasis on the badness of statism, as a kind of political oppression seperate from judges giving rights to those who obviously should have them (I think).


The Peachian group of friends' decision is dependent on whether there are any nearby smoking pubs. I think this is the usual case where legal action is justified. But it works both ways - smokers going along to a non-smoking pub is just as likely, surely? Unless non-smokers are less likely to publicly complain about it due to coolness factors. Then this is a really paternalistic law, but did anyone doubt that?

[JonnyBGood]

Nah man, when I say rights it means something rather different and far more specific than a general "people have the right to xyz cos you're mean if you don't say so" thing. If we gave everyone, everywhere the right to do everything I severely doubt that'd solve all of our problems.

And just because something isn't a priori worse doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't been usually shown by human experience that some other way is better.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Nah, it's a Platonic essence.

Because Plato isn't shit, old, boring and dead am i rite?

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Nah man, when I say rights it means something rather different and far more specific than a general "people have the right to xyz cos you're mean if you don't say so" thing. If we gave everyone, everywhere the right to do everything I severely doubt that'd solve all of our problems.

But does everyone have the right to persue happiness, including using the state to get over market failure and so on?

And just because something isn't a priori worse doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't been usually shown by human experience that some other way is better.

Evidence that banning smoking like in New York will destroy society?

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Because Plato isn't shit, old, boring and dead am i rite?

I agree with shit, old, and boring.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by queball

Who owns a pub? Who we traditionally call the owner, with a set of deeds, only has some rights. The council has other property rights, the government has some property rights, and neighbouring property owners, water companies, etc might have further rights.

It's not really about ownership per se as I've mentioned. I doubt most landlords truly own the pub their own - the deeds to the land is either held by a third-party freeholder, the bank, or some other body. The issue seems to be the nature of the lease/tenancy they hold. This should generally lay down what rights they have over certain things. You then have the role of common law and reasonableness to tweak it a little.

The problem in a capitalist society is that a truly libertarian philosophy simply leads to private tyranny where Whetherspoons (or whatever) have gigantic powers vis-a-vis the land/etc they own. While there are market pressures re : the treatment of employee's and customers, these are often too weak to effect change. So we get dumb laws like this. If you had a pub run along some kind of co-operative lines, with customers have some kind of vote (along with staff) then you could have a proper reflection of what's wanted. Possibly.

Saying the state doesn't have this right is taking away rights from the state, and so the voters and the public. I don't see why either is a priori worse.

I'm not sure about the justification/existence for positive rights. I don't think we can speak of rights over other people in any meaningful sense. Maybe duty (in a non-binding sense) makes more sense. If I invent a Trek style replicator , I'd say it's my moral duty to try and use this for good.

But it seems wrong headed to suggest that once I've invented this super device, random people have a *right* to have free stuff from me (that's now obtainable).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

But does everyone have the right to persue happiness, including using the state to get over market failure and so on?

That's not actually one of the rights I'd argue for. It's a bit too broad, subjective and imprecise for my liking. It's more the supposed end result of acknowledging the existence of the various other rights, the right not to be killed, the right to a fair trial, the right to own property, and then carrying on with your life as you choose to.

Evidence that banning smoking like in New York will destroy society?

Many things won't destroy society. Killing some random rich guy, covering it up as an accident and using his money to provide free health-care for half the world won't destroy society. Should we do it though?

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Many things won't destroy society. Killing some random rich guy, covering it up as an accident and using his money to provide free health-care for half the world won't destroy society. Should we do it though?

im curious as to what answer you expect to that question.