Comments on: Another state encroaches on individual property rights in the name of “fresh air”

By: eric

eric — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 20:14:35 +0000

Hi Allison, Thanks for stopping by and commenting. If you are concerned about your health, I wouldn’t advise eating at any restaurant whatsoever that would permit smoking (were they free to) whether there is after-smoke there or not. The food served in virtually every restaurant is very unhealthy. I have not eaten in a restaurant in over a year for that very reason. When weighing risks I am much more concerned with how and what I eat these days than a little first hand pipe tobacco smoke.

I doubt you need to worry about health food restaurants allowing smoking even if others are permitted to.

I certainly do not, have not, and will not ever advocate for a choice about what goes in your lungs the same way I don’t want you choosing what goes in mine. So, I can’t give you a good reason. Can you give me a good reason why you should choose what goes in someone else’s lungs?

You choices will always be safe and secure. No one that I know of wants any privately owned business forced to allow smoking. You’ll always be free to choose from the establishments that prefer not to permit it.

By: Allison

Allison — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:18:34 +0000

Ok, so what do you suggest I do next time I want to go to a restaurant but worried about my health? What if every restaurant allowed smoking? Should I not go out to eat anymore? How unfair is that? Minority choice? Bullsh*t! People are dying because of tobacco smoke and all you care about are your “rights” and “choices”. Why should YOU get to choose what goes into my lungs involintarily? Give me one good reason. I don’t care about your stupid choices. What about my choices? What about my freedom to breathe fresh air and not have to worry about chronic bronchitis, lung disease, cancer, heart disease, damaged immune system, my children’s health, both mentally and physically, etc. Tobacco smoke slows us down. It’s controlled my uncle and killed my father. And the frustrating thing about it? My dad was not a smoker.

By: eric

eric — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 10:02:51 +0000

I certainly can’t say that just because a choice exists, choosing one or the other will be easy, and there is no guarantee in life that one or more of the choices available at any given time will always be ideal. There’s also the matter of how an endless sequence of previous choices led to being seemingly retrained to the current set. This is an unfortunate fact of life as we know it. The only thing worse is having choices eliminated.
—
If you have to choose between quitting a job where people smoke, that begs the question why did you take the job in the first place?
—
Maybe you have begun with the premise that, assuming I’m the owner of a coffee shop that you should not only have the right to be employed at my coffee shop, but that you should also get to set the terms? What has happened, is the government has done so on your behalf. The next time they step in and remove freedoms, you may not be as happy with the outcome, but you’ll have agreed with the precedent.
—
On your last point – as the saying goes “when you give the government power to do everything for you, you give the government power to do anything to you.”

By: Bill Connelly

Bill Connelly — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:15:30 +0000

Hmmm…
I still think you’re addressing the idea of choice a little to lightly. Choice exists on a continuum, from choices with huge costs (should I stop breathing?) to choices with no costs (should I have another cup of coffee?). A choice like “should I quit my job because I don’t want the health risks associated with second hand smoke?” is somewhere in the middle. While I would rather that people could make a better choice without government intervention, sometimes that just isn’t the case.
…
But I suppose I live in a country where the government pays for your health care, so it has more of an interest in making sure you don’t need any.

By: eric

eric — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:15:03 +0000

Hi Bill, thanks for your comments. This is a good discussion to have. I appreciate your thoughtful input.

-Employees:

So long as they aren’t forced against their will to work there, they have a choice. Each individual has to be an adult and weigh their options. Just living involves risks – these have to be weighed as well.

-Choice of establishment

I’m concerned with people being able to choose, not making everyone happy with the available choices. Its an old axiom that you can’t make everyone happy. I will say that where there is demand and freedom someone takes advantage of the opportunity to fill the need.

I know Croce’s in San Diego had gone smoke free earlier than 1994. Not the “old days” maybe but long before anyone thought all this would happen.

Again, I’m philosophically more concerned with the principles than with everyone being happy with their choices. If there are no smoke free bars and you need smoke free, don’t go to bars. If like-minded people vote with their patronage smoke free bars will open.

In my situation these laws have removed my option to choose. There is no indoor smoking here either. If the tables were turned and smokers were the majority I’d be against laws that forced business to allow smoking. If every business in my area made the decision to prohibit smoking I’d have no real complaint – at least I’d have the option to open my own place to cater to smokers and supply the demand. As it is, there is no such choice.

By: Bill Connelly

Bill Connelly — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 04:31:26 +0000

Hi Eric,

Your videos are great.

I’m a pipe smoker, and generally speaking a bit of a libertarian, but I’m not so sure I agree with all of your argument. I think the most important factor to consider is the employees.

You say that they are not forced to work there, and on the surface, of course, you are right. But how much choice does one truly have? Some people are lucky enough to be able to quit their job without significant fear of becoming unemployed, but a lot of people aren’t lucky enough to be in that position. In a lot of ways, this is similar to most employee health and safety laws: Companies can not put their employees at unnecessary risk.

Also, the argument that people can choose to go into one establishment or another against seems pretty sound, and it is one that I’m happy enough to accept. However, in some senses, it too is a false choice. For one, back in the old days, we’re there any smoke free bars near you? There certainly weren’t where I live, so I had no choice. Furthermore, we can imagine a situation where there may be a smoke free bar, but it is 5x as far away. Am I passionate enough about escaping second hand smoke to travel that far? A lot of people wouldn’t be.

In private smoking clubs, theoretically, there are no employees, just club members (I know this often isn’t the case, but it is the basis of this law). So everyone who is there believes in smoking. That is the difference that exists there.

I think Virginia has come up with quite a good middle ground; people are allowed to smoke in their homes, in private clubs and specially ventilated areas. In most countries in Europe and Australasia, you can’t smoke inside, anywhere, apart from your home. Some places even make it a crime to smoke in your car.

I don’t know the best solution. I just know it’s a complicated matter.