It is so not the same thing.  Coal mining is a specific business with specific risks.  Regulating something like that is like requiring hard hats on construction sites.  Smoking and drinking are excepted legal substance uses with known dangers.  People don't need to go to a bar or restaurant.  Those are wants not needs.  I know far too many people confuse the two.  You don't like a smoky bar or restaurant, go to a different one or stay at home.  The business owner should be able to decide on their own.  Maybe they should have the option of providing people with respirators.

I am aware that secondhand smoke is a known carcinogen.  Why are we not just making smoking in general illegal?  Why not charge people with child endangerment when they smoke around children since it's exposing them to known cancer-causing agents?

O yeah? so where does it stop? When is junk food gonna be bad...afterall... you know that is cause for people getting fat which leads to other complications.

You guys opened the door better buy your cheetos.

the funny thing is... all this taxes and stuff on smoking.... what happens when that money dries up? yeah you do realize alot of budgets use that money... and once its gone... they will find something else and tax the poo out of that "for the better good and health of the US citizen."

I have never ever grown fatter because somebody else sat next to me and ate unhealthy food.

yeah but you opened the door.

Hopw about booze. Want to play hard ball.... how many people get killed because of drunk driving? that has a secondary affect too. How about we ban booze? After all why should I lose my life or someone else because someone decided to drink?

I know I know I dont have to drive and can avoid that. Well the same can be said about smoking.... no one makes you sit next to that person do they?

I openly disagree with you?

And nobody will be forcing smokers to smoke in those same bars. So what's the problem? You are still thinking that it is OK to prohibit people from patronising whatever bar they want by allowing other people to harm them in those bars at will.

Why wouldn't government have a say in that?

No, it's not fair game. There is no right to harm other people against their will. Smokers do NOT have such a privilege. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that everybody agrees that, for smokers, harming other people is OK. It is not and I refuse to compromise on that point.

I assume that the same money now spent on tobaco and tobaco taxes will eventually be spend on other products and those taxes. Are you assuming that smokers will simply burn their money if they don't spend it on tabaco taxes any more? They won't.

Their money will instead flow into other areas of the economy and all those areas are taxed. Once the resources now spent on producing cigarettes are invested into other, more productive, parts of the economy, the entire economy is likely to benefit.

But then nobody is saying that smoking should be illegal. I don't think government has (or should have) the power to make it illegal for people to do whatever they want to their own bodies.

It's when it affects other people against their will that I draw the line.

And my patronising a public house does NOT, repeat NOT, constitute my agreement that you or anybody else is allowed to harm me. Any argument based on the assumption that _I_, not the person intending to harm me, but _I_, can go elswewhere, ignores the basic issue; which is that you and I have the RIGHT not to be harmed by another person without our consent and that you and I do NOT have the right to harm another person without their consent.

I open no dorrs by insisting that I have a right not to be harmed, except in such a way that if we agree that I have such a right now, we might have to agree that I have such a right in future too.

You, on the other hand, by arguing that certain types of harm are legitimate because X (and I don't know what that X is), are opening the doors to allowing more types of harm. And I know you didn't even understand the problem by comparing it to eating junk food.

But as I said before, I am not harmed by sitting next to someone who eats unhealthy food. I am harmed, however, by sitting next to someone who smokes or shoots me.

He can eat what he wants, smoke what he wants if I don't have to breath the stuff, and shoot himself if he so chooses.

But he must not force me to eat what I don't want to eat, make me breath what the poison he decided I must endure, or shoot me.

In case anyone thinks I am arguing this because I'm a smoker, I'm not, never have been and avoid smoke as much as I possibly can.  I don't go to smoky bars, bowling alleys, etc.  I don't allow people, including grandparents to smoke in our home or near our children.

I'm arguing for the rights of American people and business owners.  I'm arguing against handing our balls over to the government.  I often find it funny that a lot of the same people howling about how awful our government is are the same ones constantly trying to give them more control.

I knew you don't smoke. But you are still looking at this as if the basic assumption was that smokers have a right to harm people and that those who don't want to be harmed have to explain why smokers don't have such a right. I think it's the other way around.

You are arguing for the rights of those American people and business owners who believe that they have a right to harm others. You are certainly not arguing for my right not to be harmed.

If smoking were allowed in my office, you say I could quit my job. But what's the point of that? Why surrender the economy to people who insist on harming others? There are lots of reasons to quit a job, but "my colleages legally harm me against my will" should not be one of them. THEY can easily smoke outside and the problem is solved.

If I ran my own business and insisted on my right to shoot my employees, they would certainly not argue that this is fine, since nobody has to work for me. Likewise, there exist safety regulations for factories and mines despite the fact that nobody "has" to work there.

In an office second-hand smoke is certainly a non-essential risk, meaning that it does not occur naturally because of the type of work. In mines and factories they have laws against even those risks that are part of the work and non-avoidable.

And I am arguing against handing our balls over to smokers.

I don't need the government in this. I would be perfectly content with people deciding that harming me is wrong even if the government does not specifically address all possible mechanisms that people might decide to use to harm me.

Forcing people not to smoke in certain places is less invasive than forcing people to breath smoke when they don't want it. And I tend to support whatever mechanism is less invaside and protects my rights best.

I find smokers awful and don't want them to have more control. I find government awful too, and I find government even more awful if it gives smokers so much power over me.

If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada

in my city, we are no longer allowed to smoke in public places: no bars, shopping malls, restaurants, and a ban on smoking with minors in the car has just been passed as well.  People tried to get away with it the first couple of months but with hundred+ dollar fines for the individual and a 5 thousand dollar fine for first time owner offenders and growing fines for repeat offenders it all stopped pretty quickly. 

The bars are just as full.  Outdoor patios are all the rage. Life goes on. 

As a smoker, I do miss it.  But the non-smokers are pretty happy. As a smoker, I'm not that selfish to admit that my addiction is damaging to others. I'm all right with it that way, but I am bitter when I have to bundle up and go outdoors in the winter time every single time I want a smoke. It's easier to quit, so I've heard. I know a lot more non-smokers now, than before the ban.

Nicky

I don't see that as an option at all. I don't see why I have to work around other people's harmful actions when I could simply rely on my right not to be harmed against my will.

I could also wear a bulletproof vest and never speak up against violent people, but I prefer laws against shooting people or beating people up.

It's the law here. The free market can solve most problems. And I am even sure that it can solve this problem. But I do not want a "free market solution" for the violation of my rights. Even if violating my rights is a bad policy, economically, and hence the free market would eventually (perhaps tomorrow) make sure that it doesn't happen, I _still_ insist that I won't be harmed REGARDLESS of the market situation for such actions.

Most bars don't have loud music. Before the smoking ban ALL bars had smokers.

The music thing violated my freedom, but not much. I don't care about loud music played in a few bars that much.

Shooting is legal. Shooting people isn't legal.

And that's the same way I see smoking. _Smoking_ is and should be legal. But smoking where others are harmed by it should be illegal.

I come from Germany. In Germany, until last year and certainly when I lived there, smoking was legal anywhere and everywhere. It was only a year ago that they prohibited it in hospitals and raised the legal age to buy cigarettes to 18. (I think they are still discussion whether raising the drinking age to 18 would be a good idea too.)

When I worked in a German office, colleagues smoked. They always asked if it bothered people and probably wouldn't have smoked if it had. But there was no law against it and no company regulations either. Perhaps ironically, given your position on this, they did perceive their habit as harmful to others and didn't seem to think that a specific law is required to keep them from harming others without their permission. Smoking and harming me was NOT their right, it was a privilege that, at least theoretically in a polite society, required my permission. You are arguing that it is an "American right".

Occasionally American film stars would appear on German television and smoke a cigar, telling everyone that they always enjoy coming to Germany because of the German pro-smoking attitude.

I don't see American rights as different from anybody else's rights. _I_ have the right not to be harmed against my will, and so do Americans. On the other hand NOBODY, not I and not an America, has the right to perform an action that WILL harm others against their will.

How many Irish pubs in Dublin have you heard of that prohibited smoking before the general ban?

What this really boils down to is:

Does the government really care about your your health?

Answer: ONLY if it will cost them money. Otherwise they can careless if you fall over dead. They will care if too many fall over dead because that reduces the tax base.

Ordinary people have an opinion based on their self-interest, for good or bad, because at the end of the day it what "I" think should be or not, regardless of what "they" think. And so far in this society (for now at least) the "I's" have it.

That's a subjective opinion.  There are plenty of studies that show the damage loud music can do.  The point is, if you start with smoking, why won't music be next?  Drinking is dangerous not only because of drinking and driving but people get drunk and fight or stumble around and break things or injure people.  Why not ban drinking next?  Sure, they tried it before but that doesn't mean that they won't try it again.

I have an example of where the ban would be a problem, what about VFW halls?  I grew up helping out at my the VFW hall that my grandpa (WWII vet) belonged to. That place was always a fog of smoke but you know what, most of those guys, my grandpa included, got hooked on smoking during the war that they were fighting for our freedoms.  Should the government be able to go in and tell them they can't smoke in their own place now?