Fenderbender123 wrote: They say a few things

1) There isn't a lot of concrete evidence showing that second hand smoke is really bad...just a bunch of correlation (which we should all know doesn't equal causation).

2) Second hand smoke is easy to identify and easy to walk away from. Totally voluntary if you want to be exposed to it or not.



---------------------------------------------
--- DawgJaw89 wrote:


What do your libertarian principles say about 2nd hand smoke?

---------------------------------------------
--- Fenderbender123 wrote:

This goes against all my libertarian principles. Nobody should be punished for personal choices they make. That's called moral authoritarianism and it's plain wrong.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Fenderbender123 wrote: A few responses to that:

1)The list of things that people do that wind up costing me more in health insurance is infinitely long...so why don't we regulate 10,000 other activities as well? Lets ban swimming in pools or playing baseball...those are unnecessary activities that also result in injuries and thus higher insurance costs.

You are comparing swimming and baseball to smoking? Really?

2)How does taking money from a smoker and giving it to the government so that they can stick it into the big pot of funds and spend it however they want (in most cases in ways that doesn't benefit me) somehow make up for that smoker costing me more money in insurance costs? If they wanted to put it all into a side fund and then cut everybody a check who has health insurance but doesn't smoke...well hell I'd be for that.

It isn't going into a big pot. The money will be used for Cancer research, smoking cessation programs. Smoking costs california over 9 billion dollars a year in health related costs. Not to mention the amount of children who take up smoking becasue of their exposure to second hand smoke.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/..._b_1452884.html

3)Why not let doctors refuse to treat people for conditions that are caused by smoking if they are causing the problem? That would punish the smokers for what they did and free up everybody from the affects of them.

Seriously? Let doctors refuse to treat people for conditions that are caused by smoking? Maybe we can throw in people who swim and play baseball. You may want to quit this argument before you get laughed off the board.

---------------------------------------------
--- jzimmeht wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr" ><strong>Fenderbender123 wrote:</strong> They say a few things

1) There isn't a lot of concrete evidence showing that second hand smoke is really bad...just a bunch of correlation (which we should all know doesn't equal causation).

2) Second hand smoke is easy to identify and easy to walk away from. Totally voluntary if you want to be exposed to it or not.



---------------------------------------------
--- DawgJaw89 wrote:


What do your libertarian principles say about 2nd hand smoke?

---------------------------------------------
--- Fenderbender123 wrote:

This goes against all my libertarian principles. Nobody should be punished for personal choices they make. That's called moral authoritarianism and it's plain wrong.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------</ blockquote>
I call bullshy on response one and two

jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/24/2510.1

So are you saying you are ok paying more for your health insurance because someone who makes a personal choice by smoking causes your rates to go up? That personal choice has ramificationsfor others on many levels.

---------------------------------------------

Fenderbender123 wrote: Oregon had their own chain of non-smoking bars that were extremely popular before any of these bans took affect. If the people in Washington didn't care enough to demand those types of bars or were too lazy to start their own...then that was the will of the free people there. In Oregon, at least, both smokers and non-smokers had choices...what a great idea!

How do you define a right? Because everyone has equal rights...we have the right to go into a bar that allows smoking or we have the right to not patron there...I don't see where one person has more rights than another. A right isn't having something provided to you by government...in this case smoke-free bars.

Just because smokers are a minority simply makes it easier for the majority to legislate against them. Would it be okay for all the white people in Washington to vote to ban all black people from state? I see no difference in the issue.

---------------------------------------------
--- LA Coug wrote:

The smoking/non-smoking thing is actually a perfect example of where free market theory can break down. Not sure what the US smoking rate is these days.....but even including those who smoke when they go out, I would say its less than 20%. By a lot.

Yet before Seattle banned smoking in bars, 99% of bars in Seattle allowed smoking. If free market theories worked 100% of the time, the number of bars that allowed smoking would have more closely mirrored the number of people that actually smoked. Instead, we wound up with the tyranny of the minority......with the majority of bars allowing smoking to pacify the minority that did smoke.

But most importantly, you still aren't offering a compelling argument for why the rights of smokers should trump those of non-smokers.

---------------------------------------------