Property owners rights vs smoking ban

[semperfi211]

The Lowell In. town council just passed a smoking ban effecting public places including bars and private clubs like the American Legion and Moose Lodge.
This bothers me. I feel this is violating the rights of property owners. I think it should be the buisness owners decision if people can smoke in his buisness and if I don't like it I don't have to go there.
I know that second hand smoke is not good but should the town council tell a buisness owner there can be no smoking on his property when he wants to allow it? Even though I don't smoke other than my 1 weekly cigar at home that I treat myself to with a glass of Makers Mark I think the owner of the property should decide if smoking is allowed.
I think including clubs is even more BS. Legion members should vote on if there should be smoking in their club not the town council.
I think laws like this are a big violation in property owners rights to do what they want in their buisness.
What do you think?

 

[mrjarrell]

I, for one think you're right. It's an egregious violation of property rights. That's probably why every libertarian I know has been against smoking bans in Indiana. Personally, I dislike the smell, but if a place is too smoky I vote with my dollars and go elsewhere, I don't want politicians involved. Sad to see that another town has embraced the same philosophy as old Adolph.

 

[rambone]

You are right. Smoking bans absolutely violate property rights of the owner. Customers choose of their own free will to enter. If the non-smoking sections are not to their liking, they are free to dine elsewhere.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You are right. Smoking bans absolutely violate property rights of the owner. Customers choose of their own free will to enter. If the non-smoking sections are not to their liking, they are free to dine elsewhere.

For what it's worth, I agree that there should be no smoking bans and I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. I do have one question of the libertarians, an honest question: If your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, does your right to exhale cigarette smoke end at my nostrils? Would I be within my rights to object to second-hand smoke in outside public venues? Remember, according to some folks, second-hand smoke is as damaging to non-smokers as it is to smokers.

 

[Eddie]

Smoking is bad for you. So is beer, staying up late, eating cheeseburgers, skydiving and sleeping with strange women. We each need to be allowed to make our own choices and be responsible for our own actions. When we allow our government to legislate what is good for us we open the door to further restrictions. Imagine going through the checkout line in your local grocery store 20 years from now: "I'm sorry Eddie, our scans show that your good cholesteral count is too high. You'll have to put back that salami and cheese."

 

[shibumiseeker]

For what it's worth, I agree that there should be no smoking bans and I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. I do have one question of the libertarians, an honest question: If your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, does your right to exhale cigarette smoke end at my nostrils? Would I be within my rights to object to second-hand smoke in outside public venues? Remember, according to some folks, second-hand smoke is as damaging to non-smokers as it is to smokers.

While I enjoy not having to deal with secondhand smoke, and am pretty vehemently anti-smoking, I too feel that private establishments should be able to set their own policies. On the flip side, you get an establishment that concentrates the smoke to a high degree then they should both not pollute the nearby public right of way, and they should be responsible if neighboring owners complain about the byproducts escaping from the establishment.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Smoking is bad for you. So is beer, staying up late, eating cheeseburgers, skydiving and sleeping with strange women. We each need to be allowed to make our own choices and be responsible for our own actions. When we allow our government to legislate what is good for us we open the door to further restrictions. Imagine going through the checkout line in your local grocery store 20 years from now: "I'm sorry Eddie, our scans show that your good cholesteral count is too high. You'll have to put back that salami and cheese."

For god sakes man, DON'T give them any more ideas.

 

[Expat]

I am disturbed by these sorts of smoking bans. I don't smoke. I love Bob Evans for breakfast. I didn't go there because it was too smoky. That was my decision. Bob Evans made their decision. That is how the free market should work. The little dictators of our city council instituted a smoking ban. That is not the free market. But I do get to go to Bob Evans now. But I will still vote against my City Councilman for this. I just don't understand where they get the authority to usurp the property rights of the restaurant and bar owners.

 

[Suprtek]

For what it's worth, I agree that there should be no smoking bans and I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. I do have one question of the libertarians, an honest question: If your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, does your right to exhale cigarette smoke end at my nostrils? Would I be within my rights to object to second-hand smoke in outside public venues? Remember, according to some folks, second-hand smoke is as damaging to non-smokers as it is to smokers.

FTR, I do not consider myself a libertarian. However, if this were true, it could also be applied to any number of things. Such as vehicle exhaust or even music. It has been proven that vehicle exhaust fumes are far more dangerous than second hand smoke. Should we be passing laws against driving wherever anyone might be breathing? Some people find certain kind of music mentally distressing, should they be required to get permission of anyone that may be in earshot before having an outdoor concert?

It comes down to the fact that you simply can't legislate every possible scenario requiring people to interact with one another. Sooner or later, people just need to learn to get along or part ways.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

While I enjoy not having to deal with secondhand smoke, and am pretty vehemently anti-smoking, I too feel that private establishments should be able to set their own policies. On the flip side, you get an establishment that concentrates the smoke to a high degree then they should both not pollute the nearby public right of way, and they should be responsible if neighboring owners complain about the byproducts escaping from the establishment.

I'm not talking about the rights of a property owner or an individual to decide for themselves whether or not to smoke, drink, or stand on their head. What I want to get a read on is whether or not I, as a non-smoker, have any right while outside in public to not have to breathe someone else's smoke. Example: Irish Fest. A public venue outdoors in a park. We're sitting in a seat that we've held for an hour to see a band. Joe Doakes sits down next to us and lights up, blowing smoke our way. Has he assaulted me within the meaning of "rights" or not?

 

[melensdad]

For what it's worth, I agree that there should be no smoking bans and I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. I do have one question of the libertarians, an honest question: If your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, does your right to exhale cigarette smoke end at my nostrils? Would I be within my rights to object to second-hand smoke in outside public venues? Remember, according to some folks, second-hand smoke is as damaging to non-smokers as it is to smokers.

I'm a libertarian leaning cigar lounge owner. I hate smoking bans even if they drive customers into my lounges where smoking is allowed.

I do not believe that Lowell should have passed this smoking ban but I do believe that NON-smokers have rights.

Strikes me that there can be smoking and non-smoking areas to accomidate both smokers and non-smokers. So in an indoor area separate rooms are reasonable. In an outdoor venue then smoking and non-smoking areas, are also reasonable. Roughly 1/4 of the population smokes, set aside 25% of the outdoor venue for smoking, or set aside some smoking lounge areas where smokers can go for a smoke.

There is no reason why businesses can't work things out without the town punishing them with burdensome regulation.

 

[dross]

Smoking should be banned in all government buildings.

Other than that, the government shouldn't have a say.

That said, libertarian or not, I sure do personally enjoy smoking bans. I also enjoy pro football, with all their local government subsidies.

So, I'll fight against all those socialist petty tyrannies, but when they actually happen, well what can I say?

It's kind of like forced oral pleasure. I'm against it in principle, but were it to be perpetrated upon me by the local college girls gymnastics squad - well forgive me if sometimes the flesh is weak in the face of benevolent tyranny.

 

[Expat]

I do not believe that Lowell should have passed this smoking ban but I do believe that NON-smokers have rights.

How do they have a right on my property other than the right to leave if they don't like the way I do things there. You have no right to tell me who I can serve or not serve or what LEGAL activity I can allow or forbid on my property.

 

[Dr Falken]

Seems that there should be a way for technology to solve this issue, such as exhaust fans, filters and a cure for cancer.

 

[Bill of Rights]

For what it's worth, I agree that there should be no smoking bans and I'm allergic to cigarette smoke. I do have one question of the libertarians, an honest question: If your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, does your right to exhale cigarette smoke end at my nostrils? Would I be within my rights to object to second-hand smoke in outside public venues? Remember, according to some folks, second-hand smoke is as damaging to non-smokers as it is to smokers.

I do not smoke. I despise smoking and wish tobacco had never been discovered for the use it has. That said, I cannot change the past and so it does exist and people will smoke cigarettes whether legal or otherwise.

In a business, do you have a right to be there or is your privilege dependent upon the owner's permission? At an outside public venue, your right to be present is not in question, your specific location in relation to the smoker is. You have a right to be present at the outdoor venue, but if something about that location makes you uncomfortable, you have the option of moving elsewhere at the venue. If the thing making you uncomfortable was the fact that on either side of you was a person in excess of five hundred pounds with bad BO, halitosis, and a really nasty case of intestinal gas, would you be within your rights to demand they move?

Whether second-hand smoke is or is not harmful to either the smoker or anyone else is irrelevant.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I do not smoke. I despise smoking and wish tobacco had never been discovered for the use it has. That said, I cannot change the past and so it does exist and people will smoke cigarettes whether legal or otherwise.

In a business, do you have a right to be there or is your privilege dependent upon the owner's permission? At an outside public venue, your right to be present is not in question, your specific location in relation to the smoker is. You have a right to be present at the outdoor venue, but if something about that location makes you uncomfortable, you have the option of moving elsewhere at the venue. If the thing making you uncomfortable was the fact that on either side of you was a person in excess of five hundred pounds with bad BO, halitosis, and a really nasty case of intestinal gas, would you be within your rights to demand they move?

Whether second-hand smoke is or is not harmful to either the smoker or anyone else is irrelevant.



Blessings,
Bill

Still not the answer I'm looking for: does one individual have a duty to not do harm to another? If not, does priority of position have any place in a discussion of competing "rights" (e.g. "right to stink" vs "right to not have to move from where I was because of your right to stink"?

 

[shibumiseeker]

I'm not talking about the rights of a property owner or an individual to decide for themselves whether or not to smoke, drink, or stand on their head. What I want to get a read on is whether or not I, as a non-smoker, have any right while outside in public to not have to breathe someone else's smoke. Example: Irish Fest. A public venue outdoors in a park. We're sitting in a seat that we've held for an hour to see a band. Joe Doakes sits down next to us and lights up, blowing smoke our way. Has he assaulted me within the meaning of "rights" or not?

I dunno, what is the level of harm? He has assaulted you in a very small way, but should it rise to the level of legal (civil) pursuit? Maybe that secondhand smoke statistically will cost you a couple of cents in additional medical costs over your lifetime, what cost can be associated with your additional loss of enjoyment? The libertarian in me is perfectly happy to let you two work it out among yourselves. If you were in a situation where you were violently allergic to the secondhand smoke and let him know that and he continued then my same libertarian leanings would say that he should be liable for the costs of your evening's entertainment and loss of enjoyment of same. But none of that IMO should involve the government stepping in except as an arbiter of the dispute. It gets down to the fact that in my opinion the governement's biggest role here should be to encourage you two to work it out among yourselves.

 

[Suprtek]

Still not the answer I'm looking for: does one individual have a duty to not do harm to another? If not, does priority of position have any place in a discussion of competing "rights" (e.g. "right to stink" vs "right to not have to move from where I was because of your right to stink"?

The sticky point in your question revolves around defining "harm". A punch in the face is easily defined as harm, but how do you define when body odor becomes harm?

The only insight I can provide to your question is another question. Do you want everything, everywhere to be legislated for you or do you want to retain the right to think and do for yourself?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Still not the answer I'm looking for: does one individual have a duty to not do harm to another? If not, does priority of position have any place in a discussion of competing "rights" (e.g. "right to stink" vs "right to not have to move from where I was because of your right to stink"?

Ah, OK, I see your meaning now. My apologies, I took the comment about it being harmful from the angle of government regulation.

Do you have a duty not to do harm to another? I suppose it could be argued you do. I'd think this would come down to a mutual thing; you could directly but politely ask the smoker if they would mind skootching up or down or over or something so the smoke didn't blow right at your nose, while at the same time doing some skootching of your own. It would be a situation where both put themselves out just a bit to allow for both parties' rights.

I'm tempted to address the issue of how much harm they're really doing you, as was addressed upthread in re: car exhaust, but then we'd get into how much harm you're allowed to do someone else.

Admittedly, the "mutual" part of this fails in re: the two hypothetical 500-pounders... I'm not going to ask them to move because they have poor hygiene. I'm going to find somewhere upwind.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mike8170]

I believe that smoking bans in private business' or clubs are complete
BS. Whats next, no smoking on your porch at home? I take a small quote from Federalist #10,


By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects. There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

PUBLIUS (Alexander Hamilton and James Madison)

Our Founding Fathers believed in property ownership as a deterrent to tyranny and a key to the prosperity of this Country. I have to agree with them. IMO, EVERY business owner needs to be vehemently opposing the loss of their rights!