The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

Well, I certainly agree with you about the liquor laws in MoCo, I can't really throw my support behind much else here.

I'm generally a big opponent of nanny state type laws, but I can't help but love walking out of a bar and not stinking. I like knowing that my lungs aren't a little blacker, even though a little piece of my liver has died.

I haven't been here long enough to see the differences between NoVa and MoCo develop, but I'm not sure that the differences are a bad thing. I think one big difference is that NoVa flows directly out of the heart of DC, MoCo is separated by the largely residential Frienship Heights, Chevy Chase, and other areas of NW DC, which makes it feel more suburban. I'm not a big Doug Duncan fan, but I wouldn't have moved into Silver Spring 5 years ago and I live here happily now.

I do agree that the ICC should be built, even though it won't make a bit of difference in my life. I'm not going to ascribe racist motives to someone I don't know though.

Goose

Goose, you like not stinking like smoke, you like knowing that your lungs are not blacker, but how does your level of liking these things justify government intervention between a private property owner and a consenting patron? It should not be illegal for Rammage to sell me food and permit me to smoke, just because you like a different experience. It's a ridiculous assertion and a ridiculous trend in law.

Goose wrote: I'm not going to ascribe racist motives to someone I don't know though.

I'm grasping at straws here in the absence of any other compelling arguments against the construction of the ICC, which Phil Andrews has failed to provide. The motivations of the MoCo council may not be racist, per se, but their consistent anti-development stance certainly smacks of elitism (i.e. Not in my backyard).

Rammage: I think some are concerned about the impact on their property values, some are concerned about environmental damage, some think it won't help traffic at all and is a waste of moeny, some are just plain NIMBYs. I don't think we can dismiss those claims even though we think they are wrong, just because we disagree with them. They are still entitled to hold those beliefs (mistaken they may be) without being accused of being racist.

Wulf, if you accept the proposition that government can make the use of cigarettes illegal, period, then I think it is hard to invision that they cannot make their use in certain places illegal. If you reject that argument, then certainly you would disagree with much of government law as it is today, which is a defensible position. None the less, I think we are moving toward a position where cigarettes are banned on the premise that: (1) they shorten the lifespan of the smoker; (2) they shorten the lifespan of those exposed to the smoker's secondhand smoke; (3) they increase the government's burden of providing health care to the poor and elderly; and (4) they are inherently dangerous. I think those are the primary justifications for government action. The benefits I cited are just merely fringe benefits for me.

Goose, I have no problem with the government designating governemnt property smoke-free, assuming there is a health hazard and not just a moral complaint. The issue I have is when this is done to private property.

I completely agree about the future of cigs, which means that in the long run my moral objections to these bans are just like the points on Whose Line is it Anyway. But in the meantime, I will never understand how the Nanny State gets pushed on us by people who say they oppose the concept of the Nanny State.

Wulf, Well for one, smoking effects more than just the smoker. It effects the child who is left without a parent because of an early death, the person walking through the haze of the bar to get to the non-smoking section, the taxpayer who pays for the uninsured smoker's visit to the emergency room and the insured smoker's care through higher group health insurance premiums, and many others. One can make the extension that drinking and driving laws are nanny-state laws designed to protect the drinker from harm, but clearly they are designed to protect others too. I think it's important to not ignore the reality that these laws effect other people. That makes them less of a nanny-state law and more of a public welfare law.

Government regulation in all manner of areas: disability access, anti-discrimination, etc, serve to regulate the means of business. Certainly, some counties across the country prohibit the sale or consumption of liquor in private-public establishments (though I don't normally believe the home). A plausible argument can be made that Section 2 of the XXI Amendment implicitly recognizes the ability of states and presumably their subdivisions to legislate the use of liquor. Surely, the regulation of smoking is quite similar, no?

Goose, there are a couple of different issues here.

1) Smoking affects more people than just the smoker, but I do not believe this is the real impetus behind smoking bans. If it were, there would be greater action to stop other dangerous activities, like driving or swimming or skiing for example. Children are orphaned, killed, maimed by all of these things, but this is not and should not be a basis for a ban. We live in a society that is based on the rights and freedoms of the individual, and there must be a compelling threat to the public in order to have a restriction on these freedoms that is in any way compatible with what we claim is the basis of our shared American values. You have never been forced at gunpoint through a smoking section of a restaurant. In fact, I am usually unaware of where the smoking section is unless I accompany a smoker to the establishment. And you do not own the restaurant in any way - you have no property right over it.
These bans are actually based on the inconvenience and self-righteousness of an active minority who is willing to use "for the children" as a rationalization for the ban. It's a shame people fall for it in America.

2) DUI laws differ from bans on smoking, as soon as the bans affect private property. Public roads must be kept safe by their owner - the government. Public buildings must be kept safe, and the health risks of secondhand smoke are a legitimate reason to curb or even ban smoking in government buildings. But the activists have not been able to limit themselves to this, and they are interfering with private property rights.

3) The way this is all advancing is because of the precedents you mention, but they are also immoral. The civil rights movement went beyond breaking down discrimination by the government, and it does interfere with my rights as a private citizen. You do not gain a moral claim (or "right") to service or employment from me just because you want it, no matter what the basis for it might be. The right to free association must entail the right to free disassociation, and there is no philosophical basis (including Locke, Jefferson, and the others who influenced or wrote the documents that define the principles of this nation) for saying that if I want to sell Goose a slushee, I have to sell one to Rammage.
The term "liberal" has been usurped by statists for a long time in this country, and they have done an excellent job of obscuring what Liberty and Justice meant to our Founding Fathers. Public accomodations were never meant to abrogate the right of the property owner to refuse service.

We have not learned from the failure of the Eighteenth Amendment, or the War on Drugs. Banning substances only drives them underground. There is already a huge black market for cigarettes in this country, and we see the crime associated with any black market. Those same problems exist with all banned drugs, as well.

The thing that the left should be doing if they are worried about the welfare of children is educating them, and teaching them which decisions would be most beneficial - not telling them that any important decisions will be made for them.

I used to live in Laurel, Maryland...back in 1996 and 1997... I just heard that the bar I used to be a regular at had to go smoke free.. Pissed a lot of patrons off...

Wulf, you clearly recognize the plank you're striding down and you certainly are free to walk down it. I'm not willing to do so and I suspect a large portion of America is also not willing to do so. This is why I can't become a libertarian. I feel they became so caught up in the idea of individual freedom and individual autonomy they relegate everything else to a second teir status. I think that we, as a nation, can do better than that and can move beyond what I do for me.

As for your argument about other things harming people, sure. Though far fewer people die from any of the things you mentioned than smoking (and I'm sure you know this and thus recognize that your argument for banning them is weaker). Beyond that, swimming and skiing only put the individual engaged in it at risk. (You could make an argument that skiiing might endanger other people on the mountainside who aren't skiiing, but we're being reasonable here). I suspect the number of people killed by those activities who are not active participants in them is minimal if not zero.

Secondhand smoke on the other hand is proven by ample medical evidence to cause respitory problems, asthma, etc in people who have chosen not to smoke. They do not participate in the activity and still suffer from its consequences. This is very different than swimming and skiiing.

As for driving, certainly in endangers a lot of people. However, there are two key differences between it and smoking. First, society benefits greatly from the rapid transportation, free movement of goods, etc that driving provides. Smoking provides no such benefit. Second, driving can be done in a safe manner. You can take caution and avoid most accidents and harm that may befall you or those near you. There is no such way to engage in smoking that is not harmful.

A couple of quick thoughts, Goose:

I appreciate that you don't personally like to smell smoke when you're in a bar, and that you're genuinely concerned for the safety of the bars patrons and employees. But I think you have still avoided directly addressing my original point about it being illegal to open a one-man bar that caters exclusively to smokers.

Do you believe that a free-market has the ability to self-regulate smoking?

That is to say, as our society's attitudes on smoking continues to evolve, don't you think there would be a natural inclination towards "Rammage's Smoking Restaurant" being less profitable than "Eat-at-Joe's Smoke-Free Restaurant?" And if there are many consumers out there like you who prefer eating at Joe's, then won't smoke-free restaurants become prevalent without the need for government intervention? This would have the added benefit of allowing privately-owned businesses to cater exclusively to smoking customers and employees - and everyone's happy. The point of this argument has never been (and should never be) about the (often exaggerated) dangers of second-hand smoke, rather more about drawing the line in the sand in how the government can meddle in private business. And yes, I think there are excellent arguments out there for the abolishment of such agencies as the dept. of health, etc.

On a related note, a casual search of the web didn't turn up anything, but I recently read somewhere that a study proved that the premature deaths that smokers suffer on average actually saved taxpayers money due to social security savings and other health-related costs. So, I guess the whole economical angle is debunked. I'll post it when I find it again.

I am especially puzzled by the people (stereotypically the Left) who favor euthanasia but are against smoking. Very puzzling indeed, for these issues both seem to be related to personal freedom (i.e. the right to live and die as you please). Only upon closer examination do you realize that this seeming paradox is consistent with the Left's desire for big government to make decisions for The People who are incapable of thinking for themselves. Hence, pro-euthanasia and anti-smoking. The needs of the vocal few outweigh the needs of the many.

Rammage, well, I'm not a supporter of euthanasia, but am also not bothered particularly by assisted suicide. I think the person who is dying though should have to be sane, compotent, and express a clear desire to die.

I'm pretty sure that I have seen that in the long-term smokers early deaths do save the government money, particularly with the regard to social security, but I'm pretty sure that there are several other studies that show the opposite. So, I don't know if I'd say it's been debunked just yet. Of course, I'm not talking only about government costs either, but societal costs, which includes non-governmental costs like higher health insurance premiums, etc.

I'm not sure the free market works with regard to smoking, because of its addictive nature. There are plenty of people who say they have tried to quit or want to quit, but haven't been able to. That means the free market isn't being driven by actual individual choice. I think its an externality that might call for government intervention in the market.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that you would see the segregation in the market on its own. Almost all of my friends (I know few smokers) would prefer smoke-free bars and restaurants to go to, but we aren't willing to stop going to a good restaurant or bar we enjoy because of the smoke. So, there's no incentive for a restaurant to disallow smoking because it would only cost them the potential customers that do smoke. The product (food, etc) is far more important in where I eat than whether or not it's smoke free. I go out in DC because I like the bars better, in spite of the smoke. I just suck it up and pay the dry cleaner, etc. If the bars in MoCo were as good and as much fun, I'd go there, but they aren't, so I don't.

Goose, I have some great news for you:

http://www.atlasblogged.com/archives/2006/01/angela_bradbery.php

Smoking bars and restaurants have been outlawed in DC. Enjoy them while drinking with your friends. But keep this in mind: according to an extremely vocal few, alcohol endangers your health and the health of others when you choose to drink. How much longer do you have to drink before it offends someone enough to launch another prohibition crusade? Think it couldn't happen again? Even caffeine is under attack from forces who would dictate what you put in your body: http://www.caffeineawareness.org/

It's scary stuff, man. And I'm with you that libertarians can get a little wacky sometimes with the anarchy angle. But I have to think that instead of allowing the government to draw an arbitrary line where it pleases, that it's better not to have that line at all, even at the risk of stinking up some people's clothes.

Rammage, I'm aware of the DC law and my friends and I are all looking forward to it. There is a lot of scientific evidence that drinking, in moderation, provides substantial health benefits. Again, there is no such argument for smoking. Furthermore, my drinking (if I do it responsibly) in a crowded room does nothing to those around me. Smoking does. You can gloss over these arguments, but I think it is a very strong case that the key distinction lies in the impact of your actions on those around you. It's the whole my right to swing my fist stops when it hits your nose. Although, legally, it stops when you have a reasonable apprehension of being struck, but that's neither here nor there for this argumnet.

Certainly, there are nuts who would ban all manner of things. The people have the ultimate check in the ballot box (and to a lesser extent the courts). I don't see the government (barring some major scientific evidence to the contrary) undertaking action to ban caffeine or alcohol. It's pretty clear to me that they care concerned about the effect of my actions on others and not on myself.

Goose, your 3:24 comment misunderstands me a bit. I only compare smoking to swimming because they both orphan poor little children, and therefore ought to be outlawed... if it's really all about the children. But as I said, that's not what smoking bans are really about. Children are only the rationalization. But frankly, invoking the welfare of children is nearly as Godwinian as invoking the Nazis - and you'll notice I have yet to state that it was the Nazis who imposed the first secular ban on smoking. So we really should avoid mention of Nazis or children here.

Other than that, I think we are going in circles over the fact that you feel it is appropriate to interfere with the consentual interaction of others. I feel this is wholly inappropriate, indefensible, and unConstitutional. I understand and even sympathize with the nanny-like reasoning that would lead you to interfere on my behalf, and for my own good, since smoking is bad for me. (Neglecting that I do not actually smoke, because that's irrelevant to the conversation.) But Rammage is absolutely correct: The market is always able to fulfill any need, including a smoke-free restaurant. I have watched it happen myself. If the non-smoking section is full, and the smoking section is not, the smoking section will be removed. Legal action was not necessary.

I am glad that you are willing to have this extended conversation, despite the fact that you are clearly of a collectivist mind and visiting a libertarian site. The greatest weakness of most blogs I see is a lack of exposure to opposing points of view (trolls don't count). After all, anything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger - unless it is taken away by the nanny state.

Wulf, You do place an enormous amount of faith in the market. While I'd agree that in most cases, the market will provide the optimal solution, there is a reason why economists refer to "market failures." There are costs to smoking that are not internalized by the smoker. Without intervention, those costs cannot be internalized and others in the market cannot be protected from the costs being foisted on them by smokers. You completely ignored my analysis that explained how their are external factors that are not accounted for by the market that prevents the market from reaching an optimum point.

Again, I don't feel that the point of a smoking ban is to keep you (or someone else) from smoking. It is to keep you from harming the well-being of those around you. This is, any many ways, no different from your not having the right to expose me to harmful chemicals. Yes, the damage is more long term and the result of repeated exposure, but the result is the same in the end.

Again, I couldn't care less about your desire to pollute your lungs and shorten your life span. I do care about you doing that to me because I've chosen to go out into a restaurant that is open to the public.

As for your or Rummage's argument about opening a bar for smokers, you can certainly do so. You would operate it as a private club. You would get a state liquor license that is issued to a private club. You would have a membership requirement (though I suspect you could have this as a mere formality to meet the requirement of the ordinance). You would then not be banned from allowing smoking. Mont. Co. Code 24-9(c)(7).

I didn't misunderstand your argument about swimming at all. I simply disgarded it as a strawman. No one proposed banning all things that orphans children. Still, I pointed out that the number orphaned by things like swimming and skiiing are far lower than the number from smoking. I also pointed out the real argument that smoking harms the children directly. You can dismiss it as a phony justification all you want, that doesn't change the facts.

I enjoy the debate and I won't easily back down. I have my blog going over there at GooseTales and I intend to keep it up. I do take umbrage with your characterization that I'm a collectivist. I'm really not, I just find the scientific evidence on smoking to be pretty clear cut and I believe that their are times when the market fails and that occassionally, we have to look out for the harm we would do to others even when it inconveniences us.

Wulf, You do place an enormous amount of faith in the market.

I do.

You completely ignored my analysis that explained how their are external factors that are not accounted for by the market that prevents the market from reaching an optimum point…Again, I don't feel that the point of a smoking ban is to keep you (or someone else) from smoking. It is to keep you from harming the well-being of those around you.

I don’t agree that this can be properly viewed as a market failure. Let’s take a look at the costs to which you referred:
1) the child who is orphaned because smoking
2) the person walking through smoke to get to the non-smoking section

You also mentioned medical costs that smokers entail but do not pay in full. These are arguments for a full ban on smoking, so I will skip them in the context of this conversation.

The key issue seems to be #2 above, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that this is a consensual visit to a bar. The act of walking through the smoke is consent to the smoke, no different from the noise, the lights, and the company.
If you don’t consent, you don’t have to walk through. As I said, nobody is forced through second hand smoke at gunpoint. Where you and I seem to disagree is that you feel you have a right to be a patron at a bar, regardless of whether their policies conform to the atmosphere you prefer. I do not feel that way at all. I believe the bar owner has the freedom as a property owner to determine what rules will be followed in that establishment, and there is no reason they should have to close it off from the public (make it a private club) in order to have these policies.
Some bars have TVs, others do not. We choose our bar based on our preference.
Some bars have darts, others do not. We choose our bar based on our preference.
Some bars have Guiness, others do not. We choose our bar based on our preference.
Some bars have smoking sections, others do not. We choose our bar based on our preference.

The only reason for believing that these four statements are not equal is because you feel you have a right to be in that particular bar without being exposed to second hand smoke, but you do not gain any moral claim to being in that bar just because the owner says the public is permitted in. To assume that permission to enter equals permission to set the standards of operation is both ludicrous and collectivist.
This by the way is why I called you a collectivist, though you have indicated several times that you are not. I haven’t seen you discuss other issues much, so I don’t know if you are generally a collectivist. I will take your word that you are not, but in this case, you are trying to use democracy as a way to dictate the terms of exchange between private, consenting parties (me and my barkeep). That is authoritarianism, and it either stems from collectivism or fascism. There is no avoiding that.

This is, any many ways, no different from your not having the right to expose me to harmful chemicals.

Again, you have the right not to be exposed to chemicals on your property and on public property. You even have the right not to be exposed to chemicals on my property without your knowledge. But to assert that you can dictate to me how much chlorine to use in my pool just because I invited you over, is collectivism.

Again, I couldn't care less about your desire to pollute your lungs and shorten your life span. I do care about you doing that to me because I've chosen to go out into a restaurant that is open to the public.

“Open to the public” does not mean “owned by the public”.

I didn't misunderstand your argument about swimming at all. I simply disgarded it as a strawman. No one proposed banning all things that orphans children.

Goose, this was exactly my point. It is not a strawman, because my point to you is exactly that no one proposed banning all things that orphan children, so your mention of orphans was an emotional appeal that is inconsistent with the aims of those who support this ban on smoking in privately owned establishments who permit entrance to those members of the public who agree to the terms of the visit.

Still, I pointed out that the number orphaned by things like swimming and skiiing are far lower than the number from smoking.

This is off topic, but since we are here, I challenge your assertion that second hand smoke is disproportionate in its orphaning affects. Holding the terms “orphan” and “children” to people who are, say, 16 and under, it will never add up. I challenge you directly on this – if you can find reasonable, reliable numbers on deaths due to second hand smoke, parse them for age categories and tell me how many of them are in the age range that they likely died of second hand smoke while their children were under 16. I guarantee it is miniscule compared to the other factors in our society that orphan children.

I also pointed out the real argument that smoking harms the children directly.

Again, this is not germane to a conversation about this ban. This is not a ban on all smoking around children. In fact, a bar is a great place to go if you want to avoid being around children. At an establishment that is 18 and up, or 21 and up, smoking harms no children at all. Children are not the issue here.

Goose:While I'd agree that in most cases, the market will provide the optimal solution, there is a reason why economists refer to "market failures."

Yeah, I too, am going to have to question this failure of the market to which you speak. I can't say for the country as a whole, but the greater Metro-DC area has been increasing the number of non-smoking restaurants every year, without government intervention. (And this is straight from the anti-smoking [ahem] people themselves: http://www.smokefreedc.org/restaurants.php)

I'd also venture a guess that, if not for the threat of local government getting involved, non-smoking bars would be more prevalent today without the laws. Thanks to Montgomery County, you may have missed out on your opportunity to franchise Goose's Smoke-Free Bar. "No, no, no, there's two O's in Goose, boys. That's zero nicotine, zero tar." Geez, I could have been your marketing director.

I guess now's a bad time to point out that I think it's outrageous that there's even a drinking age limit at all. How screwed up of a message is that that we're sending our 18-year old legal adults?

A market failure is, by definition, any situation in which a party to a transaction does not fully internalize the cost of that transaction. The result is a positive or negative externality. Smoking generates negative externalities: increased asthma, increased general medical costs, uncompensated medical costs among the poor uninsured, etc. This is by definition a market failure. The fact (which you don't dispute) is that, in addition, people are not necessarily smokers of their own free will. This is another form of market failure, when we want the market to be driven by people's desires.

The mere presence of smoke-free restaurants does not mean that produces the socially optimum level. The fact that some exist or that the number is growing means nothing. I suspect the total number of restaurants is also growing, you don't even know which is growing faster.

I'm not sure how this is off-topic, since you brought it up, but... There is a study that shows in 1994 alone, 31,000 fathers and 12,000 mothers of children under the age of 16 died as a result of smoking. (Leistikow, BN, Martin, DC, Milano, CE. 2000. “Estimates of Smoking-Attributable Deaths at Ages 15-54, Motherless or Fatherless Youths, and Resulting Social Security Costs in the United Stats in 1994.” Preventive Medicine 30:353-360.) Another study finds 53,000 individuals died as a result of secondhand smoke in 1994. (Glantz, S.A. and W.W. Parmley. 1995. “Passive Smoking and Heart Disease: Mechanisms and Risk”. Journal of the American Medical Association 273(13):
1047-1053.) Overall, about 450,000 people die from exposure to smoke (secondhand and primary) each year in the United States. So, roughly one out of 9 are from secondhand smoke. If we apply the same ratio to the number of parents who died (I'll use 1-in-10 for simplicity sake, which reduces the numbers.) We come to 4,300 dead parents as a result of secondhand smoke in 1994.

In 1999, 1,500 people total (I'd wager most kids) died while swimming. Only 26 from skiing and snowboarding, 7 from football, 47 from parachuting. (1999 National Safety Council, Safey Facts.)

So, while those numbers include all people young and old, they are in total far lower than the study attributed to secondhand smoke parents. I'll again point out that driving is completely irrelevant because of the net social benefit provided by it, something to which smoking has no analogous benefit. Now obviously, this analysis is a bit simplified, but it's clear that the numbers aren't even close.

So, you would argue that you have a right to store giant drums of chlorine on your property? Giant stores of dynamite? Gasoline? Asbestos? Anthrax? Fire guns? You have a right to keep them in your house or to make these things on your property, despite the danger to me? Thankfully the courts don't think so. The courts have long recognized the government's interest in regulating the use of private property to prevent harm to others.

None of the other difference between bars that you have referred to effect my health. This is a key difference you reject.

There are some Supreme Court precedents (some old ones included) that indicate that private property rights are not absolute when balanced against fundamental rights (speech, life, health, etc). For example, Marsh v. Alabama (326 U.S. 501): "When courts balance the constitutional rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy freedom of press and religion, they must remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.";In Re Palmer (RI Supreme Court): "While the freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute, the freedom to act in harmony with these religious beliefs and opinions is not beyond state regulation where such restriction serves the public interest by promoting public health and safety or preserving order."

Furthermore, under Common Law, business owners generally have a duty to keep a place that they invite members of the public into to conduct business safe. One can easily argue that by allowing smoking it is not safe. Perhaps, we should just sick tort lawyers on the restaurants in bars in massive class action suits.

Yes, while kids aren't in bars (or shouldn't be), they are in restaurants. Are you then okay with a ban in restaurants? Otherwise your argument is not real and just used to make the point.

Goose, both the deaths of parents and the internalized costs arguments are arguments for banning cigarettes outright - an argument you are welcome to make, and we could discuss that on its own merits. But it is clearly off topic when it comes to you supporting a ban on smoking in a privately owned restaurant.

The same is true of your comments about great stores of dynamite. It is not that it is illegal to have a great store of dynamite on your property if you run a business, but perfectly legal to keep said dynamite at your house. The legalities do not change from house to restaurant on that issue. Nor should they.

Cigarettes are not illegal, nor limited within the home, and this whole conversation has to be held within that context. The court cases you cite (and many, many others) are collectivist in nature. Every comment you make is steeped in collectivism, and I think I have to withdraw my earlier benefit of the doubt.

If you do not like smoke, for WHATEVER reason, you have options. Having the government outlaw smoking on my private property is a collectivist option. Period.

I am not dismissing your research and arguments outright. I am saying that they are only relevent if you are trying to have a full ban on smoking... if you are, that's your right, but it's off topic and it would have made things a lot easier if you had just started with "Ban all cigarettes!".

If you are not for that full ban, then your arguments are contradictory and appeal to emotion.

Sorry it took so long for me to respond. Your language filter disliked one of my hypotheticals. :-)

Wulf, I disagree. You may not hold a large store of dynamite on your property, it would violate zoning ordinances.

I have made no argument against banning smoking in private homes, only in places where your smoke exposes other people to dangerous chemicals. The numbers I cited indicate the number of people who do not smoke who died as a result of secondhand smoke exposure. Those numbers could be greatly reduced or eliminated by the ban we're discussing. I can't say that banning smoking outright would not save more lives than just regulating where it can
occur, it would. However, I believe that as long as smoking is legal people should have the right to kill themselves smoking in their home. They shouldn't have the right to kill others.

Just becuase the arguments would also support a decision to ban smoking outright does not mean that they don't also
support a lesser ban on smoking in places to which the public is invited. Lots of things are legal and regulated in
their use. You can't simply say that because something is not illegal, it can't be regulated.

The externality arguments call for government intervention in the market to adjust behavior levels to a socially optimum point. One example of this is tobacco taxes (you can see the post about this on my blog), which helps internalize the external costs of smoking. Another example is limiting where smoking can occur to reduce the level of externalities applied on others. They come at the problem of externalities from two different directions. The second most certainly makes the argument relevant to this debate.

As for arguing that legalites do not change from home to restaurant, in many cases they do. Likely, neither could
get a permit to store large quantities of explosives, but certainly other things are legal in the home and not in restaurants. For example, you can leave a piece of chicken on the counter for six hours, cook it and then eat it at home... illegal in a restaurant. You can leave have intercourse on the kitchen table in your home, illegal in a
restaurant. So, the argument that there is nothing that you can do in your home that you shouldn't be allowed to do
in a restaurant is on its face absurd. I'm sure that's not what you were thinking when you made the statement, but it is certainly a logical extension of the argument you make.

Goose, you are killing me. You are totally misunderstanding a lot of what I am saying. For example, I never said it is legal to have stores of dynamite at your house. I said the opposite. Also, I know that you have made no argument against banning smoking in private homes. My point is that all of your arguments are misplaced here, because they are all about the dangers of smoking, and they are not about the key factor here: choice.

This is not, not, not a matter of externalities that require government intervention. This is about a person's choice to expose themselves to secondhand smoke (or not to). We should be free to make that decision for ourselves. That choice would be taken away if smoking were permitted on public property (you and I agree), AND that choice would also be taken away if smoking were banned in private establishments. You should have ZERO RIGHT to dictate to me whether or not smoking is permitted on my property, whether I own a restaurant or not. If you don't like the smoke, you can LEAVE THE RESTAURANT. All arguments about externalities with regard to smoking ignore the fact that you are only exposed to secondhand smoke if you choose to be. Therefore, the arguments are totally misplaced. I don't know how else to explain this to you.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:

Remember This Information? YesNo

Comments: