Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => Prospective Participants => Topic started by: viperpilot on July 05, 2010, 06:26:56 am

Title: smoking
Post by: viperpilot on July 05, 2010, 06:26:56 am
How are the smoking laws over there ? 
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: lobstah on July 05, 2010, 08:32:22 am
i'm assuming you're talking about tobacco...well, as of 3-4 years ago, you can't do it in bars or restaurants anymore :P.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: greap on July 05, 2010, 09:39:06 am
What's the local support like for this one (outside of business and smokers)? Is it something that just slipped through or is it the work of the anti-smoking crazies making lots of noise?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Dreepa on July 05, 2010, 10:07:57 am
What's the local support like for this one (outside of business and smokers)? Is it something that just slipped through or is it the work of the anti-smoking crazies making lots of noise?

it was defeated the first time
but it was not just slipped thru lots and lots of anti smoking crazies came out for this one.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: lobstah on July 05, 2010, 12:15:02 pm
What's the local support like for this one (outside of business and smokers)? Is it something that just slipped through or is it the work of the anti-smoking crazies making lots of noise?

according to the local media, and i hope this doesnt scare you away, it had like 80% support from nh residents. at least that's what i remember hearing. sickening.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: greap on July 05, 2010, 12:24:59 pm
according to the local media, and i hope this doesnt scare you away, it had like 80% support from nh residents. at least that's what i remember hearing. sickening.

The media have a well represented bias on this issue so I wouldn't trust numbers like that unless you can read how they collected the data.

As a good example of this here the anti-smoking lobby did a survey a year after the smoking ban was passed but one of the first questions they asked was "Do you smoke", if the person answered yes then they were not asked any other questions. The result was that the media printed reports of 70% acceptance of the smoking ban, both due to bias and the media fondness for printing press releases word for word without fact checking them.

Anyway if there is an active lobby I suspect this would be a difficult one to get rid of, following the recent knife ban reversal it seems even legislation that is not particularly contentious is extremely time expensive to get rid of.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: slayerboy on July 05, 2010, 12:25:59 pm
I think this is a tough issue because really the only way to go about changing this law is politically or if the business owner decides to practice civil disobedience.  It SHOULD be the business owner's decision to allow or not allow smoking in their establishment.  However, the stigma on tobacco smoking right now is out of control and I don't even think you would get the support of the business owners to do this politically, let alone have them partake in civil disobedience unless they are willing.

This is one of the issues that I think the FSP will have a really hard time with, and probably best to focus energy on other things to bring about more freedom. I'd really like to see the law repealed, but I just don't think it would happen.  This is probably one of the very few cons to me moving to NH since I am a smoker.  I live in NY, and I've been used to standing in zero degree weather, looking like a snowman while I smoke.  I enjoy it, what can I say? LOL
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: greap on July 05, 2010, 01:16:50 pm
I think this is a tough issue because really the only way to go about changing this law is politically or if the business owner decides to practice civil disobedience.  It SHOULD be the business owner's decision to allow or not allow smoking in their establishment.  However, the stigma on tobacco smoking right now is out of control and I don't even think you would get the support of the business owners to do this politically, let alone have them partake in civil disobedience unless they are willing.

This is one of the issues that I think the FSP will have a really hard time with, and probably best to focus energy on other things to bring about more freedom. I'd really like to see the law repealed, but I just don't think it would happen.  This is probably one of the very few cons to me moving to NH since I am a smoker.  I live in NY, and I've been used to standing in zero degree weather, looking like a snowman while I smoke.  I enjoy it, what can I say? LOL

Murphy's in Manchester has quite a nice sitting area out front for us filthy smoker types, far preferable to standing.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 05, 2010, 01:33:37 pm
Oh, this is a tough one. I support the right for business owners to make the determination for whether or not they will allow smoking in their establishments.

On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.

Then again, I don't want this to be something mommy-government settles for us. I have entertained the thought of carrying with me a squirt gun, so I can extinguish the cigarettes of any smoker that is fouling up my air!

And of course, a restaurant that allows smoking in its establishment will not be receiving business from me.

So, while I firmly support the right for business owners to make their own determinations, and for people to smoke if they wish, at the same time I wish that my right to be able to breathe smoke-free air is not impeded. And I do wish more smokers would be cognizant of that.

So, do I have a right to water-pistol a smoker's cigarette who ignores my right to smoke-free air? That is the question.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 05, 2010, 02:02:29 pm
You mean a protection from retaliation for harrassing others?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Bazil on July 05, 2010, 02:35:46 pm
The "right" to breath clean air is a positive liberty and isn't generally a libertarian idea.  I my opinion there really isn't such thing as positive liberties.  It's just a friendly way to refer welfare programs and nanny state laws.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: BigJoe on July 05, 2010, 03:05:26 pm
The "right" to breath clean air is a positive liberty and isn't generally a libertarian idea.  I my opinion there really isn't such thing as positive liberties.  It's just a friendly way to refer welfare programs and nanny state laws.

not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: greap on July 05, 2010, 03:20:18 pm
Oh, this is a tough one. I support the right for business owners to make the determination for whether or not they will allow smoking in their establishments.

On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.

Then again, I don't want this to be something mommy-government settles for us. I have entertained the thought of carrying with me a squirt gun, so I can extinguish the cigarettes of any smoker that is fouling up my air!

And of course, a restaurant that allows smoking in its establishment will not be receiving business from me.

So, while I firmly support the right for business owners to make their own determinations, and for people to smoke if they wish, at the same time I wish that my right to be able to breathe smoke-free air is not impeded. And I do wish more smokers would be cognizant of that.

So, do I have a right to water-pistol a smoker's cigarette who ignores my right to smoke-free air? That is the question.

As a breather I consider I have the right not to breathe air polluted by your CO2 from your breathing therefore you must stop breathing immediately as it is offensive to me.

No, you don't have the right to water pistol my cigarette and if you do then you will get a face full of damp cigarette for your troubles :-)
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Dreepa on July 05, 2010, 03:30:55 pm
non smoker here.

Business owner gets to decide.... and I get to decide if I want to go to a smoking or non smoking place.

Funny this came up today I was telling my kids about it and why I will never go inside one Magarita's.  (they wanted the ban on ALL places rather than just go smoke free)
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 05, 2010, 07:49:36 pm
Oh, this is a tough one. I support the right for business owners to make the determination for whether or not they will allow smoking in their establishments.

On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.

Then again, I don't want this to be something mommy-government settles for us. I have entertained the thought of carrying with me a squirt gun, so I can extinguish the cigarettes of any smoker that is fouling up my air!

And of course, a restaurant that allows smoking in its establishment will not be receiving business from me.

So, while I firmly support the right for business owners to make their own determinations, and for people to smoke if they wish, at the same time I wish that my right to be able to breathe smoke-free air is not impeded. And I do wish more smokers would be cognizant of that.

So, do I have a right to water-pistol a smoker's cigarette who ignores my right to smoke-free air? That is the question.

As a breather I consider I have the right not to breathe air polluted by your CO2 from your breathing therefore you must stop breathing immediately as it is offensive to me.

No, you don't have the right to water pistol my cigarette and if you do then you will get a face full of damp cigarette for your troubles :-)

So, if you consider the CO2 of other breathers to be offensive, how do you cope with being around anyone at all? Do you live in a cave somewhere, or on a mountaintop? Or do you order everyone around you to hold their breath as you walk by?

And do you hold your own breath, since your own CO2 might offend someone?

All kidding aside, do you not consider my right and desire not to smell and inhale cigarette smoke to be a valid one? I used to work at a company where smoking was allowed, and ventilation was poor. I came home everyday reeking and smelling of cigarette smoke. Not to mention what damage the smoke was doing to my lungs, a non-smoker.

Certainly I didn't have to work there, but it was a cool company otherwise. But apparently you, like all the smokers there, did not have the courtesy to not smoke inside where all the non-smokers are. So now many have complained to mommy-government and mommy-government has reacted in declaring all workplaces, restaurants, and many public places to be smoke-free.

So, how do you want it? Do you wish to give us non-smokers some courtesy and respect? Or would you rather have mommy government swoop in to protect my lungs from your smoke -- and maybe get a little overzealous in the process? I would much rather have the former. What's your choice?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 05, 2010, 08:32:06 pm
The "right" to breath clean air is a positive liberty and isn't generally a libertarian idea.  I my opinion there really isn't such thing as positive liberties.  It's just a friendly way to refer welfare programs and nanny state laws.

Exactly what I don't want. But then if we don't have a right to clean air, does that OK any polluter to dump anything into the air we must breathe? Say, someone builds a trash-burning plant in your backyard, and stinks up your entire neighbourhood.

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 05, 2010, 08:37:17 pm
You mean a protection from retaliation for harrassing others?

They are harassing me with their smoke! And I wish to retaliate with my squirt pistol!
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: lobstah on July 05, 2010, 08:59:08 pm
oh geez. yeah, we should send thugs with guns to stop a business owner from running his business the way he wants  ::)
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: BigJoe on July 05, 2010, 09:15:08 pm
Law Property Rights and Air Pollution - Murray Rothbard  -   http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 05, 2010, 09:46:49 pm
You mean a protection from retaliation for harrassing others?

They are harassing me with their smoke! And I wish to retaliate with my squirt pistol!
But are you willing to endure whatever action they feel justified?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 05, 2010, 09:49:21 pm
The "right" to breath clean air is a positive liberty and isn't generally a libertarian idea.  I my opinion there really isn't such thing as positive liberties.  It's just a friendly way to refer welfare programs and nanny state laws.

Exactly what I don't want. But then if we don't have a right to clean air, does that OK any polluter to dump anything into the air we must breathe? Say, someone builds a trash-burning plant in your backyard, and stinks up your entire neighbourhood.

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.

Under the determination that you've laid out. It would be easy to move oneself, but not real estate.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 06:05:52 am
oh geez. yeah, we should send thugs with guns to stop a business owner from running his business the way he wants  ::)

It's not the business owner I have problems with. It's being able to drive with my windows down without being inundated by the cigarette smoke of other drivers. Especially when they dangle their cigarettes out of their windows, and flick their butts onto the road.

The Smoking issue has been a long-standing pet peeve of mine.  Drivers who smoke flick their butts on the road, despite the fact they all have ashtrays in their cars. What, did the ashtray develop a malfunction?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and despise government intervention  as much as any of you -- probably even more so, since I've had some, shall we say, rather unsavoury experiences with it in the past (and present).

This speaks to the bigger issue of how do we get along with each other as free agents without having to run back to mommy government to do something. If we do not have some level of common curtsey and respect, then we'll have breakdowns and the "mass holes" will snicker at us.

And so I only engage in hyperbole to illustrate a point. A point I think is being missed.   :-\
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: greap on July 06, 2010, 08:05:20 am
So, if you consider the CO2 of other breathers to be offensive, how do you cope with being around anyone at all? Do you live in a cave somewhere, or on a mountaintop? Or do you order everyone around you to hold their breath as you walk by?

And do you hold your own breath, since your own CO2 might offend someone?

Now you see the absurdity of attempting to regulate air-pollution. Polluters causing demonstrable harm can be dealt with via the legal system, including smokers if you think you can make a case. Government does demonstrable harm when it involves itself in this area and lowers the quality of air for everyone.

All kidding aside, do you not consider my right and desire not to smell and inhale cigarette smoke to be a valid one? I used to work at a company where smoking was allowed, and ventilation was poor. I came home everyday reeking and smelling of cigarette smoke. Not to mention what damage the smoke was doing to my lungs, a non-smoker.

There are a number of issues here:
1. Things that you find offensive (such as the smell of cigarette smoke) are not grounds for laws, you being offended doesn't violate any right. You preventing someone from offending you does violate their rights. What if I am offended by the shirt you are wearing on a particular day, should you have to take it off because I don't like it?
2. If you enter somewhere that is clearly a smoking environment you have chosen to take that risk, as was seen prior to the smoking ban bars and restaurants did exist which catered to non-smokers, I used to frequent non-smoking restaurants precisely because IMHO it ruins the taste of food but that was a personal choice.
3. As pointed out previously if you can prove demonstrable harm, and with adult second hand smoking you might have some trouble with that, then the legal system already provides a recourse for you.

But apparently you, like all the smokers there, did not have the courtesy to not smoke inside where all the non-smokers are.

Don't be foolish enough to tarnish all smokers with the same brush. People can be courteous or not, smoker or not. Infact most of the radical anti-smoking people I have found to be the absolute worst with this.

So, how do you want it? Do you wish to give us non-smokers some courtesy and respect? Or would you rather have mommy government swoop in to protect my lungs from your smoke -- and maybe get a little overzealous in the process? I would much rather have the former. What's your choice?

I would prefer you to mind your own business and stop trying to tell others what they can and can't do with their lungs.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: greap on July 06, 2010, 08:07:32 am
Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.

No it's not. The justice system exists to clean up after a crime not to protect people from each other, thats your own job.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Bazil on July 06, 2010, 08:12:45 am
not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


Exactly what I don't want. But then if we don't have a right to clean air, does that OK any polluter to dump anything into the air we must breathe? Say, someone builds a trash-burning plant in your backyard, and stinks up your entire neighbourhood.

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.


I agree with you there.  I think when you are on your own property you have every right to not breath crap coming from other people's property.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Sovereign Curtis on July 06, 2010, 08:34:04 am

On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.



Wow. You most certainly do NOT have a Right to breath any kind of air.

You have the ability to somewhat regulate what you breathe, but you have NO Right to leverage the VIOLENCE of The State against a People only hurting themselves...

And if you're worried about the air quality while driving down the road, I suggest you ignore the cigarette dangling out the window in front of you,

and instead focus on the exhaust pipe pointed at you...
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: slayerboy on July 06, 2010, 08:39:04 am
I do my best to stand far away from business doors as much as I can while I smoke as to not annoy people.  I recognize not everyone wants to breathe in smoke, but when you are out in public you have no expectation of anything except people acting responsibly and non-violent.  Dangling the cigarette out of my truck window is nothing compared to what my truck is putting out in emissions, as Curtis said. 
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 10:25:47 am

On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.


Wow. You most certainly do NOT have a Right to breath any kind of air.

Really? So you're saying it's OK for me to pump the air you have to breathe full of pollutants?

Quote


You have the ability to somewhat regulate what you breathe, but you have NO Right to leverage the VIOLENCE of The State against a People only hurting themselves...


Whoa! Don't get the two confused. When I speak of "rights", I am not necessarily alluding to state enforcement, which I stand firmly against anyway. I am talking more about mutual respect for each other. I acknowledge your rights not to have your air you have to breathe filled with my pollutants. And I can only hope you acknowledge my rights to the same.

The problem comes when there is a disagreement. And the last thing I would want to do is tug on mommy government's apron crying "Johnny's putting crap in my air!"

I think we are civilized adults who both love freedom and can resolve it without resorting to the violence of "mommy".

Quote

And if you're worried about the air quality while driving down the road, I suggest you ignore the cigarette dangling out the window in front of you,

and instead focus on the exhaust pipe pointed at you...

Well, with the strict inspection laws, I should notice nothing coming out of that tailpipe -- though some individuals have an issue with their engines burning oil, etc.

I consider my car my property, my travelling packet of sovereignty. With the nice weather we have right now, I want to be able to actually enjoy it. By letting down my windows and rolling back the sun roof.

And, BTW, it has been shown that 2nd-hand smoke can cause problems. So the smoker is not only doing his own lungs in, but mine as well. Which is why Mommy Government has taken it upon herself to "Jump Right In" and hit all of us with draconian smoking laws.

What I seek is a solution to the dispute that does NOT involve tugging on the apron like so many spoiled brats whining about "Johnny hit me!" Because that's what our country has become -- a bunch of whiny brats, where the government becomes the substitute for their mommies.

The Japanese take a different approach -- they actually DO work out issues without resorting to "mommy" -- but they were raised that way. And funny that their number of lawyers per capita is MUCH lower than ours.

If we don't respect each other, then nobody else will respect us either.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: BigJoe on July 06, 2010, 10:34:44 am
not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 10:46:05 am

So, how do you want it? Do you wish to give us non-smokers some courtesy and respect? Or would you rather have mommy government swoop in to protect my lungs from your smoke -- and maybe get a little overzealous in the process? I would much rather have the former. What's your choice?

I would prefer you to mind your own business and stop trying to tell others what they can and can't do with their lungs.

I don't care a rat's ass what you do with your lungs. I do care if what you're doing to your lungs you are also doing to my lungs. Then it becomes MY business.

If I enter a smoking establishment, then yes, I agree with you. I know the risks going in. Same if I choose to work at a place where smoking is allowed. But I'm talking just being outside, either walking or driving. I don't feel as though I have to stay cooped-up indoors or walk around with a bubble or gas mask just to keep my lungs clear of smoke.

And I am NOT one to run to mommy government over a dispute of this nature, but there are many out there that ARE so inclined. And then when mommy reacts, we are ALL slapped down.

So smoke all you want -- I really don't care. Just don't do it in my house; don't do it in my car; and it would also be nice if the smokers who toss their lit butts onto the road would instead use their ashtrays. That's what they are there for.

And if you dangle your cigarette out of the window and it blows into my car, I find that discourteous. When your smoke enters my lungs against my wishes is where the problem begins. And if this simple concept is too much to grasp and understand, then we're lost before even getting started.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 10:48:31 am
Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.

No it's not. The justice system exists to clean up after a crime not to protect people from each other, thats your own job.

So it's water pistol time!  >:D
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 11:06:11 am
I do my best to stand far away from business doors as much as I can while I smoke as to not annoy people.  I recognize not everyone wants to breathe in smoke, but when you are out in public you have no expectation of anything except people acting responsibly and non-violent.  Dangling the cigarette out of my truck window is nothing compared to what my truck is putting out in emissions, as Curtis said. 

True, but I should not have to smell your exhaust. I am well aware of what cars dump into the air, and that's a risk I have come to accept.

I think most smokers have no concept of what they put us non-smokers through. Let me flip this on its edge. What if I had a nasty problem of smelly flatulence, so bad that you could smell it  2 or 3 cars away. And you were stuck behind me for miles.

How would you feel about that? Would you rather I kept my windows rolled up so you wouldn't have to endure it? Or what if I dangled my butt out the window?  ;D

All flippancy aside, this simple issue goes to the heart of so many problems we have with mommy government today. All I seek is a solution that does NOT involve mommy and her violence. What's your take?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 11:37:00 am
...
so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

That presupposes, of course, that the homesteader was made fully aware of the "current state of pollution".  If he purchased the land from another owner, then that prior owner would be liable. But it was unowned in this case. Ah, messy.

One presupposes the homesteader did his homework up front. But maybe your pollution patterns are seasonal, and he bought in on an off-season. Yep. One the courts would definitely have to settle.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: John Edward Mercier on July 06, 2010, 11:47:12 am
The problem is you wish to incite an incident with the water pistol, but wish collective protection from the results of your personal action. I have no problem with your aggression with the water pistol, but I also have no problem watching you get pummelled for the use of the water pistol.

Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 06, 2010, 12:09:54 pm
The problem is you wish to incite an incident with the water pistol, but wish collective protection from the results of your personal action. I have no problem with your aggression with the water pistol, but I also have no problem watching you get pummelled for the use of the water pistol.



The Water Pistol bit is humor, an outgrowth of my personal frustration with the cigarette issue. But it also illustrates a point that I consider being inundated by cigarette smoke against my wishes in an open area the same as the response to it -- the water pistol.

Obviously, in reality, non-smokers don't go about pummelling smokers.  But I wish that smokers would realize that's the level of annoyance they sometimes cause, which results in some running to mommy government to inflict the force instead.

I prefer non-violent, peaceful, government-free solutions to our grievances.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: slayerboy on July 06, 2010, 12:42:33 pm
So what is the solution to this without involving government force?  The bottom line is you can't control another human being, you can only control yourself.  If you don't want to be around a smoker, don't go near the smoker?

I don't have a concrete answer on this issue, but let me ask you to turn the tables around and look at this issue from a smoker's point of view:

It wasn't long ago that I would be able to smoke anywhere I wanted.  I remember as a kid, walking with my dad in the mall while he was smoking (my dad has since quit).  That was maybe 20 years ago? When I started smoking we could only smoke in areas of a building designated as smoking sections, that was about 15 or so years ago.  Already, within the span of about 5 years, smokers were force to herd like cattle into specific areas because non-smokers didn't want to smell the stuff and be exposed to it.  Fine, whatever.  About 7 or 8 years ago they banned smoking in all public buildings.  So now, us smokers are again relegated to move like cattle outside into the elements to do something that we enjoy.  I could no longer sit at a bar and enjoy a smoke while I drank a beer because a woman who knew when she got the job that there was smoke, all of a sudden didn't want to be forced to work around smoke and decided to complain loud enough for the state legislature to hear about it.  Some buildings have a roof over the sidewalk, so we are at least sheltered from getting too wet.  Some buildings, like one of my previous employers required us to be 30 feet away from the building, not just from the door.  If I visit someone in the hospital, I can't smoke at all ON THE GROUNDS of the hospital!  I have to walk down to the street and CROSS it just to smoke a cigarette.  Also, don't forget, while all of this is going on, right about the same time they started raising prices of cigarettes and adding more taxes.  When I started smoking back around 1996 I could buy a pack of smokes for $1/pack for generics.  Thanks to recent NY legislation, I will pay $10/pack now!

If coffee drinkers were introduced to the same laws, there'd be a mass stampede to D.C. claiming their rights are being violated.   Let's put it another way, let's say I'm allergic to perfume.  Does that mean I have the right to go around and force everyone around who has perfume to stay to one part of a building? As a business owner, yes I could.  As a regular person, only in my house and nowhere else.

The bottom line is that you can only control yourself.  Trying to stop someone from doing what they enjoy is trying to force someone to do your will because you can't stand the smell.

Maybe the solution is to have non-smoking roads and sidewalks.  Let's herd all the smokers into an even MORE limited environment.  I don't want to quit.  I enjoy smoking.  I would be fine with businesses having a no-smoking policy.  I might even be fine if owners of roads institued a no smoking policy on their roads.  I do not want a group of individuals calling themselves the government to force all businesses to ban smoking, and to put further restrictions on smokers.

I think this is one of the most important concepts with liberty.  Tolerance is key, taking responsibilities for your own self and not allowing others to control you is another key point. 
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: BigJoe on July 06, 2010, 01:10:09 pm
...
so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

That presupposes, of course, that the homesteader was made fully aware of the "current state of pollution".  If he purchased the land from another owner, then that prior owner would be liable. But it was unowned in this case. Ah, messy.

One presupposes the homesteader did his homework up front. But maybe your pollution patterns are seasonal, and he bought in on an off-season. Yep. One the courts would definitely have to settle.

it is impossible for a homesteader qua homesteader to buy land
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Bazil on July 06, 2010, 04:22:59 pm
not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

No I believe in property rights.  Maybe this is a simple misinterpretation; the way I see it the polluter is already homesteading the "unowned" land he is polluting, by the fact that he is "using" it.  So the second person wouldn't have any right to settle it to begin with.  Therefore someone else could only settle there with the previous homesteader's permission.  I just don't see how the situation you describe could arise.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: BigJoe on July 06, 2010, 05:52:15 pm
not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

No I believe in property rights.  Maybe this is a simple misinterpretation; the way I see it the polluter is already homesteading the "unowned" land he is polluting, by the fact that he is "using" it.  So the second person wouldn't have any right to settle it to begin with.  Therefore someone else could only settle there with the previous homesteader's permission.  I just don't see how the situation you describe could arise.

polluting onto a piece of land is not sufficient for claiming to homestead that land.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Bazil on July 06, 2010, 07:44:19 pm
not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.

No I believe in property rights.  Maybe this is a simple misinterpretation; the way I see it the polluter is already homesteading the "unowned" land he is polluting, by the fact that he is "using" it.  So the second person wouldn't have any right to settle it to begin with.  Therefore someone else could only settle there with the previous homesteader's permission.  I just don't see how the situation you describe could arise.

polluting onto a piece of land is not sufficient for claiming to homestead that land.

If I was the polluter and no one else owned the land I was polluting it would be :D
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: tas24 on July 17, 2010, 03:30:04 pm
Hi Everyone, Just wanted to add my two cents to this thread. It seems to me that there are two separate issues here and that smokers are being used as the token scapegoat.
 
First, regarding throwing butts out the window, the issue here would be littering, not smoking.

Second, regarding second hand smoke in the outdoors, the issue would be air pollutants, again, not smokers.

Be careful, this is the kind of thinking that encourages people to ignore the real issues at hand. This is the same tactic employed by media and government to distract the masses. Just look at whats discussed and debated in any election year. Smokers just happen to be the latest, politically correct group to bash. If you are really concerned about littering and air quality, the best action would probably be to focus on those issues.


I
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on July 18, 2010, 01:04:44 am
Hi Everyone, Just wanted to add my two cents to this thread. It seems to me that there are two separate issues here and that smokers are being used as the token scapegoat.
 
First, regarding throwing butts out the window, the issue here would be littering, not smoking.

Second, regarding second hand smoke in the outdoors, the issue would be air pollutants, again, not smokers.

Be careful, this is the kind of thinking that encourages people to ignore the real issues at hand. This is the same tactic employed by media and government to distract the masses. Just look at whats discussed and debated in any election year. Smokers just happen to be the latest, politically correct group to bash. If you are really concerned about littering and air quality, the best action would probably be to focus on those issues.

I partially agree with you. Throwing cigarette butts out of the car window is definitely littering; however, the butts are almost always lit, and they sometimes bounce around underneath my car near the gas tank. It is possible, though unlikely, that their might be a gas leak that would be ignited by a lit butt. That puts it in a different class than, say, tossing chewing gum wrappers out of the window.

As far as 2nd-hand smoke being polluting, I would agree with that too.

I have nothing against smokers and those who choose to smoke. Hey, it's their lung. Smoke away. But if we wish to successfully work towards eliminating government from our lives, it would be extremely helpful if we not engage in acts that might encourage some to run to mommy government for "relief".

I actually feel for smokers because I know how addictive nicotine can be. Those who wish to quit find it exceedingly hard to do.

And I ran into a fellow Free Stater a week or two ago who had an electronic cigarette. The thing was incredible. Almost completely smokeless and orderless. You could definitely get away in smoking one of those in "No Smoking" areas.

And so, you guessed what was immediately on my mind -- an electronic refer. Yes, folks, this would be progress at its finest!  :P
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Ed on August 31, 2010, 08:10:22 pm
I look forward to the day when I can again have a smoke and a pancake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRtNfb6D3Mc&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRtNfb6D3Mc&feature=related)
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: K. Darien Freeheart on September 14, 2010, 11:46:15 pm
I am SO thankful that people have moved beyond the idea of "Gather at a bar and pay taxes!"

I've felt, over and over, unwelcome at Murphy's Taproom for various reasons. As such, I've stopped patronizing that establishment and instead, attending private events that do NOT tax me for food products, do not card my friends who are old enough to steadfastly opposed the state but NOT possess beer, who can legally raise children but not sip from my glass...

Smoking is permitted on private property in NH and there is a trend to stop supporting places that comply with the smoking ban. :)

The market has found a way!
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on September 21, 2010, 11:57:34 pm
I am SO thankful that people have moved beyond the idea of "Gather at a bar and pay taxes!"

I've felt, over and over, unwelcome at Murphy's Taproom for various reasons. As such, I've stopped patronizing that establishment and instead, attending private events that do NOT tax me for food products, do not card my friends who are old enough to steadfastly opposed the state but NOT possess beer, who can legally raise children but not sip from my glass...

Smoking is permitted on private property in NH and there is a trend to stop supporting places that comply with the smoking ban. :)

The market has found a way!

Well, now, let's see. Either Murphy complies with Government's Smoking ban and loose some business, or not comply and gets put out of  business by the Government.

You have to pick your battles carefully. And Murphy put  a lot of his Blood, Sweat, and Tears into creating that business. So, given those choices, what would you do if you were in his place?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: K. Darien Freeheart on September 23, 2010, 12:30:28 pm
I wasn't speaking specifically about Murphy's in regard to the smoking issue, just expressing my more general appreciation that things (and more than just Taproom!) have shifted to more private events.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: K. Darien Freeheart on September 23, 2010, 12:31:32 pm
That said...

It's been 4 years since the ban passed and I've not seen legislative action repeal it. If there will be disobedient or market activism with regard to this issue, it's got to start SOMEWHERE.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on September 24, 2010, 08:58:19 am
That said...

It's been 4 years since the ban passed and I've not seen legislative action repeal it. If there will be disobedient or market activism with regard to this issue, it's got to start SOMEWHERE.

You can start by opening up your own smoking establishment.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: freedomroad on September 24, 2010, 09:35:13 am
That said...

It's been 4 years since the ban passed and I've not seen legislative action repeal it. If there will be disobedient or market activism with regard to this issue, it's got to start SOMEWHERE.

There was a measure that would somehow reduce regulations on cigar smoking.  Not sure if it passed.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Bazil on September 24, 2010, 11:27:51 am
Hmm how is the law written, maybe someone can open up a "smoke shop" and obtain a liqueur license?
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on September 24, 2010, 05:12:56 pm
There's no law enjoining you from smoking in a Smoke Shop, is there?  :-\

Title: Re: smoking
Post by: K. Darien Freeheart on September 26, 2010, 11:51:00 am
Private clubs are exempt from the smoking ban. There was a place in Keene for a while that was a "Middle Eastern Cultural Appreciation Club" called Abunara. It was a hookah lounge.

I know a few places in Manchester that are cigar shops that allow smoking of cigars.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: FreedomFred on September 26, 2010, 01:41:19 pm
Private clubs are exempt from the smoking ban. There was a place in Keene for a while that was a "Middle Eastern Cultural Appreciation Club" called Abunara. It was a hookah lounge.

I know a few places in Manchester that are cigar shops that allow smoking of cigars.

That's cool. Perhaps in the short run that's the way to go -- if you want to do a smoking establishment, make it a "private club" and offer "membership" right there at the door. Cuts through a lot of BS.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: waifofthenorth on October 24, 2010, 11:52:18 am
I have asthma and can't be around if people are smoking. I was just thinking that if people hadn't gone and made all the indoors non-smoking there might be more outdoor places that were smoke free.

I mean, if there were restaurants where smokers could smoke at lunch, maybe they wouldn't stand outside where I have to hold my breath walking by. I would hope there would be some places that didn't allow smoking I could go to.

The real issue is, business owners want the government to protect them from any of there competition going to places that still allow smoking. I guess people just aren't brave enough to lose a little business for what they believe is healthy.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: time4liberty on October 27, 2010, 02:02:19 pm
The way you fix that is to get people to patronize those businesses that don't allow smoking -- then they'll be an economic impetus for other owners to do the same. The owners are mostly just going to respond to what the public wants. If everyone doesn't mind it, or acts like they don't mind it, all the restaurants are going to allow it.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: preparehandbook on November 03, 2010, 06:55:51 pm
I think you have a right to carry and even use a squirt gun on smokers (presuming it is loaded with water)....

But in turn the smokers have a right to defend themselves and since NH has a draconian anti body armor law the smokers will likely be unable to use passive defense systems such as umbrellas or raincoats without elaborate "it might rain" excuses.

So I predict a rapidly escalating war of squirt guns, super soakers, water balloons and maybe even the WMD of water warfare... The fire hose. Dessicants will at first be rare and limited to pockets, but eventually will be seen to be dusted on even innocent school children to reduce collateral damage. Soon every smoker and non smoker will be seen to be open carrying squirt guns, private "dryness squads" will be hired by the wealthy to combat the rise in "wet gangs" conducting hits on smokers. Water proof cigarette covers will be the NH's biggest product.

These will be used to increase your odds of finishing a smoke:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iLSmTPwJGZY/SmSB9vAz7NI/AAAAAAAAWPc/kQgjFG4FGY8/s400/1.jpg)

This inventor will win a nobel prize:
(http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/PopularScience/11-1933/waterproof_cigarette.jpg)

And this will be the official state game:
(http://www.rongteen.com/games/img-game/CIGARETTE_SNIPER.JPG)

This will of course result in a cascade of violence and revolution that will bring about the end of the world in, you geussed it.... 2012
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Manhattan on November 07, 2010, 09:41:25 pm
Even if we decided to ignore the evidence that the dangers from second hand smoke are totally overblown, distorted, and fabricated (read: they don't really exist), and proclaim that environmental tobacco smoke is a great threat that we need to protect non-smokers from ( ::)), it should be fairly obvious to libertarians which situations where smoking would be permissible:

The Commerce Clause be damned, the desires of the property owner are paramount.  Even in a world of no smoking regulation, a property owner could still decide that he does not want smokers on his property and thus forbid them from doing so.  The government has no say in the matter.

In a perfectly libertarian society, even the roads that some people prefer that smokers do not smoke while driving on would be privately owned.  The owner would determine what behavior would be acceptable while driving on his roads (now, how private ownership of infrastructure would be organized is another whole talk entirely).

If you're not an anarcho-capitalist and you think that in a libertarian society that there should still be a government which has control over roads and the behaviors permitted and regulations enforced on them, then you might have a case if you want to use violence against those who choose to smoke while driving on public roads.

If you don't like smokers on sidewalks or in front of buildings, then so what?  Avoid them.  It is not like we are constantly accosted by smokers everywhere we go.  It is not a grand smoker's conspiracy to blow smoke in the face of those who do not like the habit (it is quite the contrary).  The fact that a majority of people do not like tobacco smoke only provides a social incentive for people not to smoke or stop smoking.  Let normal social pressures persuade people to voluntarily kick the habit.  Smokers already suffer from the social stigma to a point that it can seriously inhibit career progress and important networking (as people would prefer not to befriend smokers if they find it repulsive, as many people increasingly do).  Hooray for market forces at work in the social realm.

For the record, I am a loyal Nat Sherman cigarette smoker and I understand that many people do not like smoking, so I am courteous about my behavior and do not litter or smoke at the entrances of buildings, and I always ask permission if I may smoke in someone's private residence or even outside at a social gathering.  Nothing to do with government or regulation.

After all, it is totally understandable why people do not like tobacco smoke.  It makes sense that one would be as courteous as possible if he so desired to remain in good standing with others.  Those who are not suffer the social consequences (along with the health risks, obviously).  It is the same with alcohol.  It is obviously within people's right to get drunk at a bar, but it probably isn't beneficial to your social standing to make a fool of yourself.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: preparehandbook on November 08, 2010, 12:23:00 am
I like a lot of what Manhattan says.

I am an ex smoker.

When I was, I was conscientous of others. I smoked in a way that respected non smokers. We can get along, we can find comfortable middle grounds without legislation beyond property rights.

The fact is the vast majority of social behaviors are self moderated. Inconsiderate smokers and non smokers both suck. But we can't legislate everything.
Title: Re: smoking
Post by: Manhattan on November 08, 2010, 06:35:31 pm
I like a lot of what Manhattan says.

I am an ex smoker.

When I was, I was conscientous of others. I smoked in a way that respected non smokers. We can get along, we can find comfortable middle grounds without legislation beyond property rights.

The fact is the vast majority of social behaviors are self moderated. Inconsiderate smokers and non smokers both suck. But we can't legislate everything.

Well put.