EAllusion wrote:You seem to be arguing that simply because a law passes, it is a wise, just law. That's inane, but what other argument are you offering with this repeated statement? Gay marriage bans have passed by wide majorities in numerous states, but you aren't here defending that.
You have yet to prove that clean indoor air laws aren't wise and just. Just because you don't agree with a law doesn't mean it's not wise and just. I can point to lowered health risks and lowered costs to businesses. What can you point to? (It helps to remember there is no right to endanger the public with a known carcinogen. What a person does in their own home is, of course, up to them. If they choose to lower their property values, endanger their loved ones, and generally mess up their health, that's up to them.)
Here's the difference between my solution and yours. In my world, people who want establishments that offer the opportunity to smoke can exist along side those that don't.
Got that. As long as you understand that the public and the science supports the ban, you can wish for your own hell.
As long as both groups' have a large enough population and desire, different establishments will exist to cater to boths' interests. This maximizes people's chance to find what works best for them individually. In your world, you plan working to force people to make the choice that you personally like with their only recourse being to seize back bayonet of the government.
You seem to think smoking is a right. It's not.
Actually, in my world, I work to protect the public from a known carcinogen, just like I would work to protect them from nuclear radiation or diseased meat. Unless you're saying that nuclear power plants should be able to contaminate the air and water supply with impunity? And cattle with mad cow disease have just as much right to be in your grocery store as any other cow?
Public health protects the public. Clean indoor air is part of public health, since the science supports the removal of smoke from an enclosed space where the public can enter.
I fail to see what this has to do with harm to others, which is what I was replying to. I realize you have two distinct arguments here. 1) Secondhand smoke is dangerous to others and 2) Smoking causes heath care costs to go up, justifying people regulating their behavior.
My point was in response to the former. As for the latter, since smokers tend to die younger their health care costs are nearly a wash. But even if they weren't, you are setting a dangerous and ill-considered precedent if you favor stripping people of their freedom if their choices result in a slight increase in insurance premiums.
I repeat: smoking is not a right. Are you seriously now advocating for an agonizing premature death after half a lifetime of lost production time, multiple insurance claims, not to mention repeatedly exposing non-smoking family, friends, and co-workers to a known carcinogen?
You seem to be advocating a particular position that you want John Q. Public to adopt that entails running businesses for them. You made an argument that banning smoking will be a good business decision. If that's the case, businesses are free to adopt it without legal bans. It's increasingly clear that you think John Q. Public is justified in forcing people to do pretty much anything in the name of their personal health, but the point is if your argument was persuasive, then it wouldn't be necessary to invoke the law.
Actually, I'm advocating for the public's health. All that smoke is like pee in a pool.
The heck? Then why are you Ok with people being allowed to smoke in their own homes? In fact your who line of argumentation here implies you favor banning smoking everywhere. Smoking doesn't stop being dangerous to people in houses.
[/quote]
You mistake me. I'm not concerned about the fool who chooses to negatively impact his/her own health, as long as 1) the public doesn't have to pay for his/her stupidity through public insurance claims for smoking related illnesses and higher economic costs based on production levels and increased insurance rates, or 2) the public doesn't have to breathe known carcinogens. 2 has been pretty much accomplished; still working on 1. People are free to kill themselves via whatever means they want to, in their own homes. When they spread their carcinogens over the general public though, the public is entitled to regulate. Clean air is a right; smoking is not.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.