Smoky bar triggered fatal asthma attack

A woman in her late teens died from an acute asthma attack triggered by secondhand cigarette smoke shortly after arriving at her job as a waitress in a bar in Michigan, researchers reported on Friday.

“i am not in favor of the ban. i am not against the ban. oh, what s the use? you evidently need to post 6 times in a row to get your point across.”

I find it funny that you celebrate the ban and defend the ban, then state that you have no opinion. How is it possible to be so obtuse and hypocritical? My guess would be that you lack a thought out principle with regards to property rights, therefore it is easier to waffle in these discussions.

Keep in mind that the tools are being used here, will continue to be used against the righteous. Don’t think that it is to much of a stretch to consider the Bible to be hate speech. It offends some members of society, therefore their freedom to not be offended, a tool created in the smoking on private property issue, will be used to prosecute individuals preaching that hate speech.

Personally, I think a restaurant owner should have the right to bar any customer for any reason.

I understand your argument in theoretical terms but if we were to allow this behavior, do you think society would be in better or worse shape?

Should a restaurant owner have the right to bar people in wheelchairs? Women? Men? People with moustaches? Foreigners? Democrats? Republicans?

Before desegrgation was made mandatory people treated blacks at a few levels below their pets. I think that was bad for America and think we are far better off with this government intrusion. History teaches us that if a group of people can treat another part of society poorly, it will.

This notion that the government is intruding where it doesn't belong is also good in theory but sometimes it is necessary for the good of society.

I know that some people believe that the mandatory use of seat belts is uncalled for. But if a parent doesn't buckle their kid in and the kid flies through the windshield it ain't a good thing. The kid has no choice in the decision. Is it government intrusion? Yes. Is it a good idea anyway? I would argue yes.

I believe racial discrimination is immoral. I also think it's a really stupid thing for a business owner to do. But I also don't believe we should use government force to make people be nice or to force businessmen to make smart decisions. Even though the intentions are noble, I don't believe in restricting the freedom of association in this way. No one should be forced to do business against their will.

Again, in theory we are in agreement but as much as I treasure the rights of individuals to do what they want with their own lives, I know that, without some intrusion, as much as I dislike it, we would be on a far worse course than we are on.

It's the same reason I support the right of landlords not to rent to unmarried couples, the right of pharmacists not to sell contraceptives, and the right of Christian photographers to refuse to work at a homosexual wedding. Even if I disagree with their ideals, I believe they have the right to live by them so long as they do not violate anyone's rights.

These are tougher examples but no photographer should have to work a homosexual wedding and I'm not sure how this is related to the rest of the discussion.

The landlord example fits better into the main point and I understand your position but I would also disagree with it.

The pharmacist example is way off in my opinion. It is his job to sell whatever his store buys, otherwise he should be fired for refusal to do so, especially if we are talking about a chain. Contraceptives are not people. They are an item so I don't think this is a fair comparison to the rest of the discussion.

If however, you mean the owner of a pharmacy, then he indeed should have the right to sell or not sell whatever he wants. The market will determine his success or failure with this policy.

I understand your argument in theoretical terms but if we were to allow this behavior, do you think society would be in better or worse shape?...This notion that the government is intruding where it doesn't belong is also good in theory but sometimes it is necessary for the good of society.

Would society be better or worse? Personally, I suspect things would be about the same. Irrational discrimination is costly and confers no benefits. It's something the market is likely to phase out. (It may be of interest to you that previous discrimination in public accommodations was, in fact, the result of government meddling in the first place. It was opposed by many private business owners.)

As to the view that government intrusion is sometimes necessary for the good of society...I agree to an extent. I am not an anarchist, and I recognize a role for government in protecting individual rights. However, I disagree with the idea of empowering government to make society "a better place" in a broad, abstract way. That power is inevitably going to involve curtailing people's rights, which is bad by itself. But in addition, governments have a tendency to solve problems poorly and to expand their powers well beyond what was originally intended. So even if we think a measured restriction of individual rights is worth the kinder, gentler society we want, chances are the government will screw things up and we'll actually have to face a whole new set of problems. That's why I think we should limit the government to a few specific, well-defined roles, and not let them curtail rights unless absolutely necessary.

In any case, I don't think the smoking issue is an example where government intrusion is needed for the good of society. Nonsmokers are in the majority now, they have the advantage as far as public opinion goes, and the trend in society is going in their favor. The market, left to its own devices, is going to leave them plenty of options when it comes to bars, restaurants, and hotels. So why get the government involved? Is it really that bad for society if a few businesses choose to cater to an increasingly smaller population of smokers?

These are tougher examples but no photographer should have to work a homosexual wedding and I'm not sure how this is related to the rest of the discussion.

My point was to illustrate that individual rights should trump well-intentioned government compulsion. In each example, we had a contest between an individual's property rights or right of association and the community's sense of fairness and well-being. For most of the examples, we were in agreement that individual rights should prevail.

[As far as the pharmacy example, you are very right that it should be the owner, not the employee, that decides what to sell. I should have been more precise]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.