in places like NYC where i am, it's tough because, as you can imagine, space is at a premium.
i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?
New York may make allowances like that, but many other jurisdictions do not. While NY's ban may be better than the draconian ones in places like Ohio or Michigan, I still think it's unnecessary. In the absence of the law, bars and restaurants could still construct self-contained smoking areas. I imagine that many would, simply because it would allow them to cater to both smokers and nonsmokers who go to bars in mixed groups. But why force a bar owner to adopt that arrangement if he doesn't want to?
...i dont advocate restricting rights for restricting rights sake, but there is a definite health concern here. no, i don't think 2nd hand smoke kills people as much as people say, but i do think it is harmful. there seems to be no right answer to this questions. it depends on which angle you are coming from. do health concerns trump the rights of a certain sect f the population, or is it the other way around?
I disagree that there is a health issue involved. At least not a PUBLIC health issue, as that concept is properly understood.
That's not to say second-hand smoke does not pose health risks. It might or it might not...I still don't believe the evidence is conclusive in either direction. But just for the sake of argument, let's say that second-hand smoke does pose some health risk.
That's not the end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Just because something is unhealthy doesn't automatically justify government intervention. Obviously there are a number of things in life that are unhealthy but that do not call for government regulation. Take fatty foods for instance. We all know that a cheeseburger a day is bad for the arteries. But no one would suggest that the government should institute restrictions on the consumption or sale of cheeseburgers (unless they are a nanny-state liberal). We recognize that people are responsible enough to handle that risk on their own.
So what about second hand smoke? What it is that makes it so uniquely dangerous that the government has to step in and protect us, even on private property? It's not contagious like E. Coli. It's not undetectable like asbestos in the walls. And it's not instantly fatal like cyanide.
In short, why is it that people can't avoid the danger of second-hand smoke by simply going to smoke-free bars and restaurants? Are they incapable of doing so? Should they have the right not only to visit any bar or restaurant they want, but also to demand that the owner comply with their every wish?
Given that government bans are not needed to protect people from second hand smoke, what other conservative justification is there? I don't know of any. And if there isn't a justification for restricting rights and empowering the government, as conservatives we should stand against it.