I think not.  People willing to commit murder will do so when it suits them.  Besides, the laws are in place to render justice (such as it is here), not prevent murder.

 "As opposed to the Canadians, the Iirish, and the Germans?"  Sorry, I'm new to this and don't know how to do the quotes.

Actually, what I meant was that as Canadians, Irish, Germans, Americans, etc, we all worry about the behavior of our OWN governments.  Furthermore, if the US government continues with it's policies that intrude more and more into the private lives of it's citizens, we Americans are stuck with the consequences, not the Canadians, Irish, Germans, etc.

"If we let the "market" set the rules for harmful actions you will quickly notice that people will murder each other because the market fails to come up with an incentive for violent people not to murder."

Are we on the same subject?  I was talking about smoking in private business establishments, a behavior that may be offensive to many (including myself) but is not illegal.  The market will indeed reward the business owner who creates an environment that pleases the majority of his customers.  So if most of us want a smoke free atmosphere we'll flock to the bar that provides this.  As far as the market and murder go, I don't know what to say.  Murder is against the law and here we depend on our government for protection but until smoking is declared illegal I, for one, prefer to protect myself.

The examples are merely used to represent other actions that harm people. Generally the question is whether it is OK to harm others without their consent or not.

Excuse me, but what exactly is "socialist" about banning smoking? I don't see how it has anything to do with socialism. Banning murder is not more "socialist" than not banning murder. And banning smoking is not more "socialist" than not banning smoking.

EVERY regulation is not harmful. Making murder illegal is not "harmful". And I find the excuse that prohibiting harming other people is some sort of regulation of business and "socialism" quite laughable. It's avoiding the issue. If you have a point against banning smoking in the presence of others, bring it on. But screaming "socialism" when the subject has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism is not a point.

I am sure the laws exist to prevent murder.

And I agree that people willing to commit murder will do so when it suits them. Just like smokers will smoke when it suits them. That's why I don't believe that the market can regulate these issues.

Harming other people without their consent is wrong and government should enforce that fact. It's not a question of what economic system we emply, it's a question of whether we believe that government should enforce individual rights EVEN when smokers want to violate them or not.

I'm aware of this.  So why isn't it illegal in bars?

I think you missed the beginning of the discussion.

The subject was whether it should be illegal.

My opinion is that actions that harm others against their will, whether it is murder or smoking in their presence should not be allowed, even in private businesses.

A law prohibiting smoking in privarte businesses is in place in Ireland (but not in Germany) and, apparently, in some US states.

I don't believe that anybody, including smokers, has a right to do harm to others, even if the business owner refuses to prohibit such actions.

I feel that smoking in the presense of others who don't agree with the harm done to them by that action should also be illegal. And that's exactly what many European countries are now implementing.

I fully agree with your sentiment, Karma, but the US has never been a democracy.  Rather a representative republic which, at one time, anyway, actually represented us.  Our government now exists to sustain and enlarge itself rather than represent us, I'm afraid.  Why we keep electing such goons is beyond me.

I think we have been there before.

I know plenty of pubs in my area that play loud music. And I know plenty of pubs that don't.

But before the smoking ban I didn't know of a single pub that was smoke-free.

Note that it is not customers who play loud music in those pubs, it is the pubs themselves offering such an "entertainment".

Whether this is acceptable for people who work in the bars is for the legislative to decide, I suppose. I am not very interested in the issue because I am not as bothered by loud music as I am by smoke. It is also quite possible for people to work in another pub if they don't like the loud music. As I said, there are lots of pubs that don't play loud music.

(And whoever insists on working in a smoke environment is free to look for a job in a private smoking club.)

A representative republic is a type of democracy. In fact all democracies (except for a few cantons in Switzerland I suppose, which are direct democracies) are representative. (The third type is the council democracy.)

You guys have given me a lot to think about.  I'm really impressed by the debate here.  I've really enjoyed this debate because I have no emotional attachment to the issue of smoking.  I do feel strongly about personal rights and am opposed to a government bent on protecting us form ourselves.

I appreciate that even though one person said that something I said was stupid, noone actually called anyone stupid or any other name.  This is the kind of debate we need more of!

I agree but if you enter a private establishment, you consent to be exposed to any LEGAL activity within.

Our government is already so bloated and inefficient.  Who is going to enforce the ban?  Who is going to be in charge of cigarette regulation?

We have so many problems and expenses in our government already!  We already agree that smoking in PUBLIC and GOVERNMENT locations is wrong and I haven't heard anyone have a problem with that.  We are talking about the rights of privately owned establishments.  That is my big issue here. 

See, you're making the same argument it's just you don't mind the loud music.  The thing is, currently, smokers and non smokers have the same rights.  Both are behaving in legal ways.  If you say people can find a job in another pub if they don't like loud music, why doesn't that work for those who don't like smoke?  If the pub owner likes to smoke and has friends who smoke an likes people who smoke, why shouldn't he be able to allow smoking in his pub?  He owns it right?  He can post a sign warning that if you don't like smoke, go somewhere else.

That's your own anecdotal experience in your own little region of the world.  I know plenty of places in our area that aren't smokey.  I'd never go to a bar otherwise.

That is a whole different debate that our country has been struggling with for some time.  I will just say this since you keep insisting on comparing the US to other governments, as a parent I know that what works with one child may not work for the next.  I feel the same applies to governments.  You can't compare what works for one little country the size of one of our small states to what would work for the entire US.

Yes, I agree.

But I don't think smoking next to other people (unless they agree with it) should be legal, because it is an action that harms others.

Here in Ireland it is business owners who are in charge of the ban. Try to smoke in a pub and the land lord will tell you something about it.

If those privately owned establishments are open to tbe public or have employees, I feel that safety regulations should apply, EVEN IF they might impact smokers.

What I don't get is this general belief that so many seem to have that smokers are (or should be) a class above and beyond other people, a class of people whose right to harm others should not be questioned per se.

Forget about it being smoking and think of any other activity that is as harmful to other people.

Most of those other activities would be illegal of course, since people who pursue those are not, like smokers, above the law.

I'd rather lose 2 euros per hour than breath second-hande smoke. Of course, stealing 2 euros from me every hour is illegal, even in private businesses where I might be employed.

And that's the point. Even though the one harms me MORE than the other, the one is not illegal because the smoker is considered to be above the law, while the 2 euros per hour thief is not.

What else is harmful to other people and legal? I can now only think of smoking. And if it is only smoking, it means that smokers are currently a privileged class as the only people who can legally harm others.

No, I am not making the same argument. I am just saying that _I_ don't care about loud music, and there is no need for me to be an activist of some sort in areas that don't interest me just because I have an opinion in another area.

If you are convinced by my argument about smoking you can tell me that it also applies to loud music and I would probably agree. But I really don't care about the music subject.

No. Currently smokers have the right to harm non-smokers but not vice versa. I, a non-smoker, am NOT allowed to steal 2 euros per hour from smokers (and burn the money). But they are allowed to cause me an equivalent amount of harm. That's NOT the same rights.

You can argue that I have the right to harm them as well, using that legal method of theirs; but then the entire thing becomes  a farce. I assume from the beginning that NOBODY has a right to harm others, not that we need to find an equilibrium of methods.

I told you. There are two reasons, possibly related.

One is that while there are many pubs without loud music, there were, before the law here in Ireland, no pubs without smoke.

The other is that going into a pub and making loud music is already illegal. Only the land lord himself can play loud music. Hence the number of pubs where that happens is much smaller as the land lord has direct control and does not lose customers by not playing loud music at any given moment.

I am convinced that it wouldn't.

But that doesn't mean that I have to accept as gospel whatever some American says about socialised medicine when I know from experience that it is wrong.

Sorry for raising a semantic point.  I agree ours is a highly modified form of democratic government, at least in the common use of the term.