"I don't really care what you "maintain"

And guess what, I don't really have much respect for your opinions either.  Quantity of responses doesn't necessarily equal quality.

"When and where did I say that smoking was illegal in the UK and Ireland?"

Right here.

namgreb: "If enough scientific data exists showing a link between second hand or slipstream smoke and serious health issues then our government needs to do what we pay it for and pass a law criminalizing this behavior. ... Now what do you think the chances are of that ever happening?"

Leauki: "Very high.  It happened in the UK and Ireland."

Do you even bother to read what others are saying on this site?  I'm not a smoker, hate to be exposed to any smoke, would be happy if smoking were illegal, but - in the US it is NOT illegal.  And as long as it's legal I want my government to stay out of my PRIVATE smoking behavior!  Don't you realize that the real topic of this blog has nothing to do with smoking, that's just an example of the issue.  The real concern here is that the US government is inexorably inculcating itself into the private life of it's citizens.  Our personal freedoms are being slowly eroded and some of us are very worried.  I really don't understand why you, as an Irishman, are so inflamed by the political affairs of the US.

Apperantly because of the tautology that "smoking should be legal because it is legal"

You can't take their LEGAL RIGHT to do something that is PERFECTLY LEGAL like smoking... even if it is harming another.

I don't know how often I have to repeat these points. Maybe one last time will be good. After that I will simply refer to this post.

1. There are plenty of pubs that don't play loud music. But there was no single pub in Dublin that prohibited smoking.

2. The music is played by the land lord to entertain the patrons. It is NOT brought in by patrons. If I go to a pub that plays music, I chose to hear music. But I _assure_ you (and I guess you will just have to believe me), that I ever ever went to a pub to breath smoke.

3. All issues are only issues because someone sees them as an issue.

I'm not talking about your opinions as such but about your reading of the subject of a discussion.

But I appreciate your stance on MY opinions. I knew it was probably the case.

Again, you missed the discussion. The context was smoking in public places. And without you insisting that the subject be something else and your lack of respect for other people's opinions, you would have realised that.

Yes. But I think you have missed the entire part of the discussion where the subject was defined.

If smoking next to other people (and thus harming them) must be legal because smoking is legal, then so must shooting people (and thus harming them) be legal because shooting guns per se is legal.

Yes. Can you please tell Namgreb? He seems to have missed/ignored that part.

I know it is. I have been trying to explain that to Namgreb.

And there lies your disconnect with us talking about US law- in the US there ARE bars and restaurants that are smoke free by choice.  So, as a consumer, you have the choice to either go to one that does or does not have smoking in it. 

That doesn't change my argument at all.

I still don't think that harming other people should be allowed, even if it's good for business to allow it.

You may need to re-read the original post.  The issue that is being discussed is whether the government should be allowed to ban a legal substance from privately owned businesses.  There is a difference between a law and a regulation.

You and Taltamir really need to re-read the original post:

It's right there in the second paragraph.  The entire discussion here has been about why the government should be allowed to ban a LEGAL substance from being used in privately owned businesses.  This is NOT a tautology, it is NOT a falacy, it is the discusion that we are having.

But this discussion is NOT about whether smoking should be illegal or not.  If you want to have that discussion start another blog.  This discussion is about whether the government should be allowed to ban legal substances from being used within privately owned businesses.  Stop trying to change the subject.

No they didn't.  It was legal and then it was deemed illegal.  It was never legal and regulated on private businesses.

Your position may be clear but it is NOT what the original subject of this blog was about.  Please stop trying to hijack this blog.

Was there a law prohibiting bars from opening if they didn't allow smoking?  If not then it wasn't a fault in the law that caused your problem but a lack of the market to fulfill a desire from the public.  If you saw an opening in the market you should have opened your own smoke free bar.  Problem solved without the government needing to get involved.

And the land lord chose to allow smoking in their establishment, you knew this ahead of time therefore you were accepting the risk of inhaling smoke by entering the bar.  If you didn't want to inhale the smoke you should have gone elsewhere for your drinks.

I joined the discussion very early and the original author has already said that she was glad with the discussion so far. Then a new group of people joined the discussion and it has gone downhill, with me having to explain again and again that nobody here advocated making smoking per se illegal.

Bottles are legal substances and throwing bottles is a legal activity but throwing bottles AT people is not. I think smoking should be treated the same way.

Saying that smoking must be legal because it is legal is a tautology and ignores the actual question.

Yes, for the Xth time, it is not. And nobody even brought up the idea that it might be until Nebgram (sp?) did it.

Enslaving others was deemed illegal while working for yourself is still legal.

I advocate that smoking should be treated likewise. Smoking without harming others should be legal and smoking when it harms others should be illegal.

Working should be legal. Slavery (forcing others to work) should be illegal.

Shooting guns should be legal. Shooting other people should be illegal.

Owning and throwing bottles should be legal. Throwing bottles at other people should be illegal.

Do you get the pattern?

Smoking privately should be legal. Smoking in the presence of others (and thus forcing them to inhale the smoke) should be illegal.

Basically everything should be legal unless it harms other people (without their consent).

I cannot make it clearer than that. Now feel free to change the subject to "prohibiting smoking" again or whatever you want.

Hey now, just because you think you need to keep explaining again and again doesn't mean the discussion is going downhill.  People aren't buying what you're saying.  It doesn't mean your wrong but you haven't proven you're right either no matter how strongly you feel you are.  You've made a lot of good points but most of them boil down to opinion which is the crux of the matter.  It is all about opinions.  It is all about what kind of power we want the US government to have.  It is all about what US citizens believe should be legal or not.

Hah!  There we have it!  Leauki, we have been talking about PRIVATE establishments all along.  You just have some disconnect between PRIVATE and PRIVATE BUSINESS and there should be no legal difference.  Maybe it is just your acquaintence with European law.  That is just not the American way.  That is what those of us who don't want to lose our basic freedoms and original form of government to change are fighting here.

Leauki, here is my disconnect with what you are saying: you appear to be contradicting yourself over and over again.  Just from your last post (#220) take a look at the examples:

Then in the next block you make the following statement:

And again you make following statement in the very next block:

But you again seem to contradict yourself in the very next block:

You are making the claim that smoking around others should be illegal.  And if that's the case then you may as well be saying that smoking all together is illegal because I defy anyone to attempt to smoke where it will not affect anyone else.  If you cite that you can smoke in your house, what about if you ever have guests over (or if you have a family), immediately upon entering your house they are inhaling your smoke since the smell of the smoke sticks to everything.  Hell just going to the store you are affecting others because the smell of the smoke sticks to your clothing (even if you smoke outside).  I am not setting up a strawman argument here I am simply applying logic to the equation.

I can't speak for others but I have never intentionally made any statement like that.  I have stated that because smoking is legal it should be permitted in privately owned businesses but that is NOT the same as saying that smoking must be legal because it is legal.

And my argument here is that by entering the establishment that allows smoking you are giving your consent to be around people smoking.  There is nothing forcing you to enter that establishment it is your choice.  As others have said "money talks".

It is when people refuse to address those points.

If I have to explain to one more person that smoking and smoking next to other people are not the same thing and that opposition to the second does not mean opposition to the first, I'll concede. While I can see that there is a point in discussing whether smoking in private establishments should be legal or illegal I see no point at all in continuing to discuss that I wasn't talking about prohibiting smoking per se.

Yes, but before the newcomers the issue was the subject itself, not the question of how often I can remind people that _I_ didn't propose making smoking illegal per se.

Smoking privately is not the same as smoking in a private establishment just like throwing bottles at noone is not the same as throwing bottles at people in a private establishment.

The "American way" is that your right to do X ends where it violates my right not to have X done to me. Why smokers are an exception I don't understand.

European law is MUCH more liberal than American law with regard to smoking. As I said before, in Germany smoking was only recently made illegal in hospitals and I believe it was only last year that selling cigarettes to under-18s was made illegal.

My acquaintance with European law would make me not recognise smoking as a problem at all. It was exposure to the American attitude that there might be something wrong with smoking that made me even think about this.

McDonalds was the first restaurant chain to prohibit smoking on its grounds in Germany, if I remember correctly.

This has nothing to do with American law or European law and everything with the basic principle that NOONE, not even a smoker, has the right to harm other people.

It doesn't matter whether a business owner allows it or not because they never had the right to harm others to begin with.

Can _anybody_ explain why smokers should be treated differently from other people? Why do they have this weird privilege, where they are allowed to harm other people and where an attempt to prohibit that becomes an issue of "private establishment" vs "privately"? The same principle doesn't seem to apply to thieves of small amount of money, whom I find less annoying than smokers.

But that's easy. If you read the entire discussion you will find that these things have already been defined.

Smoke in your own house, with no children present, and you are smoking without harming others.

Smoke in the open, where there is enough fresh air for everyone, and you are smoking without harming others.

It's really just like throwing bottles.

This is in fact how it is done here in Ireland, where smoking in public places (enclosed such) and businesses is illegal. I think the argument that therefor all of Ireland doesn't smoke is a bit weird, especially since some research should have told you that that isn't the case. And I seem to remember that someone here actually found that out. Oddly enough he thought that telling me that smoking is not completely illegal in Ireland would prove me wrong while you believe that telling me the exact opposite now would be a point.

Whereas you can safely throw a bottle in your own house (provided there are no children or other people who might be in your way) or even in the open (if you don't hit anyone), you cannot do so in a crowded bar or a place of work because you will startle people if not directly hit them.

No, I don't. I might merely realise that I will have to undergo certain discomfort for the sake of whatever else it is I really want. But that doesn't mean that I would, for example, start throwing bottles at people and then complain that they obviously agreed to me doing that to them because otherwise they wouldn't have come into that same place. (Plus, the land lord didn't put up a sign prohibiting throwing bottles at people.)

I don't accept that.

I believe that from the beginning, before anything else even comes into it, other people, including smokers, have no right to harm me. There is NOTHING that can give them the right.

When I walk into ANY public place or place of business I DEMAND that I not be attacked or otherwise harmed by people in that place, REGARDLESS of the will of the owner of the place.

People have neither the right to shoot me, nor to throw bottles at me, nor to smoke next to me. And that's how it starts.

And despite the fact that factory workers might agree to such terms (because they would be out of a job otherwise), I do believe that the state has the right to regulate safety in a factory. "Money talks", yes, but it shouldn't have to. Individual rights are not things that are bought and sold on the market, something that I have when I have enough money to afford them.

I refuse to have to pick between different restaurants based on which particular violation of my rights I am willing to endure, just because "money talks" and there might be a majority in the market that make the market shift against me.

The market is an excellent mechanism for all sorts of things, but it's not a good mechanism for determining which rights individuals should have.

My house is neither a public place (like a bar or "public house" as we call them) nor a place of business (and my guests are not employees).

If the guests bring kids, I obviously shouldn't smoke near them because I have no right to harm the kids, not even (in fact ESPECIALLY NOT) if they are my guests.