It is the same thing.  If you own your home would you be ok with the government telling you that you can't smoke, or play loud music?  I know I wouldn't, so why should it be different just because you own a business?

And this brings us back to a discussion a while back about personal responsibility.  The smoker did not ask you to sit next to them, they did not force you to enter the establishment that allows smoking so you are not being harmed by force but by your own choices.  You chose to enter an establishment that allows smoking so you must accept the risk (or consent) that you might inhale smoke

When it comes to smoking they do, they have a legal right to smoke.  If you want to argue smokings legality that is a separate issue.

They don't have any extra rights.  You have the same right to smoke, and harm others as you say, that they do.  It becomes an issue of "private establishment" when you attempt to force a privately owned business to prohibit an otherwise legal activity.

Sorry but that's giving consent.  If you are aware that you may inhale smoke by entering a certain building then you are consenting to the possiblity.  If you don't want to inhale the smoke then go elsewhere that doesn't allow smoking.  The throwing bottles analogy doesn't work here because it would fall into the assault and/or battery category which is already a crime, smoking is not.  Here is where the loud music analogy works best.

Then you are the one who is claiming more rights than others.  You are negating the right of the owner to set his/her own rules for their establishment.  You can't walk into a book store and start screaming just because you feel you have the right to do so, the owner will throw you out because they don't want that type of behavior in their establishment.  In a bar or restaurant where the owner allows smoking you give your consent that you may inhale smoke by entering the building.  The owner sets the rules as long as they are abiding by the laws of the land in the process.

The owner has no say over that because the laws dictate that people aren't allowed to attack you.

Your first two are correct, the law of the land says that people don't have the right to shoot you or throw bottles at you, the third one the government allows so the people do have a right to smoke next to you if the owner of the establishment allows it.

In general most safety violations do not get a business shut down, they are merely fined for the violation, ie "money talks".  Over the years businesses and workers have come to the conclusion that certain safety regulations are in their best interest for the survivablity of the business.  The same is not said for smoking, yet.

Then you must accept the consequences of your actions.  You are choosing not to let your money talk for you, that's your problem, not mine.

I disagree.  The market is the perfect place to sort these types of things out.  If you make choices of which businesses you will spend your money in and you convince your friends and relatives to do the same then the market will shift. 

I bet that if you are in a private establishment in the US and you consent to having bottles thrown at you if you enter, then it would be perfectly legal.

Again here is our disconnect.  A bar or restaurant may be open to the public but it is still a privately owned building and so the same rules should apply to it that apply to your own home.

Excellent rebuttal El-Duderino!

Leauki, just so you know, I really appreciate your input here.  This discussion would have died off long ago without your point of view.

I don't understand why the focus is solely on business here - yes the method of restricting smoking that harms others is via a ban on businesses allowing smoking, but the core issue is whether one person has the right to harm another. As a general rule (with occassional exceptions), the following currently apply:

You can drive (and you can drive, crash into your house, and injure yourself), but you can't drive into someone else.

You can drink and harm your health, but you can't force others to drink so much that their health is damaged (a slightly convoluted example, but you get the idea)

You can play music that will damage your hearing through headphones, but you can't play it so loud that others around you will also have their hearing damaged

Essentially, you can injure yourself, but you can't injure others. This is an underlying principle throughout the law. Why should smokers be excepted from this? The evidence is unequivical now - smoking kills. Pretty much no sane person disputes that now. Second hand smoking also harms the health (and prolonged exposure can similarly kill). So there should be a general agreement - smoking in an environment with poor ventilation (i.e. inside instead of outside) will harm the health of those around you.

So if we're agreed on this point, then what makes smoking so special that it gets an exception to being banned while pretty well every other way of harming people is banned? IMO the ban should go even further than just businesses - any person should be banned from smoking inside any dwelling with insufficient ventilation, with the exception of the home or other privately owned dwelling not open to the general public(including staff employed from the general public) where no minors are present, and if minors are present then smoking should either only take place outside, or the dwelling should be sufficiently ventilated that second hand smoke to those minors will be insignificant.

Nope, if you crash into your house or if you have an accident where you are injured and are found at fault for the accident (ie drunk driving, excessive speed, etc) then you are charged with reckless endangerment among other possible crimes.  Similarly if you crash into someone elses house and injure someone else and you are found to be at fault (same reasons previously given) you are charged with the same crimes.

A lot of that is due to local ordinances from groups like home owners associations (a non-governmental agency) and some local governments but only apply to residential areas.  Loud music is permitted in other areas, take a concert for example.

They aren't.  You have the same righs as the smoker, you could choose to smoke and "harm" others.  They aren't special.  Plus this discussion is not about whether or not smoking should be legal but whether the government should have the right to ban smoking in privately owned businesses.  If you want to argue on whether smoking should be made illegal that is a discussion for another time and another blog.

Again if you want to argue for making smoking illegal that is a separate issue.  Here we are talking about whether it is right for the government to stop a business from allowing legal activities to happen on their property.  Remember this is not public property it is privately owned property that happens to be open to the public.

I don't know of any concerts where you're allowed to turn up as a member of the audience and start your excessively loud music that damages the hearing of everyone around you.

What if you aren't speeding, you're not drunk, but you just happened to damage your own property and yourself while driving on your private property? I guess it's possible it might still be illegal, but then the example was a bit of a stretch anyway since most examples with a car would involve someone else being placed in harms way, which is the whole point - when you're driving drunk, or speeding, it's not just yourself you place at risk, but anyone else on the road or near it, hence why it's illegal.

So I have the same rights as a smoker but only if I am a smoker?! Talk about a circular (and self defeating) argument.

Smokers get to harm non-smokers, but non-smokers don't get to harm smokers as far as I can tell (it's impossible for a non-smoker to be a smoker, since a non-smoker by definition doesn't smoke).

I never said smoking should be illegal, and that's a strawman argument that's thrown up all the time it seems. This is about whether people should be allowed to smoke in (non-outdoor) public places which itself is about whether one person should have the right to harm another - I doubt any ban proposed would include 'open-top' type business areas, hence it doens't apply to all privately owned businesses. Also the reason for the ban isn't some vendetta against private businesses, it's about people who smoke harming those nearby. That is the root issue, and the ban on smoking in public places is then a way of implimenting a solution to that issue.

(Quoting is messed up again.)

Again here is our disconnect.  A bar or restaurant may be open to the public but it is still a privately owned building and so the same rules should apply to it that apply to your own home.

No, they shouldn't.

If a place is open to the public, different rules should and do apply. For example, there also different laws regarding safety and hygiene.

For some reason the law in Ireland sees the difference you seem to be unable to see between private homes and businesses.

Can we therefor assume that there is a difference that can be determined?

But no one is taking away your right to smoke.  If you don't want to be around smoke that is your choice just as if you want to enter an establishment that allows smoking it is your choice.  No one is forcing you to sit next to a smoker and inhale second hand smoke, you chose to be there.

It is not a stawman argument.  What we are talking about is whether the government should be allowed to ban an otherwise legal activity within a privately owned business.  It shouldn't matter whether it is open to the public or not because it is still privately owned.  The person that owns the building should be the one making the rules over what is allowed on the premisis, not the government especially in a situation where those entering the establishment are fully aware of what is going on inside.

No the issue is about whether the government should be allowed to ban an otherwise legal activity in a privately owned business.  Just because a place is open to the public doesn't give the government the right to intrude.

I was wondering when this was going to come up.  This is different than smoking in that the person entering the building, in general, cannot see the kitchen and can't monitor the employees when they use the bathroom therefore they can't consent to the level of hygiene.  Safety on the other hand is very similar to your own home, if someone is injured on your property you are liable for the damages so is the business if you are injured on their premises.

Unions played a key role in any such safety regulations being made.  That is the employees had a hand in it not just the government.  And as I originally stated in my very first comment on this blog if the government wants to step in and say that a business has to provide separate ventilation systems for smoking and that all employees that work in that area must volunteer to do so I would be ok with that.  What I am against is the outright banning of smoking in a privately owned business.  If you want to regulate it, fine, but banning it should not be allowed.

This would fall under domestic terrorism since Chlorine is potentially fatal even in small amounts.  Thus it is already illegal.

Ok. That does it. I am out of here. You win.

Yet again another example of an illegal activity.

Of course you do because those are your examples.  It seems to me like you just aren't happy that people are trying just as hard as you to explain their point of view.

I don't see any deliberate misunderstanding but if you are that discouraged then by all means, move on.  Noone was disrespectful of your position.

See, maybe I can clear something up for you here.  In your home you would be GIVING people the beer.  At the pub you would be SELLING them the beer.  That is the difference and why there is the regulation.  You can't legally sell beer from your home or, in you example of a factory, which is totally mute because there is no circumstance where you can have a factory in your home.  There are zoning regulations for that sort of thing and maybe that is a difference from the US and Europe that I'm not aware of.

(I forgot to log myself in so this is JillUser using her son's computer)

Look I'm not in this to win or lose, I am merely debating with you.  The reason that I keep saying I'm not making a strawman argument is that I'm not arguing against whether smoking should be made illegal.  If I were to say that banning smoking in private businesses is equal to making smoking illegal and that's wrong then that would be a strawman argument, but that's not what I'm doing. 

Let's try this another way.  You had brought up hygiene recently and how the government regulates that so why not ban smoking, but that's not comparing apples to apples.  To compare apples to apples it would be to say that because food can be prepared un-hygenically and that can then harm people therefore food should be banned from places that are opened to the public.  But that's not what the government did, they came up with a set of regulations that allowed businesses to still serve food to the public in a relatively safe manner.  The same could be done with smoking in businesses, if the government were to require that separate locations in the business with separate ventilation systems were set up for people to smoke in, as I have stated before.  Banning smoking just because it can potentially harm people is not the same as having standards to hygenically prepare food. 

Does that make more sense and/or clear up why I state that I'm not making strawman arguments?

Some people INSIST that prohibiting smoking in businesses is the same as prohibiting smoking per se. That is clearly wrong.

Some people even insisted that I (and aeortar, I believe) argued that smoking should be illegal per se. I/we never have.

Both are strawmen and deliberate misunderstandings of my position. Myself (and aeortar, I believe)  have explained that again and again. I wrote more than three replies addressing those points but they keep coming back. I have a policy (well, it's more of a guideline) that tells me that I cannot learn anything from people who won't recognise limits that clearly exist (for example the difference between a private home and a business).

Hence I have nothing to gain from this discussion.

I also don't appreciate any argument starting with "As an American..." because I consider that totally irrelevant. It's merely an attempt to connect a certain position with being American to score points. It's a fallacy.

I don't care if I sound childish, I know that I am. (Heck, I spent the last weekend playing the Simpsons DS game.) But I am discussing things at JU to learn and that usually works. But it clearly doesn't work here. I DO NOT WANT to explain even one more time that prohibiting smoking in businesses is not the same as prohibiting smoking per se and that there is an easily recognisable difference between a private home and a business.

Hence I am out of here.

(It reminds me of the Creationists who keep pretending that they were never told that evolution is not about the beginning of the universe and has nothing to do with "random chance". That's just as tiresome, but the subject is so much more important that I still think it's worth my time.)

Nothing against you, as I am sure you know, but when those two or three people joined the discussion it went downhill. Whether that was their or my fault doesn't matter. It's just that the discussion is not worth it to me when I spend my time fighting strawmen.

Who is stating this?  I have never intentionally made that statement and I don't think anyone else on here has either.

Please see my last post for how I am not making strawman arguments.

It is relevant as we are talking about American government here and it's impact on American businesses.  If you want to take experiences from other countries that's fine but it is relevant for someone to state that this is a discussion about US businesses.

I agree with you on this point.

To an extent yes, but for the most part both are private enterprises and should be treated as such by the government.

The argument about whether government has the authority to regulate what goes on in 'private' business establishments was settled long ago.  It does.  The only vestige of control over private business property that hasn't been appropriated completely by government is seizure for non-eminent domain purposes, but only just barely.  I have no doubt that there are (government funded) lawyers working feverishly to find a way to get around that part of the fourth amendment as I write.