I think you missed how that example applies.  Concerts are held at privately owned establishments.  A band then plays at the establishment and (typically) plays music loud enough to harm your hearing.  People then pay to listen to the music that is harming their hearing.  At that point, then are consenting to having their hearing damaged.

Now, how is that different than going to a privately owned bar and consenting to being around smoke?

Neither the worker or attendees of either establishment were forced to be there- both chose to be there.

You said that once already.

...and now I interrupt this serious intellectual JU discussion with a pause for this brief message.

Ok, I know of no bars which will have 'smoking machines'.

Either way, the example fails. In the one case the business is providing the activity which is harmful, and people pay for that activity (hence giving explicit consent). In the other case an individual is providing the harmful activity, and people aren't paying for it (hence any consent is presumed or non-existent).

I have yet to hear of any other example where individuals are allowed to harm other individuals without explicit consent. Explicit consent itself isn't even enough to justify harm in many cases - assisted suicide is illegal in many places, for example. Meanwhile presumed consent to harm doesn't exist in pretty well any other situation in the law (there might be a few exceptions, but I haven't heard of them yet and can't think of any). There are meanwhile countless examples of other activities which are harmful to people which are banned, regardless of whether you argue there is presumed consent or not - see Leuki's bottle throwing example for instance (if a bar puts up signs saying that people throw bottles in the bar, and you enter and someone throws a bottle at you they've broken the law. If you die as a result of that bottle being thrown, they'll probably be charged with manslaughter/murder/similar offence).

No, to compare apples to apples would be to say that food shouldn't be prepared unhygenically. I don't think anyone is saying that smoking where it doesn't harm others should be banned. Similarly preparing food in a way that doesn't harm others shouldn't be banned. Preparing food where it does harm others (unhygenically) should be banned, just as smoking in an area with insufficient ventilation to negate any passive smoking dangers (i.e. smoking that harms others) should be banned. Now if you are supporting a smoking ban in areas without such ventilation, but allowing it in areas with such ventilation, then I don't disagree with you in principle (although I'd probably disagree with you over the level of ventilation required). However until now the impression I've got is that you've been against the ban completely.

Leuki's given plenty of examples of legal activities (i.e. throwing a bottle at yourself is legal afaik) - but they're illegal when they harm other people, unlike smoking which seems to be the sole exception.

huh?  Just because the business isn't producing the smoke doesn't mean that the patrons haven't given consent.  The patrons know before entering the building that the owner permits smoking therefore by entering the building you are consenting to be in an environment where you may be exposed to smoke.

Again I am of the opinion that by entering an establishment that permits smoking is implied consent.

That's because currently suicide is illegal as is murder.  And as a little side note I think doctor assisted suicide for terminal patients should be legalized but that is a discussion for another time.

Once again you are using illegal activities as an example.  This example simply doesn't work.  Now if throwing bottles at people was legal then you would have a valid example.  Throwing bottles in a bar isn't banned, it is illegal there is a difference.

Isn't that basically what I said happens.  The government put together some regulations on how food is to be prepared so that it doesn't "harm" others, the same could be done for smoking in the ways that I've outlined before.  Now if an establishment doesn't want to take on the cost of setting up separate smoking areas in their buildings than that is there choice and they would then choose to not allow smoking without the government banning smoking in privately owned businesses.

And here we might get into a bit of a semantic battle.  To me adding regulations on how a business needs to be set up to allow smoking on the premisis is not the same as a ban.  It might be a very subtle difference but it's there and it's what I have been trying to say all along.  Leauki seemed to be against allowing smoking inside buildings period which I strongly disagree with.

And again this is an argument for making smoking around other people illegal in all situations, not banning it from privately owned businesses.  It's not a strawman interpretation of the comment as it has been accused of numerous times.

Can I assume you are not from the US? 

It is perfectly legal to throw a bottle at yourself, and the whole point is that those things are illegal when they harm others. Please provide examples of legal actions that individuals can commit which harm others.

Smoking!!!!  It is a legal activity that potentially harms other people.  Loud music is another.

Sure throwing a bottle at yourself is legal but throwing them at other people is called assault, hitting someone with a thrown bottle is battery both activities are illegal and therefore NOT good examples for our discussion here since you would be comparing an illegal activity to a legal activity.

If you want to discuss reasons for making smoking illegal that is a topic for a separate thread.

Ever do any sport that you have to sign a waiver for?  How about racing events that you have to sign a waiver just to attend?  Maybe the answer is signing a waiver when you walk into the bar?

Actually I have no issue with government owned buildings banning smoking. I feel that's really the only place where they really do have the right to do so. They aren't privately owned businesses and do fall more into the realm of a "public place". It's actually sensible for them to do so because, as you pointed out, you often have no choice with regard to going to them.

Driving a car. The exhaust is far more toxic than any cgarette and anyone who drives is spewing out massive amounts of toxins into the air which contributes to smog and can potentially kill someone with asthma or other pulminary conditions. Perfectly legal.

It's also possible to directly kill someone with your car if for some reason you, through no fault or law breaking on your part, crash into them.

Playing sports with others can often lead to injuring someone else. Perfectly legal.

It's perfectly legal for a restaurant to serve shellfish even though they know that many people are allergic to shellfish. No law has been broken if you serve shellfish to a person and they then die from an allergic reaction to it. I happen to be mildly allergic to shellfish myself as well as deathly allergic to mushrooms. I certainly can't hold the business responsible if I choose to order a dish that I know full well has mushrooms in it, or I fail to ask about mushrooms in it. I make the choice to either ask or order something that I know doesn't contain them.

I once failed to ask if a dish contained mushrooms. Turned out it contained cream of mushroom and I had to go to the hospital in an ambulance shortly after eating it. It was later I learned about the cream of mushroom in the dish. It was my fault for not asking. I certainly didn't blame the business or the chef and I certainly wouldn't demand that they ban mushrooms or shellfish from their menu. The manager of the place came to the hospital and was very apologetic about it. I assured him that I didn't blame him or his business, and was most certainly not going to sue over such a thing as they had done nothing wrong.

I agree 100% here.  The government can ban whatever they want from government buildings.  But they should not be allowed to ban things from privately owned buildings, they can add regulations but not outright ban things from privately owned businesses.

So you're attending a racing event and must consent to the danger of injury from the racing events taking place? Assuming no excessive risks are taken sounds fine to me (similar to a concert+loud music).

Good point, that is one case I hadn't thought about - on the other side there is presumably only a small danger to a small number of people, since the exhaust fumes will be in the open air rather than an enclosed space. Also the exhaust from a few people would probably be almost completely insignificant, while a few people smoking in an enclosed space would probably be sufficient for a more significant impact over time. Most importantly though there is a key benefit of cars that outweighs the (hopefully small) side effect this causes - they allow people to travel and transport from A to B far more efficiently, which provides huge boosts to trade and life in general. Smoking doesn't provide any such positive benefits though, since it harms both the user and those around. Still it is an example of a group of individuals being able to harm others without their consent.

Presumably that would apply to accidents (or given the common usage of the word, accidental accidents!). Smoking generating passive smoking isn't an accident though, and passive smoking harming the health of those around similarly isn't an accident.

As with the racing event, you play the sport and there's a chance of being injured by someone playing the sport. Pubs aren't 'smoking houses' whose primary purpose is to facilitate the smoking of different groups of individuals though.

If serving a type of food is likely to be harmful to everyone (or almost everyone), then it should be illegal IMO (with a possible exception of allowing people to have it where they have given explicit consent and are fully informed of the dangers, and even then it might not be acceptable since you'd be treading around the assisted suicide area). Where a minority of people might be at danger then the onus should be on them to check if they are at danger, since practically it would place too great a burden to expect businesses to consider any conceivable situation where someone might be at danger from their product - the business owner in such situations doesn't know whether their product might harm you unless you tell them (and if you tell them, then they should then be liable if they give you something you can't have that you told them about). With smoking though it's affecting everyone. If a small minority of people would be harmed by smoking and there were pretty well no sideaffects for anyone else then that would be more applicable.

That could be one option. It would address much of the explicit/presumed consent issue. Personally I'd want it to go further for different reasons, but it would then make smoking a bit more consistent legally.

This is just plain wrong.  For a very long time, possibly to this day but I'm not sure about that, the entire economy of the Southern United States depended on tobacco.  If tobacco had been banned or made illegal then there would have been massive unemployment.  This is one of the reasons why it has remained legal for so many years while other less harmful drugs have been made illegal.

What about people who work at toll booths, traffic cops, etc?  They are exposed to massive amounts of exhaust on a daily basis, open air or not I'm sure it has it's impact.

And here we enter back into giving consent to the risk when you enter the building just like you are essentially consenting to the possibility of getting in an accident every time you get into a motor-vehicle.

They are essentially smoking houses.  Smoking is permitted within the premesis and everyone who enters knows it well in advance.

Here we disagree completely. If you knowingly walk into a place such as a bar where you know that people will be smoking, and you believe that smoke will harm you, then you make the choice to do harm to yourself. That's the point I have been trying to make all along. Nobody is ever forced to walk into a bar or any other place of business, it's entirely thier choice to make ( I do exclude children from that statement).

As to the car exhaust, it's ok to harm others as long as there is some personal benefit to you? Being in the open air makes little difference when talking about massive numbers of vehicles spewing out millions of tons of exhaust. Ever been in a city blanketed with smog? I have and it affects everyone, not just a precious few as you tried to claim.

I have sat in traffic jams in major cities where the exhaust fumes were so thick it makes your eyes water, and those chemicals are far deadlier than any cigarette smoke. People are exposed to them on a daily basis. I personally believe car exhaust has far more to do with rising cancer and heart disease rates than tobacco and this idea is partially supported by the fact that despite the fact that far fewer people smoke now than did 40 years ago cancer and heart disease rates have continued to rise (or remain relatively even in some areas). The one constant there is that the number of vehicles on the road has also continued to rise.

But of course cars are beneficial to us so who cares if they are killing people, right?

[/quote]

thank you.... this is exactly how i feel.