An economy that is based around harming people is not a good thing, and does not provide a net benefit to society.

If research shows that there is a significant detrimental impact then the government should look at ways of reducing these (similar to how they should look at say requiring businesses that allow smoking to have to have sufficient ventilation to mitigate the harmful effects)

No, but taking an overall perspective if something provides say $100k benefit to one group of people, and $10k penalty to another group of people, then it's a case for allowing it. If instead something provides $100k penalty to one group of people and $10k penalty to another then it's a reason for not having it. Morally you might still decide against the first case, but that doesn't negate the reason in favour of it compared to the other example.

Actually you were the one restricting the effect for a precious few people "and can potentially kill someone with asthma or other pulminary conditions" - I'm assuming that the general populations health isn't so disastrous that this would cover a majority of people - which was what I was responding to. Depending on the amount it can harm no-one or it can harm everyone. Obviously the effects are far better in open air than in an enclosed space. Furthermore when comparing the amount of smokers it requires to harm other people in a building to the amount of car drivers it requires to damage the health of someone nearby the effects are probably going to be minimal and hence only be a problem for a very small number of people.

So force car makers to make cars which produce a far smaller level of emissions, and/or penalise people who use cars that give off far worse exhaust. Oh wait, that means interferring with private business and peoples right to choose, and we can't possibly have that!

This makes me think of a Simpsons episode where there was a bear in the neighborhood so the community wanted a protection group formed to ward off bears but then there was a "bear tax" on their pay checks that they certainly didn't want to pay.  If you go and "force" auto makers to change manufacturing methods then there will be a price to pass on to the customer.  People will then scoff at the price increase.  Everyone in this country wants to have their cake and eat it too.  They want to tell everyone else how things should be done and have "someone else" pay for it.  Noone wants anyone telling them how to live or passing on the expenses.

The whole "smokers don't have the same rights because they are doing harm" thing is not cutting it with me.  If it is legal to smoke in your own home, why can't you own a bar and allow smoking especially if you smoke and want to attract customers who also smoke.  They are law abiding people.  It is impossible for a smoker to smoke and have no impact on anyone else.  What if your "home" is an apartment?  Should an apartment building owner be forced to only rent to non-smokers?  If there is such a ban it should certainly apply to an appartment.  Heck, the potential for the most harm would be in apartment buildings and hotel/motel buildings.

So what would you have all those people who depend(ed) on the tobacco industry for a job do?  Would you rather they just walk the streets looking for handouts rather than fulfill a demand for a product?  The net benefit is the number of jobs that the tobacco industry has created over the years.

The government has tried, that's what our emission standards are for, but the number of cars on the road cancel that out.  And I'm not so sure that there are any regulations currently in place that require smoking areas to have separate ventilation from non-smoking areas although I would support such regulations.

So based on this argument the first case would be in support of the smoking industry because of the number of people employed by the tobacco industry from the growers all the way to retailers.  It is a multi-billion dollar industry.

This already exists, their called emissions inspections.  If you car fails the inspection you have to pay X dollars to get your car fixed, or attempt to get it fixed or you run the risk of losing the registration for the car.  The problem is the number of cars on the road, currently technology isn't far enough along to eliminate emmissions completely for the masses.  That technology is coming and I would imagine that in 20-30 years car emmissions will be next to nothing, but it's not here yet.

Hell this is part of the reason that the Big Three automakers are struggling so much today.  They have so many regulations to comply with that they are producing cars at an operating loss.  The technology to reduce emission significantly just isn't cheap enough yet to make it economical for the average car buyer.

Dig holes in the ground and fill them in again - at least then no-ones being harmed. That or just have them look for jobs in other markets where they can provide a benefit to society. I can't see the tobacco industry as requiring such specific skills that it's really hard for people to switch jobs anyway.

Since such people could do another job and have a similar effect, no. The result of the tobacco industry is cigarettes, which harm people's health. If you banned cigarettes you might see a short term rise in unemployment as people try to switch jobs, but in the medium to long term they will find those jobs, people will be spending their money in other areas, etc.

So leave it to the automakers who can produce cars at an operating profit.

It's what you need government/regulation for. Take littering for example. I can't be bothered to carry my rubbish with me back to my house and put it in my bin, so I'll throw it on the ground. It has a tiny negative impact on me that is outweighed by the big gain in convenience. However it also has a tiny impact on every other person. Aggregate all of those and my action is harmful to society overall, hence you need the government to ban it. Self interest is not always what's best for society.

I'd support a ban on smoking in hotels etc. where your smoking will affect other 'unconnected' people - i.e. if a group of 4 of you rent a room, then allow smoking, but if a group of 4 people rent beds in a room which houses 12 people, 8 of whom aren't from that group, then don't allow smoking, since you'd be allowing one group of people to harm others without even implicit consent. Similar to smoking in the car and smoking on a bus.

The bar will be open to the general public, and will presumably draw employees from the public as well. You then have some people being harmed by others without their explicit consent. I think I mentioned previously though that I felt smoking in the home where there are minors and smoking while pregnant etc. should be looked at since they are being harmed without (legal) consent. If you smoke when pregnant and continue while your child grows up, their life expectancy will be reduced dramatically directly as a result of such actions, while they'll also be much more likely to smoke themselves having a further negative impact on their health.

You can't work if there aren't any jobs available and jobs are created through a demand for some product or service.  Yes the tobacco growers could probably switch to some other product but where are the people going to go who make the tobacco products?  What about all the truckers who deliver the products?  If you want them to dig holes and then fill them in, who's going to pay for that?

Did you miss the part where I said a majority of the southern economy depends on the tobacco industry?  Where to you expect these people to find jobs in todays economy?

Littering is not banned, it is illegal.  So again if you want to argue over whether or not smoking should be illegal start another thread.

Of course you'd support that, you're arguing for banning smoking in bars and restaurants.  But again hotels are privately owned so it should be up to the owners of the establishments whether they allow smoking or not.  Or once again I would be ok with the government imposing regulations that keep smoker's air from being circulated to non-smoker's rooms (ie smokers must be on the top floors).

Wrong.  The people are choosing to enter the building when they know ahead of time that smoking may be going on inside.  Their explicit consent is given when they enter the building of their own free will.

And how would you enforce this type of law?  Would you have mandatory drug screening of every pregnant woman?  What about if their significant other smokes while they're pregnant should they be screened as well?  How will this be paid for?  How are you going to know if a pregnant woman is fulfilling her requirement to be screened?  Do you see how absurd this gets when you start intruding on people's private lives?

Exactly!  You can't expect people who smoke to never smoke around anyone else.  It just isn't realistic.  Therefore, if you think it's harmful to the point of needing a ban, why not just make it illegal?  I know everyone is saying that that is a completely different subject but why is it?

I say, either make smoking illegal across the board or let business owners decide for themselves whether to permit the legal activity or not and possible require a notice that there will be smoke inside the establishment just like food labels have to alert you to nut and dairy products.

The government, taking money from people and spending it on something that doesn't cause harm to everyone involved. You'd lose some of the money due to the inefficiency of the method, but there's a chance that that would be outweighed by the alternative. Regardless the better (long term) method to both of them would be to leave those people to get jobs in the private sector in whatever part of the economy wants them.

No, but you evidently missed the part where I pointed to any unemployment being short term.

You're arguing over the difference between something being banned and something being illegal?!! If something is banned, then it is illegal to do it.

Also I'm arguing about banning (or making illegal, if you prefer ) smoking where it harms other people . Similar to how littering in your own home where it's just harming you isn't banned...sorry, illegal, smoking where it's just affecting yourself shouldn't be illegal. Now where does smoking likely harm other people? In public (indoor) places! It's generally good forum etiquette not to create a thread on whether smoking should be banned in public places if there's already a thread talking about the exact same thing (businesses such as pubs and bars are public places, and there aren't many public indoor places that aren't either businesses or government owned).

In fact the only person who seems consistently desperate to talk about making smoking illegal completely is you, based on the number of times you've claimed Leauki and I were talking about making smoking itself illegal (i.e. in all cases as opposed to smoking in public places/where it harms others). I can see why Leauki gave up.

You could model the approach on how other laws relating to harming your children are implimented. You could just have the threat of some form of punishment for extreme cases, rather than worrying about enforcing it in every situation. As with any law banning making something illegal, you'd have to weigh up the cost:benefit of focusing on increasing the detection rate for that particular crime.

Because you'd be penalising people who are smoking without harming others (e.g. smoking in well ventilated places, or smoking outside, or in their own home, etc.), you'd create a black market along with the negative effect on crime that it'd have, you'd lose out on the tax revenues yet still have the health costs for people affected, and plenty more reasons. A ban on businesses (and government buildings) of smoking inside places that aren't sufficiently ventilated would cover the vast majority of cases where smoking harms other people, while still allowing people to harm themselves if they want, and avoiding the other problems mentioned (such as the creation of a black market, and the loss of tax revenues when cigarettes are sold). A ban on homes would be far less practical, but then previously I was referring to the intention (prior to practical considerations) of looking to prevent smoking where it harms others. It'd be fairly simple to impliment a ban for businesses, while a ban in homes where there are children would need to be looked at to see what if anything would be worth doing.

Why not?  I have seem MSG warnings in restaurant windows in CA, why not simply have a smoking warning that says "Don't enter this establishment if you are opposed to being exposed to second hand tobacco smoke"?

How is it going to be short term when you are killing the major source of income for people of the south?  By killing that industry you are essentially killing the economy in the South.  Yes some will be able to find other work, but not all, there will be nothing short term about it.

Wrong.  The original post was about the government banning smoking in privately owned businesses.  That in no way makes smoking illegal.  There is a difference between banning something and making it illegal.

And where can you smoke where it doesn't affect anyone else?  You say in your home, but what if you have guests over, or a family.  The second anyone else walks into your house it immediately impact their life.

I haven't been the one who keeps comparing smoking to illegal activities.  That is why I keep stating the fact that if you want to talk about making it illegal that is separate from the issue at hand.  JillUser attempted to have people compare smoking to loud music which is legal and can harm people but for whatever reason it kept being dismissed.  If you have a legal activity that also harms people and has been banned from privately owned businesses then you have a valid comparison, but to my knowledge no such thing exists.

This is not banning smoking.  This is creating a regulation that tells businesses if they want to allow smoking then they need to proved a separately ventilated area for the smokers.  I'm all for this approach because it's not an outright ban on smoking the owner must make the choice to either be smoke-free or incur the cost of creating a sufficient indoor smoking area.

KarmaGirl takes ZubaZ's junk food away.  Clear your mind, man!  You need a detox!

Outside the pub instead of inside.

Throwing bottles at yourself is legal.

Right, I think I'll give up trying to reason with you at this point, since if you'll argue something like that, you'll argue anything.

(definition of ban: "A prohibition imposed by law"; definition of illegal: "Prohibited by law").

aeor...at the rate its going you wont be able to smoke even outside either.

The smoke sticks to your clothing, hair, etc therefore being outside smoking doesn't really change anything.

We've already covered this at length.

The difference is how the two are applied.  Making smoking illegal would mean that it would apply everywhere.  Banning smoking in privately owned businesses is not the same thing, that is the government taking it's power too far.  If the government wants to ban smoking in government owned buildings that's fine but they shouldn't be allowed to ban anything in privately owned businesses that is an otherwise legal activity.

aeorter is obviously an idiot who believes all of the bullshit he/she/it has been fed without researching the facts for he/she/it's self.

Wow, you mean allow adults to make thier own choices?

I challenge anyone like the asshat aeorter to provide PROOF that smoking or second smoke causes any illness and is a major public health hazard. Not opinion or statistical bullshit, but actual causal proof. I feel comfortable presenting this challenge because, having done the research myself, I know for a faxt that there isn't a single study that proves such a link. Sheeple  like aeorter buy into this bullshit without ever checking into where the information comes from or how it was derived.

I am personally sick to death of sheepple and their mindless bleating.