I support the legalisation of pot.

What is the connection you perceive between not recognising other people's "right" to harm me and the legal status of pot?

I don't care what people smoke, unless they smoke it in my vicinity.

Actually, cigarettes are one of many forms of DIRECTLY harming other people with or without their consent.

But even though I believe in a utilitarian benefit analysis, I don't see how the benefit to the smoker outways the disadvantage for the person harmed.

And new research ties those benefits to grapes, the source fruit of wine. Not to the alcohol itself. Of course that research might be wrong and alcohol in of itself has health benefits, the solution would be to test it on animals, AFAIK it was never done.

In the UK they have banned smoking from everywork place,  Bars, offices the lot and I am in complete agreement.

I'm with Leakui with the pot thing as well, so long as they are not forcing it on other let them.

People may have a choice in going to a smokey bar or not but the workers don't, at least if they want a job.

As an aside would the anti-banners here be willing to pay for the support of somebody who was offered a full time job in a smokey atmosphere (in a bar or office) and rejected it?

As for the drink comments.  Hitting people is illegal, you can be drunk in a public bar with out hitting people so the hitting people is illegal not the drinking.  You can not smoke in a public bar without damaging the health of everybody there.  They might not all get lung cancer but the increase in carbon monoxide will damage the ability of their blood to carry oxygen (to a greater or lesser amount but everybody would be affected).

Yes people dropping litter on the ground should be banned, because, as with smoking, it is creating a negative externality (that is, a market failure which the free market cannot effectively address itself). The harm to the person who drops that garbage is far less than the harm done to them along with the harm done to everyone else. Hence the optimal choice for that individual is unlikely to be in society's best interests. So, you ban it, and have the rubbish desposed of in the best way possible for society (e.g. people pay taxes, and in return a rubbish collection service is provided which will take all your rubbish and dispose of it).

As for drinking, if you drink excessively around other people, you don't harm them. You may harm them as a result of drinking excessively, but then that is illegal. With smoking if you smoke around other people, you harm them. Hence it too should be illegal (unless the damage done is so inconsequential that it's not worth worrying about, and that certainly isn't the case with smoking!). Similarly if you drink excessively and drive a car, you're no longer properly in control of it, and are highly likely to hurt someone else other than yourself, hence that too is illegal.

The smoke from a BBQ grill is typically released outside, and hence will dissipate without causing any meaningful damage to others. I'm all for a ban on very smoky BBQ grills inside where there is a lack of ventilation such that the health of employees and customers will be adversely affected.

As for legalisation of some drugs, again what people do to their own bodies is their choice. So long as they're not hurting others, and are given the full information so they can make an informed decision about whether to hurt themselves or not, I don't see the issue.

Ultimately people should have the right to harm themselves if they want to, but should not have the right to harm others, and that's what the smoking ban is about - by all means smoke where you won't hurt others, and just yourself, but don't smoke where you will hurt other people.

A lot of good points being made here.  I'm still not convinced of changing my stance but may be closer than on any other debate I've had.

I'm having such a good time with this debate I accidentally made a comment pertaining to this subject on one of Brad's blogs by mistake.

hahaha. 

I am enjoying it as well.  This is the first time I've ever seen the topic discussed at JU without it turning into...

"You're a fascist."

"I know you are but what am I?"

I haven't read all the comments so maybe this has been said before I appologize if that's the case.

My feeling is that government shouldn't be able to ban smoking in anything other than government buildings.  Now if they want to enact regulations that mandate that businesses must ensure "clean air" for patrons that is different.  What I mean here is that if a business wants to allow smoking the ventelation system used in the "smoking area" must be completely separate from the other ventelation system so that those who don't want to be around smoke don't have to be.  I could also see from a labor standpoint setting a regulation making it voluntary for employees to work in the smoking area, meaning that if an employer can't staff the smoking area than the smoking area is closed.

I still think that this might be a bit too far for government to go on the subject.  The bottom line is that smoking is a legal substance just like booze and some regulations should be allowed but outright banning it should be up to each individual business. 

That said I have now lived in two states that have gone through smoking bans to one degree or another and businesses always raise a fuss over it.  There is a slight downturn in business at first while people get used to the smoke free establishments but after a few months business returns back to normal because people would rather get their booze at the bar than at home alone just so they can smoke.

You just said on another post that smokers in Ireland go outside to smoke, how is that not putting people lives in harms way? People could still walk by them, the smoke could still travel and harm someone although it will take much more of it to do so but still. Again, by your own comments, a smoker can only harm a person if the person places themselves within the smokers reach. Going to a bar, a restaurant or any location that allows smoking makes you responsible for putting yourself in that situation. You were not obligated to be there and just because you feel this urge to have to be at any of these smoking allowed locations doesn't mean a smoker has to leave. That's like jumping into the path of a bullet on purpose and then blaming the shooter for shooting you.

As I said, it depends. If you happen to be behind the shooter and his bullet ricochet back to you, that could be your fault for being behind someone shooting a weapon. That would not have been intentional. BTW, why does it have to be a he? It could have been a she you know.

Agreed. But as I said, 100% or zero, I just don't see any middle ground in this.

Check out a drink called Mama Juana from Dominican Republic and get back to me on your answer.

But lets not ignore the fact that when it comes to harming others, those others in most cases have to put themselves in that situatuion by choice for the harm to be done. If a smoker goes into a non smoking location, then he is directly doing harm, but if a non smoker goes into a smoking location, it's their own fault if they are harmed by the smoke. You can't blame the fire for burning you if it was you who stuck your hands in the flame.

My office has a spot in the back of the building, out in the open for smokers to releave their addictions. I don't go there because I dont like the smoke and I dont smoke anyways. But if I did, would the smokers be to blame if I got sick from it? Or should I expect them to put out their cigarettes just because I felt like hanging out in that particular spot?

I don't truly believe businesses would go out of business if a smoking ban was enacted. peiople always find ways around this, we are like the borg, we adapt. My beef is with the Govt getting involved too deeply. There is this saying in Puerto Rico when people ask for favors and then want more:

"Te doy pon y ya quieres guiar?"

Roughly translated, it says "I give you a ride and now you wanna drive?" basically it's the same as "I give you an inch and you take a mile". That is what "will" (I say will because the Gov't never fails to do so) happen once the Gov't is given "an inch" of control.

do you think that the government has any role in regulating the saftey of workplaces?

There is no need to be a fundamentalist about it. While it is technically true that a smoker is harming passers-by on the street, I do believe that a certain level of tolerance for other people's impolite and harmful actions is appropriate for the sake of society.

It's his action, it's his fault.

Unintentional consequences happen, but they are still someone's fault.

If for some reason the shooters action itself can be considered as not having put anybody at risk by itself and it was ONLY the accident that caused harm, I would argue that there need not be punishment (as there was neither intention nor reckless endangerment), but someone still has to pay the medical bills.

Who forced him to shoot? He is free to do what he wants and I am free not to be shot on the street. If he does something he wants to do and happens to shoot me, he clearly violated my rights; whereas I am not violating his rights for holding him responsible for his own actions.

I would have noticed that.

That's where we are different. I see a middle ground. People can smoke outside.