Quote (bentherdonethat @ Feb 2 2011 06:58pm)
You already acknowledged that SHS is detrimental to the health of asthmatics and dismissed it by saying "Bring your inhaler." Would you advocate the freedom to shine strobe lights in the eyes of people who suffer from seizures, telling them to keep their meds on them at all times?
Marginally, and as about as significant as a mild smog day in Los Angelas. Who goes around with a strobe light? A cop. Should we be telling the police they can't use the strobe on their car to control the traffic lights ahead because it may set off someone's seizure? Should I have to turn off the strobe light on my school bus for the same reason? You can't just go around legislating against every tiny inconvenience and annoyance. It wastes time and imposes on people's liberty.
Quote (TeH SaNdMaN @ Feb 2 2011 07:01pm)
There are many places where nudity is legal. Black Beach being one of them. Why should a ban on nudity be allowed since you seem to be an advocate for "equal access" for all. Why should a naturalist be forced to wear clothes?
Black's Beach is difficult to get to, and apparently has a long history of being known as a nude beach according to the wiki. It notes that nudity is "tolerated," which implies that it's not necessarily legal. From what I understand of nudity outside the home, it generally occurs on private property.
Quote (Wakeskater77 @ Feb 2 2011 07:44pm)
Utilitarianism takes into account civil rights...anyone who has read Mill knows this.
However, obviously the utilitarian argument held up for the smoking ban in indoor public places (bars, etc)...so why doesn't it hold here?
The slippery slope argument goes both ways here.
If the danger to others (and infringement on their liberty) was to a certain degree enough to have smoking banned in indoor places, but it's not as dangerous when you're outside, but still in a public place, where do you draw the line?
One could argue that to suggest that the level of harm caused (and liberty infringed upon) is less so outside is rather arbitrary...it still causes harm (disutility), but at lower amount.
I'm not suggesting we make smoking out right illegal, but smokers should be prevented from causing other people harm and infringing on other people's liberty.
I don't agree with the smoking bans in bars either, or with the legitimacy of the Clean Indoor Air Act either. Smoking bans and the CIAA violate private property rights and the 14th amendment, in that some property owners have the right to smoke on their property and some do not.
Non-smokers are completely free to not do business with an establishment that tolerates smoking. Forcing their preferences over the rights of the property owners is absurd.
Quote (AiNedeSpelCzech @ Feb 2 2011 07:51pm)
I can't remember if you're in favor of gay marriage, Santara, but I sincerely hope you are.

In every fashion except the term.
Quote (Cobblestone @ Feb 2 2011 08:24pm)
Honestly, I think it's fair to say that it's pretty easy, upon being offended by second-hand smokers, to move yourself to another location on public property. This diminishes any immediate risk but doesn't impede upon infringement of personal liberty.
/move to the back of the bus.
Quote (Flickr @ Feb 2 2011 08:56pm)
Our health shouldn't be put at risk because you want to smoke.
We don't smoke, why would we want you to smoke infront of us?
That simple.
I don't smoke (aside from an occasional cigar on the golf course or my garage). Your health isn't at any more risk from outdoor smoking than it is from smog, and probably much less.
Quote (brmv @ Feb 2 2011 09:16pm)
&
in the various countries smokers contribute more in tax to the system than the cost of smoking imposed illnesses
the healthcare system in many countries would break down without this surplus
and that is the key reason that governments keep it legal - pure hypocrisy
yes, i fully agree with the bolded
why isn't wearing cheap parfum on public transport forbidden?
or eating fresh garlic before work?
if there are so many people concerned, let them declare smoking as illegal
and have some sort of transition legislation for current smokers
I can't believe we agree on something, and totally legit point: Why isn't wearing perfume (or applying it) on public transport illegal then?