On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 09:20:16AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 08:35 AM, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
What part of "Don't impose your ideals on others" do you not understand?
Yes, someone may chose to smoke at a time which is convenient for you, but why should you be able to dictate that to someone else? Mind your own fucking business - even if it's just hypothetical.
I kind of agree, to a point, but then you (and others) do the same with imposing your own ideals to others, don't you ? As long as people interact, they'll have to impose stuff to others. I'm imposing my ideals (in this case, forbidding to smoke to people who want to) ? You do yours (annoying people who don't like smoke, because you want to smoke). I don't usually annoy smokers when they do. If I'm annoyed by it, I just move. Unless I can't, that is. But you just act as if *your* ideals were *obviously* the right ones. I reject that idea. They might, and they sure are popular here. But you do impose them all the same.
The solutions to your problems lie in the "Schelling points" many in open societies have established for dealing with others:
-- non-initiation of force
-- territorial boundaries, aka property rights
Pollution in general, whether of rivers or lakes or the air, is a complicated issue.
Yes, and we're going to always have anti-pollution laws as a result, just as we'll always have laws against rape, murder, burglary, etc. And men with guns to enforce them.
It's more important to establish the fundamental principles widely applicable and helpful in creating a free and open society than it is to quibble about second hand smoke from 20 meters away.
From 20 meters away is not much of a problem, 2 meters is. One meter even more so -- and totally unaviodable at this point, unless you just don't go out. When you are walking down a sidewalk, say, it's impossible to avoid, and at close range. So the public streets, parks, etc, will eventurally have the same smoking bans as public buildings.
Harmon's second-hand smoke example does not apply in _any_ of the above cases, all of which are based on the obvious property rights of the owners and the freedom of choice of customers to abide by the rules or not.
Establishing this, even if smoking were then to be restricted on "public" streets, would be a positive development.
I wouldn't be surprised to see NYC coming up with a license for special "smoking parlors", which might also serve food and drink. Especially once they ban smoking on the street. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com