Very few Americans who want to claim that is a free country are not actually for Freedom at all... they are for dictating how other people should run their business and their own lives.

If a business owner allows something I do not like, I am free to take my money elsewhere. THAT is what freedom is all about, folks.

I completely agree!!!

LOL!!! Oooooooooh wow! Props for this pick!

Wow for the biased question. I guess the people who work in all the smoke 40 hours a week also could just go and work somewhere else.

I'm opposed to the kind of argumentation in the pick because this way you could be opposed to any kind of state regulation in the private sector.

It's almost as bad as those kind of people who say "Who doesn't like the smoking in bars, should just stay at home." Thanks very much then for giving me the choice between staying at home and possibly ruining my health.

It's not always as easy as "just take your money somewhere else".

I agree with Kegel.

With freedom, you can do the other thing too.

hah. this is such an American question lol, pardon my stereotyping. "freedom" is such a subjective term these days. it could mean either positive or negative freedom (as in freedom from vs. freedom to). i'm so tired of hearing the words "freedom and democracy" thrown around like battle cries that they've come close to losing all value. how about "equality and understanding" for a change? le sigh.

this is essentially a classic "you're either with us or against us" choice that doesn't leave room for alternative views. i don't agree with the neo-liberal view of negative freedom that goes hand in hand with self-regulated markets and limited state control (which i'm assuming is what you mean by "freedom"?) but neither do i agree with the natural alternative of heavy state regulation ("telling everyone else how to run their business"). i believe freedom is a much more complicated issue than can be answered by either "yes" or "no".

"I guess the people who work in all the smoke 40 hours a week also could just go and work somewhere else."

They know when they decide to apply at that business that there is smoking there. It is about choice. Nobody is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to work there.

maybe not literally, but sometimes there isn't much choice. people often have to take the jobs that are available when work is scarce, and that can mean working somewhere that allows smoking.

i'm all for allowing people the freedom to make their own decisions - but only so long as those decisions don't affect the health and well-being of others.

Kegel raises a good point, it is a biased question and breaking the rules, but it's a FUNNY biased question.

Am I the only one who laughed so hard at this pick? I thought it was hilarious.

OK, as I just discussed with Kegel.

Again-- yes, biased question, but it amuses me. Still, I think a deeper issue has been raised, but not verbalized:

Is a city-wide ban of a legal substance infringing on civil liberties?

I think the Doctor's point is that if the employee feels strongly about it, they can appeal to their boss, or strike, or quit-- they have options, and so does the owner of the business.

See, the way I see it is, you should be allowed to ban smoking in your home, business, or school, but you shouldn't make it a city-wide or country-wide ban because businesses would suffer, and people would feel as if cigarettes have suddenly been outlawed

So long as they are legal, people should be free to have places to smoke. And similarly, people who don't like it can ban it in their own places of business, but those who don't mind it should be allowed to allow it

I think the point is that one might imagine a smoking ban would take away a business owner's right to govern his/her own business.

Isn't that infringing on their freedom?

Also, there are worse conditions you can work under than a smoky restaurant all day. TRUST me. And if you're desperate, why complain?

Look, Seattle has a public smoking ban and personally, it doesn't make the city that much better. First of all, no shisha (which makes a wanna-be Arab like me very upset), and second of all, smokers are annoyed, as are-- not surprisingly-- business owners who once allowed it and now no longer can.

Is the air cleaner, well suuuuuuure. Does it discourage non-smokers from picking up the habit, well yessss.

Does it infringe on the smoker's right to kill his/herself with cigarettes?

Um, I think so.

In the words of my friend who I used to try to get to quit smoking:

"F*** you. I know what's going on in my lungs, I know what smoking does, and it is my personal GOAL to die before I am thirty. So thank you for telling me what I already know, and let me enjoy my last eleven years WITHOUT listening to your nagging."

Abrupt, but he had a point.

He also was courteous enough not to smoke around those he knew it bothered.

That's just my two cents.

aha and we touch on the freedom versus equality debate at last!

yes! a ban would be infringing on the civil liberties of the business owner, however, it would be to benefit society as a whole - less harmful, toxin-laden smoke in the air, more healthy people; more healthy people, less tax money spent providing smokers with lung transplants..

and honestly, what sort of argument is "yes it helps keep the environment clean and prevent non-smokers from picking up the habit, but darnit the smokers have a right to commit slow suicide and who are we to infringe upon that right"??? this is exactly my point about drawing the line at where someone's personal decisions start to affect the people around them. yes you should be allowed to smoke in your own home, car, whatever.. but NOT in public where the consequences of your personal decision can adversely affect other people.

But it wouldn't adversely affect people who don't want to be adversely affected if they just went to a competing business that DID ban it.

In my opinion, small-scale business bans is a great economic tactic to draw in different crowds. I'm of the school of thought that competition drives business, and this is a great tool to fuel that.

It's incorrect to assume that every non-smoker is bothered by smokers. I'm a great example of that, as is probably most of my friends who lived in Cairo with me. The air was worse than the smoke due to worse pollutants like cars and factories.

I think that the rights of both parties should always be considered. People have a right to breathe clean air, but people also have a right to sit in smoky rooms if they don't mind it. That's why I'm for small-scale bans, but not city-wide bans. After all, so long as it's legal, it should be publicly legal.

I believe Cinders understands my point perfectly well ;)

And for the record... There is a grassroots campaign to make it illegal to smoke in your own home in the US... beginning with Condo owners.

At what point do Americans face the fact that they are not Free at all... I left because what I saw in general was a nation dead-set on controlling every aspect of a person's life and business.

This smoking issue is nothing, really. Just one example. It is not the main point here... freedom is.

i definitely don't agree with taking away a person's right to do anything in their own home (within reason of course, i'm not talking about molesting children here). to get back to the overall debate about freedom, i whole-heartedly believe that people are only as free as the most marginalized person in their society (or increasingly, the world). so until every person's basic rights are satisfied, none of us is really free.

those are my thoughts anyway.

right. I don't think any of us are talking about molesting children here ;) At least... I should hope not.

Everybody has the right to kill themselves slowly, but they don't have the right to kill others slowly with them.

But it wouldn't adversely affect people who don't want to be adversely affected if they just went to a competing business that DID ban it.

If I don't want to be affected by it, I would have to stop eating in the university cafeteria, going to any bar or restaurant etc. If I don't want to be affected by it, I should just stay out of all of that, since everybody has the right to pollute the air around them.

And considering I just identified as socialist in the other pick, I probably do want to tell everyone how to run their business.

I am a member of the Socialists Workers party. Even I recognize that this should be a choice.

If businesses were allowed to chose to be smoking or non smoking that would be right. Kegel do you think that all business will be smoking if they have the right to choose?

The socialist comment was rather a joke into the direction of the "I want to tell everyone else how to run their business" pick-choice.

I know out of own experience (in Germany) that business do not ban smoking, if they do not have to.

Germany's ban goes into effect the first of January.

yes, but that's a national ban so Kegel's statement still holds true. the businesses wouldn't be banning it if the government wasn't forcing them to.

first this, what next? lets ban them from smoking in their own homes, or smoking at all and while we're at it lets ban drinking in bars and resturants, and well if we're going to do that lets ban drinking in their own homes well maybe just all together.


But then do you know there is a study that says if you hang out with obese members of the population it could make you more likely to become obese yourself. So being around obese people is poetentially damaging to your health. I was wondering what the government will do to protect the health of yourself and those around you in this case. Perhaps we will all end up having to buy unhealthy foods with stamps which limit the number of calories we consume each day.

Okay kind of extreme but you know what i mean.
(please forgive my spelling its not my greatest skill)

oh, the classic "what next?" argument. i do wish more people would fight as vehemently for the well-being of others as they do for their own self-interests.

in the case of preventing obesity, i'd say it would be much more effective to implement preventitive healthcare which could include things like mandatory gym/health education in schools. i can't really see the government doing anything as drastic as rationing food.

i can't really see the government doing anything as drastic as...

Insert all kinds of stuff there. That is the reason they do get away with as much as they do. When they decide to do the unbelievable, people simply shut down their brains and justify it with well maybe they know something I don't know so I'll trust them

Bush has used this time and time again.

And as for Kegel, I see the point now. It flew over my head the first time. Bit of a hectic day yesterday ;)

I think the best solution would be if it was the rule that a business must be either 100% non-smoking, or 100% smoking. In that instance I do not think they would all choose smoking if they could not have a non-smoking section. It doesn't make good financial sense for every business to cater to one section of the populace.

What the Doc said is what I've been trying to say all along. Funny how words escape me.

i wasn't in any way saying that if the government DID do something like that, i (or anyone else) should simply go allong with it. i'm just pointing out that it seems like a bit of a leap at this moment in time. you certainly have a point that people tend to justify drastic government policies *coughpatriotactcough* to themselves, but that's not at all the point i was trying to get across :S

i really don't see it as a leap at all, they already have, what i consider to be unreasonable laws in place to protect the health of the people, such as the smoking ban ^^ and i think "what next" needs to be considered.

this is an extremely bisa q

It is an extremely facetious question who's point was to make people think a minute ;)

I am against freedom!!!



LOL, nah I'm just kidding, I'm all for letting people smoke if they want. We just need better ways to control second-hand smoking.

oh good lord! i cant choose!

I am not ready to take on this question.

Within reason. Obviously if someone decides they want to open a kiddie-porn store, they shouldn't have that right/freedom/liberty/whatever you want to call it.