there are no rights involved in this whatsoever.
Noone has the right to smoke. Noone has the right to not be bothered by smoke.
it is all personal choice, and that is what we DO HAVE a right to, personal decision making.

I did not bring up driving, I borugh up DRUNKS who happen to kill people while driving, and drunks who also happen tio kill people or hurt people while walking around.

Right, unless there was some way for bargaining to take place. Nonsmokers say, "I will put up with your smoking... for a price."

"You can smoke next to me, if you buy me a drink."

I know, it's impractical. It's easier for government to just make a sweeping ban - reducing transaction costs. But easy isn't always the best way.

if enough people got together and complained that vehicle emmissions and exhausts were harming them, were infringing on their "right" to live a healthy life, would there be a ban on cars?

You're right. Driving is more dangerous than smoking!

Solution to all of this:

get tobacco smokers to start using vaporizers! Then there's nothing for other people to complain about.

Ha!
Some much-needed laffs!!!

i like to smoke makes me look kool, now how will i look kool in front of my friends at gigs???


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Yeah, and then Rush would finally be vindicated for "Red Barchetta," and be hailed as helium-voiced visionaries!

Right. Ok, if we're all having a serious moment.

I agree entirely that smoking is antisocial insofar as it's not very nice for non-smokers. I know a few people who are up the duff at the moment, and not only can they not drink, they can't watch other people drink because they don't want to damage their baby. And, while part of me thinks you should stop being such a bunch of girls about your lungs, there's another part that's a bit more moderate.

What I'm criticising is twofold - firstly, the advertising campaign which emphasises 'we can help you give up'. I like smoking. I think smoking is fucking great, and I'm certain it makes me at least a bizillion times sexier (and I'm pretty sexy at the best of times). I know smoking isn't perhaps as healthy as jogging, but jogging makes you look like a twat. It's my choice. I'm a grown-up, with a big cock and everything. I don't want to give up. Yes, yes, it might kill me. Having said that, I was chatting to an ice-cream van man the other day who smokes 20 a day and is 85. If I'm still alive at 85 I'll be pretty chuffed. But the point is I like to smoke.

Secondly, it's the absolute blanket ban which annoys me. I believe one of the initial ideas was heavy restrictions, which I wouldn't complain about. I wouldn't've minded a ban wherby if the establishment could safely confirm that the smoking area was entirely cut-off from the non-smoking area, then they could have a smoking area. Everyone's happy then. And I wouldn't've minded if there was a very heavy emphasis on non-smoking areas being larger (as there was with restaurant smoking a few years ago). What annoys me is that there is no sheltered public place where I can go and either meet people or just be around people who, like me, have decided they want to do one of the coolest things you can do to your lungs.

I mean, I say this, it's going to happen now and I probably won't give an arse until winter kicks in. But still. Smoking is really, really cool.

sorry man. you're getting old. it's sad, but true.

nope, there is nothing in US law that state such a "right"

last winter i went to a bar in dc that had adapted to the city's smoking ban by providing a heated patio. that's right. in the middle of winter you can sit outdoors & chuff nicotine clouds.

As a 207-lb vegan with a 7-foot amplifier and a penchant for winter bicycle commuting, I will take this opportunity to say that if you can't hack 5 minutes outside in the winter, you are the pantywaist, huge cock or no.
I took you for a lot of things, but I never took you for a pansy.
The disappointment is palatable.

I'm all for these types of rights being established though. Property rights for everything, including our bodies and the air we breathe! It's my body, my property, I should be able to say what goes in and what doesn't. And when something I don't like does come in, the person that caused it should have to pay for my personal damages. No need for the government to do any of this for me (especially by telling me what I can't put into my own body).

Of course, everyone might just sue everyone else until the whole world just stopped. That or people would actually learn to tread carefully, just from fear of being sued. Probably the former.

I hate being around smoking because of the smell. I also think it looks a bit daft, but then I think I look bloody cool, so I'm probably not the best judge. I'm also against the ban, because it is illiberal and involves government acquisition of yet more powers.

So far as I could tell from my very occaisional excursions to public houses and the like, most people provided both a smoking and a non-smoking section in their establishments. Also, so far as I could tell, this system worked perfectly well, and had the advantage of not involving lots of government interference.

I would happily go to an establishment that had a no-smoking section and suitable ventilation (because, really, the smell is appalling and doesn't go away in a hurry), and I'd happily pass through the smoking section if neccessary. If there was no non-smoking section then I'd tootle off elsewhere, safe that my desire for a smoke-free environment wasn't interfering with a landlord's right to decide policy in his or her own property.

In other words, there were no major problems until government stepped in with heavy-handed rules and regulations and - surprise surprise - fines for all and sundry. But that's what people get for allowing Labour a third term, bloody red high-tax state-control no-civil-liberties socialisetc etc etc etc idiotic etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc fucking etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc useless cunetc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc waste of space etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc and everything and everything etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

...anyway, the legislation is intended to protect people at work and not affect people in their own residences. But what if those people employ a childminder? What if work needs done on the house? Imagine you need your washing machine fixed - a chap comes round, smells the smoke, declares (quite within the bounds of legislation) that your house is an unfit workplace and says he's leaving once you've paid the fifty quid call out fee? It'll happen sooner or later with regards to a similar situation, and it'll be tested in court. Pivate residences will effectively be effectively included in the legislation.

The only thing I agree with is the intent to fine people for throwing cigarrette ends in the street, because litter is litter, and its a problem and that's all there is too it.

my neighbor burns coal in winter, which stinks, and annoys me. should i prevent him from doing that? what about SUVs? they are taking up my air. and power plants? they soil the air to feed your televisions.

you can't control your "property" that way, as an individual. the world is not made of finite objects. it's all a big fucking goo. the earth is your body (corny but true). you need some kind of "community standards" because no individual "owns" the air.

I do not even own my ass air, I provide it free to the world.

that is not a RIGHT. that is an OBLIGATION, two completely separate things.

I have the RIGHT to free speech. I have the OBLIGATION to report a crime being commited.

You can't control your "property" like that now, because those property rights don't exist.

But here's what could happen if they did: If your neighbor burns coal and it harms you in whatever way, then you should bargain with him until you reach mutual agreement. The fact that you have a property right for clean air or whatever doesn't necessarily mean that you will stop his activity all together (although it might).

Ronald Coase showed us that what is important is that property rights are established, though it doesn't matter to whom - in the end bargaining will lead to a solution, and an economically efficient one at that. From a legal perspective though, it does matter who has the property rights. (If your coal-burning neighbor had the rights to pollute, then you would be the one who would have to offer something to make him stop.) Either way, there are no inherent rights, they have to be established by law.

I'm not for property rights because then we could enjoin everyone else from doing something, I'm for them because they create the foundation for mutual bargaining. A voluntary society is better than one that exists through coercion.

Our air is dirty precisely because no one owns it - it's called the tragedy of the commons. It happens to all commonly owned resources.