Libertarian Philosophy: Smoking Bans – Banning Freedom – Learn Liberty
Articles Blog

Libertarian Philosophy: Smoking Bans – Banning Freedom – Learn Liberty

January 12, 2020

In many jurisdictions across the country,
we’re seeing more and more bans on smoking in public places. This seems like it’s a conflict of rights, because the smoker claims,
I have the right to smoke, don’t I, whereas the non-smoker will claim, I have
the right to breathe clean air, don’t I? But in many of these areas the concept
of public places includes bars or restaurants. And in an important way those aren’t
public places, those are private places. The bar, the restaurants, those have
owners just like you own your home. If you’re in my house, you don’t have the right to smoke
unless I say that you can smoke. And if I’m in your house I don’t
have the right to clean air unless you say I have
the right to clean air. When I’m in your house,
we will either smoke or not smoke depending on
what your rules are. When we’re in my house,
we’ll either smoke or not smoke depending on what my rules are. And just as you should be
expected to set the use rules for your own home, surely the restaurant owner
should be able to set the use rules for what goes on in that restaurant. You don’t have the right to
complain that there’s smoking or that there’s no smoking because
it’s not your restaurant. The restaurant owner knows his or her
clientele, knows whether it’s the sort of establishment where it’ll be more
advantageous to allow smoking or to ban smoking. Why not let the restaurant owner make
those decisions for that establishment, just the same way that you get to
make those rules for your own home? You’re not required to go to
the restaurant in the first place. If you would like to go to a restaurant
where there is no smoking allowed, then you should go to a restaurant
where there’s no smoking allowed. If you would like to go to a restaurant
where there is smoking allowed, then you should go to that
kind of a restaurant. But, to frame that in terms of rights is to miss the point of whose
rights are in question. It’s not really a matter of smoker’s
rights versus non-smokers right’s, it’s really a matter of
property owners rights. You have the right to smoke
in your property, and you have the right to have a smoke-free
environment in your own property, but you don’t have a right to one condition or
the other in somebody else’s property. The property owner’s rights are the ones
that should determine the rules for use of that property. You don’t have rights that override
the property owner’s rights. If I’m in your restaurant, it’s up to you
whether I can smoke or not, not up to me.

Only registered users can comment.

  1. Personally, I love how us Brits have a smoking ban. Much better going into pubs and restaurants and not smell the stink of smoke.

    But since Americans seems to be so "freedom" concerned about this yet don't care when their constitution is under threat it really says a lot…

  2. Excellent video, and I fully agree with the perspective that property owners should have the paramount right to determine use of their property.

    The challenge is, businesses are created or chartered by the state through registration, and the state has paramount claim on said property, and is thus the real "owner" and the named registered legal director has quasi title to control business direction.

    Once we establish REAL ownership on property, opposed to this quasi statutory registered ownership title, the closer we will be to a freer market / freer life of liberty.

  3. You do not have the right to hurt someone even on your property.  Simply disagreeing that second hand smoke is hurting someone does not make it true.

  4. Bars and restaurants are very different from private residences. Both require licensing and inspection in order to offer their business to customers. You are welcome to serve raw meat and moldy drinks at home, but I'm sure we can both agree that society needs to step in to ensure that does not happen in a place of business open to the public. The invisible hand of capitalism, which this channel loves, is not appropriate for this situation. Adding smoking to these existing regulations is merely another step to keep the public safe while also keeping employees from being exploited.

    Tl;Dr entertaining video, but your argument is superficial and invalid

  5. My problem is this.  What else do you want the free market to decide?  If a restaurant wants to serve food contaminated with high levels of mercury, shouldn't it be the free market to decide whether or not to eat there?  What about restaurants that decide it's good business to spray their premises with DDT?  How about restaurants in which you can show up naked?  Can you imagine a society with a million different types of businesses with different preferences of whether mercury, DDT, cigarette smoke, radiation, etc, is served inside?  At some basic level we have to have a common code of safety/hygiene to abide by.

  6. The real issue drawing up the debate out of thin air is the anti-smoking movement.  There are way too many people gobbling up political propaganda in the media in this country.  On what basis did the phrase "cigarettes kill" come from?  Well; frankly put it came from the basis of lung cancer.  The ONLY even SLIGHT risk ever observed to smoking cigarettes ever noticed.  So what does that come out to be?  Well; it is 40 in 100,000 people (0.04%) according to the CDC that will die at an old age due to lung cancer.  With 25% of the population smoking (again according to the CDC) that amounts to 0.01% or 1 in 25,000 smokers may die from lung cancer.  Yep; but "all smokers are dying of lung cancer".  Well maybe that one who works at a nuclear waste disposal plant anyways.  The issue is drawn out of nothing and has so much distain and deception to it only the ones pushing personal preferences on others actual buy into the garbage being published.

  7. {Edit: If any more people wand to show off how CRUEL AND STUPID they are, I politely request they REFRAIN FROM SHOWING OFF TO ME! — I'm THROUGH WITH THIS CONVERSATION! –End of edit}

    There is no such thing as a right to smoke. Breathing is essential to survival. Smoking is not. Besides, if a restaurant or bar is open to the public, then someone with a deadly allergy to tobacco may walk in and be hospitalized or killed by other people's tobacco smoke. If the owner of such an establishment wishes to treat it as private property, then they should not open it for public business. Nobody is forcing them to make their business open to the public. They do that by choice, and in doing so they have a responsibility to provide a safe environment for the public. Tobacco is known to be dangerous to human health, even for people without special medical considerations, and arguing that the restaurant owner has the right to endanger other human beings within the bounds of their private property would be silly even if they had not chosen to open it to the public.

  8. I never saw any such thing as a non-smoking restaurant, bar, or live music venue until legislation forced it to occur. Pure fantasy.    

  9. Agreed. If smokophobia were a "health" issue, the $6 billion that US smokers paid to the government might have been spent on something to do with tobacco; it wasn't. Smokophobes are hypocrites. Ban vehicles — they kill far more in accidents and emissions than tobacco — and add to the topmost and fastest-growing cause of death: obesity. Smoking cessation actually adds to the obesity problem. FAT = DEATH. And the cause of lung cancer (besides asbestos, bituminous, and petrol emissions is, frankly, UNKNOWN. Let's reduce FAT. You're worried about clean air? Stop driving, stop blabbing, stop farting, and start jogging.

  10. Sadly in the UK, Doctors have all voted the bill of banning the sale of cigarettes to those born after the year 2000. Its ridiculous and is gaining quite a bit of support, which is being supported by the crux that because the UK has a National Health Service, we should restrict people's ability to use things so that we save money that way…

    This is a sad day for the UK.

  11. I just don't think we should outlaw smoking because that just creates more crime like exactly what happened in the prohibition era 

  12. Smoking bans have gone way over the top lately.  It's pretty obvious that they are using the agenda to entirely phase out smoking in the general population.  While this may be a lofty goal of improving the overall health of the nation, it does infringe on individual rights.  It seems they've learned something from the prohibition era and are using step by step measures to increase the pressure on people.  That being said, some smoking bans are reasonable, like when it is collecting in small enough spaces and causes people to be exposed to it on a regular basis.  Some of the public may have a legitimate allergy to cigarette smoke as well.  But honestly, there is no way to justify banning smoking in open air spaces.  Just because you catch a whiff of it on the breeze does not mean that you are in danger.  You breath in more chemicals from the car exhaust that's around.  Smoking has been banned on beaches and in parks where there's no way that it is doing any harm to bystanders and I find that to be at the height of ridiculousness.  Concerning businesses, well, a business is not the exact same thing as your own home, but it really wouldn't do any harm to allow some small businesses to dictate their own rules within reason, especially if they have a way to provide good ventilation, or adequately separate areas, or have a clientele with a high percentage of smokers.  Yes, too much smoke can be harmful to health and dangerously addictive, but the issue has been overblown by a long shot and borders on persecution in some states. 

  13. why do smoking bans include e-cigs and chewing tobacco?  What justification do they have for telling someone they can't have chewing tobacco in their own mouth? That does not hurt those around you anymore than having candy in your mouth would hurt a diabetic three feet away.

  14. I'm going to burn bits of hair near smokers in public places, and if they ask me to stop, I'll just say that I'm exercising my personal freedom to pollute all their air with something that smells fucking horrible. I'm all for anti-establishment rhetoric, but this is a matter of public health. The government does enough bad shit, why get upset about them doing something good?

  15. This guys right, bars and restaurants are not publicly owned places and property owners should have the rights to there own property and make their own rules that involves smoking or non smoking. The state government shouldn't decide everything the person who owns and pays for the property should be able to make the rules and not everyone smokes so it would simply give you the choice to decide to go into a smoking and non smoking restaurant/bar.

  16. The ILLEGAL TOBACCO DRUG KILLS 14,000 addicts and another 1,800 INNOCENT people (those exposed to TOXIC TOBACCO SMOKE) around the world, EVERY DAY!



  17. This was the first topic that made me see i was what they call a libertarian 😀
    when i disagreed with my parents on smoking bans. Being only 14 years old, and having bad asthma, i was still pissed that cities were passing smoking bans, i was like "but that grill lets smokers in, so i wont go… their loss!"

  18. The smell of cigarette smoke is like a week old diaper that has been sitting in the sun. Imagine if u had to smell that in your own home or just walking down the street. It gets so frustrating especially when you know that it's bad for your body.

  19. But that leaves the question: what about public institutions, such as a state-funded university? If that's the case, shouldn't the government have the legal rights to ban smoking on that institution's property?

  20. Aahhhh, smoking bans…. the last frontier for self-entitled holier-than-though individuals who like to put their impeccable ethical and moral framework on display. The guy in this video is right in what he is saying. I would not be surprised if before long there will be a debate on whether people who enjoy alcohol should be seated in separate areas because public drinking might encourage young people to develop unhealthy habits.

    Greetings from non-smoker.

  21. For so long we've allowed government to control price, quality, strength and even packaging. No more!
    Let's make cigarettes cost a buck a pack and double the nicotine. Rip those filters off, we don't need em.
    We want to smoke when we want and where we want. In banks, hospitals, schools, wherever.
    Health effects, pffffft. Yeah right.
    It's just the MAN trying to keep us down.
    Smokers rights!

  22. Most bars and restaurants, I imagine, don't own the property their establishment is on. They pay rent to the actual mortgage holder (the real property owner). Which brings up the question: shouldn't the mortgage holder set the smoking policy not the bar owner? The same could even be asked of the mortgage holder if you really think about it. Those of us who have a mortgage, we don't actually own our property, the bank owns it..until we pay the bank off in full in 30 years

  23. smoking is one of the worst things for your health, so is drinking which also alters your consciousness. if we're gonna justify the legality of them with freedom and choice, then why not let people have that same freedom when it comes to drugs which also alter your consciousness and effect your health in a major way?

  24. I would agree with everything about property owners rights but at the same time you also have a choice to open a bar and obey the laws of the town regarding bars and who you serve and and what time you can serve. Nobody is forcing you to open a business. You do so knowing that the govt will impose rules and I think rules and laws make a work place safer and cleaner than without. Maybe I am wrong? So if you gave me the choice that one bar will do whatever they feel like and one that lives up to the standards laws and practices, I think I will choose the the first. Of course it does get crazy when the govt closes down kids lemonade stands (which I always make a point to buy from as I was a lemonade stand owner myself in my younger days). I think you are mixing property rights and business regulations and I believe we have two different issues. You opened the bar to the public not 5 of your neighbors and relatives.

  25. Why is this a video? You can do whatever you want in your property unless there's a law prohibiting it. So some government bodies have enacted laws prohibiting smoking in public areas or establishments with public access. So private business must abide by those laws. That is not restricting liberty. If I am in my private property, can I emit large amounts of poisonous gas that kills my neighbors? Although second hand smoke doesn't create severe acute respiratory disease, it creates chronic respiratory disease. The only thing that should be disputed is whether a law on smoking restrictions should be regulated at the state or federal level.

  26. I've gotta give smokers credit for one thing: they're basically the last minority group that it is still perfectly socially acceptable to display open bigotry towards and, for whatever reason, very few of them complain about it.

  27. I can appreciate this view but every property owner will set up a smoking section to maximize revenue. Thus, the rights I enjoy as a smoker infringe upon everyone else's rights. People can enjoy a dinner with their family without breathing smoke. As far as bars go, I lean towards bars being an exception to the no-smoking rule… When smoking was allowed in bars, most people who were regular or heavy drinkers smoked. I'd say ban smoking everywhere except bars.

  28. There is no freedom of choice, only what the government allows you to do or forbids you to do.  You have no freedom to smoke opium if you choose or take LSD if you choose without paying a penalty if the government catches you.

  29. Disagree: in this case the smokers are affecting the environment of non smokers and not otherwise (non smokers by no smoking). Bars or restaurants owners usually take the option of allowing smokers trying to increase their market share including as many people as possible, therefore there will be many more smoking restaurants than non smoking restaurants, as it happens in most of the third world and developing countries with no anti smoking laws.
    Additionally, governments that implement non smoking laws are thinking in the protection of non smokers and the healthcare burden that to smoke implies, so far I have no information of any country with public healthcare system that taxes more smoker citizens to compensate additional cost that they mean to their countries.

  30. Second hand smoke is bad. AND I DON'T WANT TO COUGH UP MUCUS! I have an athsmatic problem where I have too much mucus, which my cilia stops me from coughing up. Cigarette smoke makes your cilia go down.

  31. Restaurants and bars are not private places, they're public places. (the word "Pub" comes from Public House.) All these are owned as a business and businesses are public.

  32. I'm gonna open a restaurant and allow homicide on my property. If you don't like that you don't have to come to my restaurant.

  33. "You're not required to go to the restaurant in the first place"? Well in that case I'm gonna shoot any customer who comes into my restaurant. Isn't that part of my property rights?

  34. This guy is right.
    So, in open air, since it's everybody's, it shouldn't be allowed to smoke, following the very same principle.

  35. This is not about private property rights. The moment you open a business you have to respect certain regulations from the government. There is no way around that. You don't agree with the regulations, than please don't open a business. You can still smoke as much as you want on your own property. Want to make some money from it by selling food and drinks? Then respect regulations.

  36. This comment section is vile. Smoking should be illegal, it's one of the few drugs that actually harms others, you can do all the meth, heroine, LSD and M-Kat you want, because the only person you're directly destroying is yourself, smoking on the other hand? Anyone who tried to justify smoking is as pathetic as someone who'd sell their own child for drugs.

  37. Then I have right to slowly poison you by spreading toxic fumes? Smoking cannot be freedom. Anything that violate others health ,security or rights cannot be freedom. Stop making statements from your ass ,if you desperately need nikotine use bands or gums.

  38. Completely agree with everything he said except the part about not having the right to complain. I think people should have the right to complain even if they ultimately get overrode. It's one of the ways we gauge what people want in life.

  39. I'm torn on this one, normally I'm all in for liberty. However I've just lost a dear friend to lung cancer (always had a cigarette with him) and have another that is fighting lung cancer now, one smoked till the day he died, the other is smoking while going through chemo treatments. Customers can choose which restaurant/bar to go to, but employees and vendors cannot. If we agree that we should not put people at risk via asbestos exposure, mercury or lead exposure, we should not put them at risk for exposure to secondhand smoke, just because tobacco is legal. If cigarettes were brought to market today, there is no way that they'd pass the legal hurdles to be product that could be marketed to the public.
    So I admit I'm biased – I've lost friends to a miserable death because of addiction to a useless product. But I realize that it is your life, if you choose to put it at risk by smoking more power to ya. But, it needs to be done in a way that others aren't put at risk by secondhand smoke.

  40. Sad. What an ancient way of thinking. In actual fact, my right to breathe air trumps your desire to inhale something with over 70 known carcinogens in it. That's life. You're the addict, not me. You can smoke your brains out at home where it doesn't bother anyone, but in public, clean air rules. And pity the poor bar owner that hasn't figured out that if people quit smoking, they actually have MORE money to spend on booze. Only the successful bar owner know about this.

  41. Living in the UK has become significantly more pleasant for most people since smoking was banned in the workplace. Before then, spending time in a bar or restaurant was frequently spoiled by cigarette or cigar smoke. Smoking was common in offices too. I once had to turn down an otherwise attractive job because the company could not provide a smoke free working environment. (Quite the opposite actually, as I noticed when I walked through to the meeting room where the interview was held.)

    This was one of the best law changes in the UK in my lifetime. Before it, smokers could inflict their smoke on anyone they liked with no additional consequences from the impact on others. Imagine that someone had a canister of some toxic, choking, evil-smelling gas and went around puffing it into the faces of passers by. Presented that way I think most people (even back when smoking was legal in the workplace in the UK) would have considered that was not just rude but a form of assault.

  42. It is all about power hungry bureaucrats, taking away every inch of freedom.. let restaurant, and bar owners decide. It is their business.

  43. For the first time I have to disagree with you. Competition will force most bars to allow smoking, this makes working there more unhealthy, and generally non smokers have to sacrifice their health in order to not be left out.
    Tabaquism destroys real wealth.

  44. Im an ex smoker, so I know first hand the unfair almost bigotry hate campaign war that's been waged against smokers. For starters it's not a debate over the health risks of tobacco use in any form, we all know it's bad for you. But it goes too far because the anti smoking movement has grown from just spreading awareness and trying to get people to quit to a full fleged hate campaign where Smokers are treated like lepers who will destroy society unless we take their right to smoke period. That's crossing the line honestly I may not be a smoker anymore but I'll always defend their rights to smoke or use tobacco products privately. Several issues I have with this.

    -The Tobacco Industry is estimated at 770 billion dollars worldwide(not including E cigarettes or vapor devices) and that is projected to double within the next 10 years, to almost 1.5 trillion dollars. So go ahead and get rid of that industry and see how an already failing world economy will handle a loss like that.
    – The Anti smoking campaign will never be satisfied no matter how many regulations and taxes you place on cigarettes. Smokers can't smoke indoors anymore ok I'm fine with that actually, higher taxes, whatever ok, but that hasn't seemed to shut these hate mongering anti smoking hypocrites up.
    – Good luck trying to take tobacco away from the estimated 40 million isers in the US and the 1 billion tobacco users worldwide.
    -Its a hypocritical movement, they think that tobacco is a major heath concern and a risk to public safety. It's funny when these harsh regulations and negative stigma, is hardly is applied to the Fast Food Industry where 5O million Americans consume fast food "every day" 1/3 being children.
    – Tobacco advertising is virtually non-existent, yet Alcohol is plastered, everywhere in society, TV, Internet, Movies, TV Shows, and there's not many strict regulations or hate wars being waged against alcohol consumers.
    They tried making alcohol illegal and anyone with an average knowledge of history know how much of a failure that was. In fact alcohol is the most preventable cause of death in the us even more then smoking.

  45. There is a slight logical bug in this particular case when it's put into bar and restaurant context. No one should infringe the right of the owner to whatever one wants to do with own property. But when a business is allowing to smoke, it creates a market advantage of possibly having those 35% of population as your guests, and thus making more profit. No owner would throw away that kind of advantage, and profit-wise shoot its own leg by not allowing 35% of population in. The other 65% who don't smoke can choose not to go at smoked businesses at all. Then the free market responds by creating smoke-free businesses who are almost always more expensive (to compensate for that 35%) then their counterparts. What a free market does is raising the price for that 65% majority who wants "special" treatment. It seems illogical, but here's market explanation. It is not obvious, but there's more profit for owners to extract from the minority 35% group than from the majority 65% group.
    In short: free market will make sure that there are always smoke-free businesses around, but it also makes sure that they are more expensive due to lower attendance of non smoking population. Paradoxically, majority rule is overridden by the free market.
    The question is: Is this just? Is government regulation really undesirable in this case?

  46. Smoking is a very complex issue, the days of smoking being a commonly accepted activity are long gone. This is due to the plethora of negative health effects on both the smoker, and people around them. It's simply that smoking effects other people's health, if someone was blowing asbestos in your face, whilst they inhaled it as well. Would you just shrug it off and say, " Oh well, it's their right to give themselves cancer." It directly violates your rights to choose what goes into your body. In your own home with people who concent and know the negative heath effects, you should be able to smoke.

  47. Actually you are wrong,if it is a rental you have no right to deny the renter from smoking whatsoever,the second they gave you money to use that property you gave up that right.they have the right to do as they please as long as they are not destroying the place or committing illegal acts that are constitutionally illegal.

  48. OK, when one sets up a restaurant or bar, they are required to get a business licencing specifically for these types of business. They are required to get a liquor licence, be up to fire safety standards, food safety standards etc all set up by the government. By expicitly abiding by this government ( public) regulations, I think it is then assumed that the government has the right to interfere with these businesses if it affects the public good.

  49. well, I guess if that is true, then if the owner chooses to only rise the glasses in water to clean them, that should be ok to.

  50. It should be up to a building's owner whether or not to allow smoking on premises! The government has NO PLACE in regulating what people do on their own property!

  51. In the good ol days, your parents actually taught you about these things. Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, ect. Now parents will not even punish a child let alone spank one of the little spoiled brats. I say leave the law as is and punish the parents for not teaching the poor little idiots not to commit crimes. Such as illegally obtaining things they know they are not allowed it possess . But of course these are the spoiled kids of whom have never been punished for any infraction. I think it is time for them to learn the laws and pay the dues.

  52. Smokers should be given free cigarettes, especially if they get a government check. That way they will die sooner, getting rid of the financial burden their health care costs cause.

  53. Currently suffering from bronchitis triggered by all of the second-hand smoke in public places… this is open air, parking lots, parks, etc. Burn pits for garbage… when smoke of whatever type goes onto public air (or my private space) and encroaches upon my right to breathe clean air in the commons, then that is an infringement of my rights. The person who breaks a window, even accidentally, after throwing a baseball is responsible… seems logical that the person causing the harm by having something invade into the presence of another that causes harm is the one responsible. Yeah, so how about the smokers and burners of trash in the back yards come to pay for my medical bills?

  54. Restaurant and bar owners have to follow laws regarding fire codes, building codes and food & drink codes. All this is designed to keep people safe. It's a public safety issue. Bar owners can't cram in more people just because it's their establishment, and they can't serve poison food and drink. Second hand smoke is a public safety issue as well. Argument closed.

  55. People have the right to smoke.
    Just like people have the right to privacy, and personal identity.
    Stupidity of the majority will always kill freedom.
    The finest stupidity money can elect, has long held America’s governing system hostage and its supported by the tyrannically stupid majority. Aka delusionals
    What’s next?
    Sugar ban, for the diabetics, and obese?
    Meat ban, for those with high cholesterol?
    Childbirth ban, for minority’s, or how about mandatory birth control to all those in poverty?
    We’ve already lost the freedom of speech and gave away the right to privacy.
    We have yet to pay the price, for the cancer of tyrannical stupidity eating away our country and constitution.

  56. I generally dislike restrictions on personal freedoms, but the law got this one right. CAN A BAR OWNER TELL ME IT'S OK TO STAB YOU? Hey, if you're in here, laws regarding assault with a deadly weapon don't count. Don't come in here if you don't want to be stabbed…shot….poisoned with carcinogens? Think this is too hyperbolic? Just holding a weapon in a threatening away is "Assault with a Deadly Weapon." No harm is necessary…you don't have to cut anyone to commit this felony. You just have to make them feel threatened. How is this different from molecules of your garbage entering my lungs.

  57. I would support making cigarettes illegal. I smoke. Making them illegal would mean I would actually quit. I'm not going to find a cigarette drug dealer.

  58. I don't think anyone who is thinking clearly wants the freedom to destroy their health. I have had that freedom. It sucks. I wish I had never started smoking. I am unable to quit.

  59. I've been saying for many years, banning smoking in PRIVATE places was a TEST!!!!!!!!! Can we get the American people to TAKE THE RIGHT FROM THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS? Sadly, the answer was yes. It was all about setting LEGAL PRECEDENT PEOPLE!!!

  60. We can all understand and agree with these reasonable arguments. But Tobacco Control is not interested in reason or logic the agenda of Tobacco Control is to ban and criminalize smoking and tobacco worldwide. We are not dealing with reasonable people. Tobacco Control itself must be destroyed.

  61. You don't have freedom to kill people, and smoking is killing people. You don't have right to commit suicide – if you are trying to commit suicide, people are not only allowed but supposed to prevent you. Then why are people allowed smoking? It's suicide and you know it, it's just extended suicide.

    Libtards are dumb.

  62. While I agree with the logic it's not always that simple in real life. Sadly operating a non-smoking establishment puts you in a severe disadvantage profit-wise.

    If your establishment allows smoking that means non-smokers will still come to visit even if it's only as companions to their smoker friends and the vice-versa scenario is very unlikely.

    Living in a country with 50% smokers I had and still have to avoid any restaurant or nightclub or pretty much any public space because of smoke from cigarettes.

    P.S There is no such thing as a restaurant that forbids smoking at least not in my country.
    P.S2 Some regulation where you have days that smoking is allowed and others, where it's not, is not a horrible idea to please both sides. I would be pretty happy if I knew going out on Friday would mean no smoke and on Saturday I can stay at home and let the smokers have their fun.

  63. Smoking should be banned everywhere
    For the safety of humanity; weather smokers liked it or not ; but it’s the right choice

  64. As a Libertarian, I agree with you that property owners should decide smoking rules. However, as an owner of a condo unit, I have a right to clean smoke free air from other condo owners when we share the same air conditioning system. Smoke free rooms at hotels, hospitals and other places where people sleep or work should be the default setting so to speak. However, property owners that allow smoking should specifically designate their spaces as such. Smokers bring smoke to others who don't want it and should not allowed to do so in a public setting unless the space as been specially designated for that purpose. Smoking is a mild form of violence to the non-smoker who does not want it and thus a violation of the NAP (non-aggression principle).

  65. Austrian politicians should watch this video. Smoking ban indoors as of Nov 1, 2019. Not really a smoker, but I like cigars and think you should be able to have one indoors.

  66. your rules can get my rules as same as my rules can get yours! Bad air is everywhere without the smoke too! There are plenty of smoker cultures! Witch one are u talking about?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *