2nd Hand Smoke, the Myth

[Fonceai]

@CC

A right wasn't taken away.

There was no, "You have the right to smoke" right.

They simply made something illegal that was a non-issue before.

I see how you're spinning it... that he had the right to permit smoking. But that right wasn't specified at all.

[Fonceai]

@OFE

I'm sorry, I started reading that then realized it didn't really get to the point fast enough for my preference.

It wasn't focused at all on the issue at hand.

It really read more like you trying to adapt your personal outlook to this particular issue.

No offense, but you're plopping your wall right in between me and Captain Chaos and I would rather address him then filter through your nonsense for the point somewhere in there.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai @CC A right wasn't taken away. There was no, "You have the right to smoke" right. They simply made something illegal that was a non-issue before. I see how you're spinning it... that he had the right to permit smoking. But that right wasn't specified at all.

That right was covered under property rights, and thus did not have to be specified.

[Fonceai]

But if it isn't specified, how can it be taken away?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai But if it isn't specified, how can it be taken away?

Property rights cover a huge set of things. The right to permit smoking on your property is an unspecified right that is a subset of the specified category of property rights.

By taking away the unspecified subset, the government is reducing the size of the category of rights covered by property rights. Unspecified rights are still rights, especially if they are covered by a specified category of rights.


Think of it this way - do you have the right to paint your house yellow?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: Property rights cover a huge set of things. The right to permit smoking on your property is an unspecified right that is a subset of the specified category of property rights. By taking away the unspecified subset, the government is reducing the size of the category of rights covered by property rights. Unspecified rights are still rights, especially if they are covered by a specified category of rights. Think of it this way - do you have the right to paint your house yellow?

I say:
Well said Chaos.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC Unspecified rights are still rights, especially if they are covered by a specified category of rights.

I agree that if there is nothing saying you can't do it then you can do it.

But I think where we disagree... and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm really into this discussion... is that if something is unspecified, and then someone comes along and says you can't do it, complaints are invalid.

I think this comes from how I was raised. For example, my parents never told me I couldn't have girls over afterschool, in the house, alone. In fact, the first time a girl came over and asked if it was okay, I gave a nice smug smile and said that my parents never said it wasn't okay.

This went on for a month or two, and when my parents found out, they didn't punish me because they had never clearly said it wasn't okay. But they told me it would not happen again. It still did, but I just didn't get caught.

That's how I perceive this smoking issue.

The whole "it's my house I make the rules" aspect of parenting I think applies here. The issue is that the gov't had to choose a side in this matter, and it chose the non-smoker. It gave legitimate reasons for making the decision, and then told owners that something that was once unspecified is now specified.

I want to have a moral flexibility in this issue, but it just isn't in me. It's something harmful, it was unspecified, and the gov't did the same thing that my parents did to me, and that I will do to my kids.

That's the nature of amendments to laws and rights. Someone is going to be inconvenienced. With this specific smoking issue, the only reason I support it so strongly is that it's a matter of health.

They placed a higher value on the health of the majority of people, the non-smokers, over the financial risks of owners.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: But I think where we disagree... and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm really into this discussion... is that if something is unspecified, and then someone comes along and says you can't do it, complaints are invalid.

I say:
As long as the new "bill" that is proposed to be "law" is Constituionally sound.

Any law that violates the rights of private property, is CLEARLY not Constitutionally sound, since it infringes DIRECTLY on private property.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai But I think where we disagree... and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm really into this discussion... is that if something is unspecified, and then someone comes along and says you can't do it, complaints are invalid.

That is a subjective opinion, though. If someone takes away my right to paint my house yellow, I will feel that my complaints are valid.

I think this comes from how I was raised. For example, my parents never told me I couldn't have girls over afterschool, in the house, alone. In fact, the first time a girl came over and asked if it was okay, I gave a nice smug smile and said that my parents never said it wasn't okay.

Your parents never established a broad set of rights under which having girls over would be included.

Our government has established property rights, under which allowing smoking is included.

Our government has also said that rights not specified are still rights. Basically, that means that you have the right to any action not specifically prohibited.

The whole "it's my house I make the rules" aspect of parenting I think applies here. The issue is that the gov't had to choose a side in this matter, and it chose the non-smoker. It gave legitimate reasons for making the decision, and then told owners that something that was once unspecified is now specified.

If your parents had previously allowed you to have the right to do anything that was not specifically prohibited, or said you can do what you want with your room unless specifically prohibited, then your right to have girls over would have been covered under those allowances. After they prohibited it, that right would have been taken away.

They placed a higher value on the health of the majority of people, the non-smokers, over the financial risks of owners.

So, then it would be accurate to say that you feel the health concerns outweigh property rights in this situation. Would you agree that, from your perspective, a subset of property rights was taken away, for the purpose of greater good?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: As long as the new "bill" that is proposed to be "law" is Constituionally sound. Any law that violates the rights of private property, is CLEARLY not Constitutionally sound, since it infringes DIRECTLY on private property.

Should I have the right to build a nuclear bomb on my property?

[Osborn F Enready]

Chaos said: Should I have the right to build a nuclear bomb on my property?

I say:
The right, yes. The right to be completely unfettered with creating and using it, no.

WMD is obviously detrimental to not only one persons health, but hundreds, thousands or millions of peoples health.

Based on the destructive power of WMD, there can be a valid case made by all surrounding property owners as to the oversight on such a case by government.

Lets face it. Nuclear bombs and warheads are built, and they are built on land in this nation. Somebody is taking the responsibility for that, somewhere in the line if there were EVER an accident or theft.(if the media made the people aware of the act, of course.)

Grumman has the license to build what it does, because of its "unique" ability to do so. They also make a "unique" profit from their goods and services, which allows them to reasonably pay for their ability to make such "unique" profit from the "unique" and oft times questionable use of their land that pushes property rights beyond the line any private individual would push.

I think there are times when government licensing and regulation is not only necessary, but welcome by both private and government sides, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

However, the risk posed by any smoke from any burning vegetable, is no worse that a natural fire of vegetable matter, something we can't ban, control or hope to predict with any reasonable accuracy. Based on the variety of fires that cause this type of smoke, and the incredibly low overall risk, which in most cases takes decades to discover some if any ill effects, does NOT warrant the right of government to infringe my rights as a private property owner.

Is it even possible to compare WMD (unquestionable damage and death) to the threat of tobacco, marijuana, or even felled leaves smoking in a persons backyard in the burn pile(marginal if any provable effects, using isolated tests)?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC So, then it would be accurate to say that you feel the health concerns outweigh property rights in this situation. Would you agree that, from your perspective, a subset of property rights was taken away, for the purpose of greater good?

Two things...

First, I'm going to try to find the subset of property rights that actually says that owners can allow smoking. I don't think it was ever mentioned at all until the gov't said, "No smoking" but I want to be sure.

Second, I think the answer to your question is yes, I do feel that way.

If I had to make this kind of decision, I would evaluate as follows:

The risks to the health of a non-smoker versus the risks to the profits of an owner.

Look at what motivated the specification of smoking: people were complaining. They were complaining that restaurants weren't effectively ventilating, that food tasted like smoke, and all sorts of other things.

If I were to say that the standard remained, that smoking was allowed, those owners would completely lose non-smoker patronage.

If I were to say that the standard changes, that smoking is not allowed, the smokers can simply step outside to smoke, or not smoke at all.

With the former, the non-smoker has no form of relief from their inconvenience. With the latter, the smoker can step outside to burn one then come back in. I was just at a pool hall on Monday night where owner stood outside and burned a cigarette with the smokers.

In the meantime, their business increased because the non-smokers didn't have to try to tolerate a smoky pool hall.

Weighing the pros and cons, and almost solely on the basis of the health issue, I think the non-smoking law served the greater good.

Remember, this decision came about because of the public... just as the fat laws in NYC. The public spoke with a loud enough voice, and the gov't responded. This is really an instance of citizens making policy.

Quote by: CC Should I have the right to build a nuclear bomb on my property?

I know it wasn't directed at me, but this is a tricky question.

You can build bombs on your property.

It's not a nuclear bomb unless you have weapons-grade radioactive material.

So the logical answer is yes.

[Nathan Struth]

You know...I never said I would go to those lengths. All I do is care, I'm not going to ban someone's rights CC.

[Captain Chaos]

First, I'm going to try to find the subset of property rights that actually says that owners can allow smoking. I don't think it was ever mentioned at all until the gov't said, "No smoking" but I want to be sure.

My point is that rights, including property rights, do not have to mention every little specific thing.

Seriously - do you have the right to paint your house yellow?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai If I were to say that the standard remained, that smoking was allowed, those owners would completely lose non-smoker patronage.

Then take it further. Thinking about free market principles, what would happen next?

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC Seriously - do you have the right to paint your house yellow?

Can't answer that question... we live in apartment for now.

I could "what if" your question with if I owned my own home, or if I lived as part of a homeowners association, etc.

But for the sake of the point you want to make, we'll say I have a home on which I'm still making mortgage payments. So yes.

Quote by: CC My point is that rights, including property rights, do not have to mention every little specific thing.

But here's the rub...

If they didn't specifically include smoking in property rights, and the gov't makes a decision, there is no wrong-doing.

If they did specifically say smoking was allowed, then changed it, but the change is justified for health reasons and done at the behest of the citizens requests, there is still no wrong-doing.

Quote by: CC Then take it further. Thinking about free market principles, what would happen next?

You can just make your point.

I understand according to free market principles, there would be owners who specifically create non-smoking establishments, as is their right, in order to attract the business of the non-smokers who stopped going to the places that allow smoking.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Can't answer that question... we live in apartment for now. I could "what if" your question with if I owned my own home, or if I lived as part of a homeowners association, etc. But for the sake of the point you want to make, we'll say I have a home on which I'm still making mortgage payments. So yes.

Where is your right to paint your house yellow specified?

[Fonceai]

I edited #196 to include the ninja'd post.

The Socratic method is a waste of time.

If you're not going to make your point, I'm going to say the following...

It's not specified anywhere one way or the other. If I paint my house yellow and the gov't says that from now on, no one can have a yellow house, and if you do, you have to repaint it, then I would ask "why"

If the response is given that there is evidence that yellow paint might kill people living in or next door to my house, I would paint it at my expense.

If the response is the equivalent of "just cuz" then I would fight it.

As I have written twice already, I support no-smoking laws because second-hand smoke poses a health risk.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: But here's the rub... If they didn't specifically include smoking in property rights, and the gov't makes a decision, there is no wrong-doing.

I say:
No rub at all. You act as if rights listed in the Bill of Rights are just like any law that exists, and can be changed via the same methods. This is not the case.

Rights are self evident truths, and there is a specific clause that states within the Bill of Rights, "These rights shall NOT be infringed."

This is not a "law", it is a statement of forbidding action by Constitutional Limitation, from the people to the government.

You seem to think the government can just veto that Limitation, which makes our nation unique and an obvious standout in the world of governments.

Do you not see your critical oversight here, in acting as if a simple majority can create a law that limits Constitutionally protected rights? These same rights that we claimed self evident, and revolted against the largest army and navy in the world over?!?

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: because second-hand smoke poses a health risk

I say:
But what amount of health risk?!?
Can it be avoided by the individual who could be at risk?!?

You seem to conveniently ignore that aspect entirely.

The government themselves have "dress codes" for certain events and get togethers, and limiting attendance by "dress code" would be the same as limiting attendance by "smoking prefrence".