I must apologize but I've lately been taking more of a moderate stance towards smoking and other currently illegal drugs. I don't think that drugs should be banned. Government prohibition of drugs causes more people to do drugs than they would otherwise.
But lately, I've come to take more of a moderate stance with second hand smoke. I think that private property owners can set up their own smoking spaces if they want to so they can allow people to smoke in certain locations. Smoking, however is harmful to one's health, and while not just being harmful to one's own health- second-hand smoke harms those people around themselves.
I guess I've come to the moderate belief that I support your ability to do recreational drugs... but I don't support your ability to harm me with them. If you were doing it by yourself I wouldn't mind. Just... don't harm other people that don't want to be harmed.
I think that second hand smoke would violate the NAP since your smoking around me would cause harm to my health, and, unwanted harm at that. So... in my view you're free to harm yourself. Just not other people. What do you all think?
SilentXtarian:I think that second hand smoke would violate the NAP since your smoking around me would cause harm to my health, and, unwanted harm at that. So... in my view you're free to harm yourself. Just not other people. What do you all think?
The Libertarian position on drugs has always been that personal drug use is perfectly fine since that in itself does not violate any property rights, but unconsented second hand smoke would be a violation of the NAP. It would be up to property owners to determine if/when/where smoker's could smoke on their property. Any non-smokers entering the property would have to agree to the homesteaded level of smoking on the property. It would then be the responsibility of the property owner to contain/filter the smoke in some way so that it doesn't enter someone else's property.
As someone with Asthma, the recent trend of "indoor clean air acts" most state's have pursued has been welcome on a personal level, but I also recognize that this a gross violation of property rights. I'd be more than willing to abolish all those laws to return to a society that respected and upheld property rights, including smoking, and the market would adjust accordingly.
socialdtk: SilentXtarian:I think that second hand smoke would violate the NAP since your smoking around me would cause harm to my health, and, unwanted harm at that. So... in my view you're free to harm yourself. Just not other people. What do you all think? In most situations second hand smoke is not a violation of the NAP ( property owners decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property and individuals abide by the rules that are in place ) although there are a few instances where second hand smoke could result in a NAP violation. For example there are two restaurants located adjacent to one another. Each restaurant has a patio area where guests have the option to dine. If one patio is strictly non-smoking while the other patio allows their guests to smoke then any smoke that drifts from the smoking restaurant to the non-smoking restaurant is a violation of NAP.
Would you agree that the fault lies in false advertisement of the second restaurant owner? The smokers at the patio are not violating the NAP; they have been given the option to smoke on the property of the owner. The second group is being violated by their restaurant owner because they were promised a section of seating without smoke. That restaurant owner should have take precautions before making such a promise.
A few fans would work
Read until you have something to write...Write until you have nothing to write...when you have nothing to write, read...read until you have something to write...Jeremiah
Jeremiah Dyke: socialdtk: SilentXtarian:I think that second hand smoke would violate the NAP since your smoking around me would cause harm to my health, and, unwanted harm at that. So... in my view you're free to harm yourself. Just not other people. What do you all think? In most situations second hand smoke is not a violation of the NAP ( property owners decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property and individuals abide by the rules that are in place ) although there are a few instances where second hand smoke could result in a NAP violation. For example there are two restaurants located adjacent to one another. Each restaurant has a patio area where guests have the option to dine. If one patio is strictly non-smoking while the other patio allows their guests to smoke then any smoke that drifts from the smoking restaurant to the non-smoking restaurant is a violation of NAP. Would you agree that the fault lies in false advertisement of the second restaurant owner? The smokers at the patio are not violating the NAP; they have been given the option to smoke on the property of the owner. The second group is being violated by their restaurant owner because they were promised a section of seating without smoke. That restaurant owner should have take precautions before making such a promise. A few fans would work
wouldn't something depend on who was there first and possibly when each restaurant implemented its smoking/non-smoking policy. If the non-smoking person bought/built his restaurant first and was always non-smoking, it would be a violation for someone to come in mess up the purity of his air.
Joe: Jeremiah Dyke: socialdtk: SilentXtarian:I think that second hand smoke would violate the NAP since your smoking around me would cause harm to my health, and, unwanted harm at that. So... in my view you're free to harm yourself. Just not other people. What do you all think? In most situations second hand smoke is not a violation of the NAP ( property owners decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property and individuals abide by the rules that are in place ) although there are a few instances where second hand smoke could result in a NAP violation. For example there are two restaurants located adjacent to one another. Each restaurant has a patio area where guests have the option to dine. If one patio is strictly non-smoking while the other patio allows their guests to smoke then any smoke that drifts from the smoking restaurant to the non-smoking restaurant is a violation of NAP. Would you agree that the fault lies in false advertisement of the second restaurant owner? The smokers at the patio are not violating the NAP; they have been given the option to smoke on the property of the owner. The second group is being violated by their restaurant owner because they were promised a section of seating without smoke. That restaurant owner should have take precautions before making such a promise. A few fans would work
Jeremiah Dyke: socialdtk: SilentXtarian:I think that second hand smoke would violate the NAP since your smoking around me would cause harm to my health, and, unwanted harm at that. So... in my view you're free to harm yourself. Just not other people. What do you all think? In most situations second hand smoke is not a violation of the NAP ( property owners decide whether or not to allow smoking on their property and individuals abide by the rules that are in place ) although there are a few instances where second hand smoke could result in a NAP violation. For example there are two restaurants located adjacent to one another. Each restaurant has a patio area where guests have the option to dine. If one patio is strictly non-smoking while the other patio allows their guests to smoke then any smoke that drifts from the smoking restaurant to the non-smoking restaurant is a violation of NAP.
In most circumstances this would be incorrect. A person has a right not to have their property be violated by others. That includes smoke drifting from one property to another.
The only exception would be if the smoking restaurant was homesteaded first and was giving off x amount of smoke prior to the non-smoking restaurant being homesteaded. In this example the smoking restaurant would have homesteaded an easement equal to that amount of smoke. If the amount of smoke it produces increases beyond the easement, then it would be a violation of property rights.
But in most circumstances this would be a violation of property rights outright.
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
SilentXtarian:What do you all think?
Where are you smoking, on whose property? They set the rules.
If there are none, then I'd say it comes down to who was there first. Kind of like, if an airport is nearby with noise 'pollution', you can't move in - then complain and try get an injunction or anything.
Same with a smoker, they shouldn't be able to move in and light up if its not in an allowed / designated area or whatever.
Thats how I see it.
Btw, the free market has answered via entrepreneurs...
Airport Brazil - suction air vents, smokers stand underneath, smoke on the platform and it takes it all away.
Then an nightclubs etc, you can have glass rooms - saw one in italy, designated smokers area.
Many more examples.
Jeremiah Dyke:Would you agree that the fault lies in false advertisement of the second restaurant owner?
I would argue that because the smoke is the direct result of restaurant A's smoking policy, restaurant A's owner is at fault. Restaurant A's owner would be responsible for installing fans to ensure that smoke generated on his property would not interfere with restaurant B's business.
Jeremiah Dyke:The smokers at the patio are not violating the NAP; they have been given the option to smoke on the property of the owner. The second group is being violated by their restaurant owner because they were promised a section of seating without smoke.
It is not the fault of restaurant B's owner because his right to his property is being violating by the actions of others. Surely you wouldn't pin the blame on him if someone were to set his property on fire saying that, "The second group is being violated by their restaurant owner because they were promised a section of seating without smoke."
socialdtk: Jeremiah Dyke:Would you agree that the fault lies in false advertisement of the second restaurant owner? I would argue that because the smoke is the direct result of restaurant A's smoking policy, restaurant A's owner is at fault. Restaurant A's owner would be responsible for installing fans to ensure that smoke generated on his property would not interfere with restaurant B's business.
Aren't ya'll missing the individual / culprits here, i.e the actual smoker who violated the restaurants rules?
Conza88:Aren't ya'll missing the individual / culprits here, i.e the actual smoker who violated the restaurants rules?
We were assuming that all people attending the restaurants were abiding by the rules.