Have we? I'm not so convinced. I see us as more "little guy vs big guy", with the level of justice received directly in proportion to one's ability to pay for legal representation. That is, of course, a gross oversimplification but I think it gets the point across. There are some little guys gaming the system, to be sure. Your "welfare queens", as coined by Mr. Reagan, would be an example. They disgust me. On the other side are our corporations, flush with cash, who practically write their own legislation. They disgust me.

I would need to read more before engaging you on that point. I do find it hard to believe that the US is the only place one would find a frivolous lawsuit.

Does our society embrace the idea that common sense is non-existant?

That's OK, no offense taken. As you and I frequently find ourselves on opposing sides of these kinds of arguments, it just means the world is still spinning.

The challenge still remains... I haven't seen this activity that scaeagles refers to. If you, or anyone else has, please enlighten me.

Good find! Thank you

Just an aside and not picking nits, I couldn't help but laugh at seeing this avatar next to this quote. I can't tell exactly what she's holding in the picture but it looks to me like one of those long cigarette holders. (Or is she chewing a piece of straw? - Which would, arguably, make the picture all the more sexy.) :D

Thank you for exactly summing up my feelings on the issue so well.

I'm a non-smoker. Have been all my life. I can't stand the smell of smoke. It doesn't affect me physically other than make me gag a little. But I'd rather breath in someone's fart than smell a cigarette. At least the fart smell won't permeate my clothes and hair and make me reek all day. But I do hate the idea of taking away people's freedoms to do stupid things. I do stupid things that I know I shouldn't do and are bad for me, but never would I want a ban on them. Does my stupidity affect others? Not nearly as much as smoking does, but I also fear the slippery slope as other's have mentioned.

It's funny. Having visited Disneyland many times before smoking bans or designated smoking areas, I would smell certain tobacco scents on occasion and actually like it. I now associate some tobacco smells to Disneyland. Even years and years later. Is tobacco central to a visit to Disneyland? No, but somehow I have created an association that is actually a fond memory.

I’m very sensitive to smoke – and cigarette smoke especially so. Obviously, I’m all for smoking bans. Call me selfish, but I enjoy not living in bronchial hell!

No, the U.S. isn't the only place where they happen. But the U.S. system is particularly conducive to frivolous suits in some ways. It is much more common in the rest of the world to be on the English Rule system where the loser of a civil suit to have to pay the legal fees of the winner. The American Rule (each side paying its own legal expenses regardless of outcome) is somewhat anomalous in the world. I believe it is still the case that the only major country in the world on the American Rule system is Japan and they charge court filing fees as a proportion of the claimed damages.

The English Rule removes the incentive for a defendant to settle simply because it would be cheaper than going to court (even if they're in the right). It also removes the incentive for lawyers to take fringe cases on contingency knowing that it only takes a certain percentage settling out of court (for the above reason) to come out in the black on the whole endeavor.

Massive class action suits are also more difficult to form in most other countries and caps on punitive damages are more common as well.

What is the rationale for banning smoking in an enclosed environment where you can choose to go or not because you don't like the smell or it causes you personal health issues but not banning peanut use in an enclosed environment where you can choose to go or not even though it will send a lot of people into anaphylaxis? Or certain flowers and hayfever which puts Lani in a migraine situation for days at a time?

And I as someone who too calls himself a libertarian, mostly, also share the same sentiment as above.

Well, for one, peanut use MIGHT affect someone's health in those very rare cases for whom it is a problem, whereas cigarettes are almost certain to negatively affect someone every time.

I have to interject that I am ever fascinated by how many self-described libertarians, partial or otherwise, are in this social circle. I mean, for such a small party to be so largely represented here, and by chance...it's striking, and it must mean something, though I don't have the inspiration as to what.

And I'm surprised by how many people are saying "I'm generally libertarian except when the intrusion suits me personally." That's not libertarianism, that's just being cantankerous and disagreeable so that not a lot of things suit you.

Morrigoon: And that is why I would generally support outdoor smoking bans, you don't have a choice. But just the peanut allergy person can choose not to got o Thai Restaurants (and Lani and I leave if someone is wearing perfume that sets her sinuses off), non-smokers can do the same. I find it ironic that smoking has been banned where I can choose not to go and pushed out into the places where I have much less choice.

I agree that given the choice there may end up being not a lot of places that offer truly smoke free environments (though they did exist before there were laws; I grew up bowling in a non-smoking bowling alley and our local crappy Chinese restaurant was completely non-smoking) but tough titty, said the kitty, when the milk ran dry.