How many non-peanut serving restaurants does a peanut-allergic person have to choose from, compared to how many smoke-free restaurants we non-smokers had to choose from before the ban? Not ever restaurant is Thai, in a peanut-permissive society. However, when we were a smoking-permissive society, EVERY restaurant had smoking.

Thank you, Alex.

I get your point, NirvanaMan.

So? I missed the constitutional right to restaurant dining.

I agree with you all. I much, much prefer smoke free restaurants, stores, and bars. I also prefer bars that don't play music intrusively. So I don't go to many bars.


But, even if it sucks for me, I don't see how a risk I can choose to avoid puts a burden not another person to not create it.

"Libertarianism" is an absolute, which I'd define as absolutely no government involvement past the exact delineation of the constitution. (It's been a few years since I've read any literature, so let me know if I'm off.)

I don't see the world in black and white. I see the benefits of certain meddling. I see the reasons to have certain types of trade agreements with other countries, or have free health clinics for poor people, or have laws about decorum in public. I have my own opinions as to which meddling is ok, and not surprisingly, some of those opinions are self-serving.

Wouldn't a REAL libertarian be against public libraries? Why should I pay taxes so a homeless guy can have internet access?

I have no problem saying "I'm mostly Libertarian, but..."

Life does not come in black and white, but shades of gray. So should our political stances.

I enjoy cigars. Until recently one of the best local cigar shops was in a town north of here. The owner originally opened just a little tobacco shop, but when business boomed because his shop was first rate and prices were good he expanded. Eventually he wanted to sell wine by the glass to compliment your smoke and this too boomed so he expanded again. Eventually he had moved to a bigger location and was running as a full restaurant, selling meals and wines that compliment a good cigar. Anyone care to guess what happened next? The state stepped in and told him to stop selling cigars or close up shop. Here in Washington we have our own Draconian anti-smoking laws and one stipulation is that no smoking may occur where food is served. So, even though his establishment's very existence owed to his being a tobaccinist and wouldn't exist otherwise he had to close up his humidor and now we have lost one of the best cigar shops in the county.

To me this situation was absurd. He should have had every right to operate as he saw fit. He was successful, paid taxes (particularly heavy as he was selling tobacco products) and employed a full staff. But, the self-righteous indignation of the anti-smoking crowd made his decision for him. So much for liberty and one's own pursuit of happiness.

I will add the caveat that I absolutely abhor the smell of cigarettes. It's foul, nauseating and worse triggers my hay fever. So, I avoid it. I either don't go where I know there is smoking or I deal with it if I do. When I smoke a cigar I make sure that I'm nowhere near anyone who might be bothered by my smoke. I have forgone my pleasure many times in fact out of respect for someone nearby who didn't wish to inhale cigar smoke. I don't support smoking bans at all, but I do hold smokers responsible for a good portion of their public scorn. Ducking out every thirty minutes for "smoke breaks" or lighting up in a crowd and forcing your crap into everyone else's lungs is a good way to bring public scorn upon yourself, and deservedly so. If smokers conducted themselves with a little more decorum then perhaps smoking bans might not be so prevalent in the first place.

See that is something I specifically disagree with personally. And that may just be a me thing, but I feel hypocritical by saying I disagree with government intrusion into our lives, except when I prefer the outcome. That is why although I enjoy the smoke free life that these laws have given me, I still vehemently disagree with them in principle and would vote against them given the opportunity. Thus the internal conflict. Having to vote against that which would make you happy in favour of that which you believe in principle. Tough call, but I would have to side in favor or my principles every time regardless of how much I might enjoy reaping the rewards of legislation limiting personal freedoms.

That said, smoking is truly a tough one. It really depends on the situation. Allowing someone the right to smoke versus allowing someone to not be subjected to it. An ethical question perhaps as much as it is a legislative and political one. My personal philosophy is that I should be allowed to do anything I wish such that it does not negatively noticeably impact another human. In other words, hurting someones feelings doesn't count; hurting someone physically does. I'm sure one could dissect this with all sorts of individual cases and exceptions, but I think I could generally stand fast behind the idea. It's how I try to live my life, though at times liberty squashing legislation prevents me from achieving my Zen as my government tries to protect me from me.

Yeah, basically.

Isn't declaring that political stances should come in black and white then turning the gray vs. black and white debate into one that is black and white?

Hence your inner conflict. Your principles are black and white, life is not.

Hah, and all things in moderation, excepting this rule or including it? ;)

Well, the Libertarian stand is clear - these are not good laws. There's an article on the official Libertarian page that compares them to communism or fascism.

As for my own feelings, I stand by my wishy-washy post above.

I have no problem calling people out on their hypocrisy. In this case, I must call myself out. It's only fair.