Smoking in France a thing of the past?

[Alex]

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.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Yes, and that is a valid reason to support it. In fact, that's the only reason we should support governmental impositions on freedom, because the specific imposition benefits us.

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.

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

Yeah, basically.