I don't even need to quote anything, this is socialism at work
Actually, socialism refers to economic policies, not social policies. These kinds of laws can exist in both socialist and capitalist societies. The word you're looking for is totalitarian.
That's socialism my dear children, something the West has most recently spent 50-odd years combating across the world.
Although this kind of stuff does often happen in socialist societies, it can also happen in corporatist societies. In this case, I think we're talking corporatism. : )
Thanks for the Red Herrings. There's an obvious difference between deodorant, visual and audio annoyances, to something which arguably causes health problems and is many times more noticeable in a completely separate way.
Unless you're constantly around secondhand smoke, it's not going to hurt you. In most cases, when you're around a smoker outside, the amount of smoke you breath is going to be trivial, especially if you consider the fact that you're only going to be around this person for a few seconds.
The only other reason to ban cigarettes in open areas, since there is barely a health issue, is that cigarettes offend people, which is why I listed an example of other offensive behaviors.
I have no problem with property owners banning cigarettes on their own property. I have a problem with the government banning cigarettes.
...few seconds? Pass them on a sidewalk? You can clearly smell cigarette smoke downwind from at least 10-25 feet away (Depending on wind). It's that pungent.
True, but how harmful is this smoke? Again, I don't think the damage is anything but trivial unless you're constantly around it.
There should be a fairly easy way to obtain that information though. We require labels on every other type of food you buy, but not restaurant food? Seems a bit hypocritical.
Just because someone should do something doesn't necisarily mean they should be forced. Forcing sit-down restaurants to calculate calories would be fairly damaging for those who create daily specials, because specials are often created on a whim.
I do love the fact that we can readily check the back of products to read all of their information, but again, I see this as something that shouldn't be forced.
Forcing businesses to label their products with information isn't that bad of a law, but it's something I still don't support. It's pretty low priority, most of the time.
It's a reason among many to ban it in public areas though.
It's a form of liter, and littering is already banned. If the parks were owned by the private sector, yet were open to the public, it would be the call of whoever owns the property. Because it's owned by the government, it's a much tougher call. I'm not sure if the law only applies to public areas that are owned by the government, or all areas that are considered "
ublic".
Why should the minority be allowed to alienate the far majority in the name of "ersonal freedom" when it's bull that you can't go home to smoke, or do so away from others? Smoker's claim personal freedoms as a reason to be allowed it, and that's fine, but when you then turn around and take a crap on everyone else' "ersonal freedom" to enjoy non-smokey air, that's downright hypocritical.
As I said before, property rights.
...I'm detecting some double standards here. It's "smart" for a private institution to ban something which is harmful in a myriad of ways to all parties, but the very second the government tries the exact same thing it's "an infringement on our constitutional rights!"
The difference between government bans and private bans is that private bans occur within one's own property. Government bans occur within other people's property. If I own a restaurant, I should be the one who decides whether people are allowed to smoke inside or not, not the government.
When the property is owned by the government, then I believe the government should be allowed some power, and a smoking ban in said areas is okay. However, if this property is owned by a the private sector, it shouldn't be the government's call to make.
I believe most parks are going to be owned by the city, but I believe most plazas are going to be owned by businesses. The government shouldn't ban smoking on another person's property.
What you seem to advocate is complete and total anarchy unless it's some kind of "rivate" (as defined by government policy) institution or location, at which point it's suddenly a dictatorship where whatever the owner/s want can do without question.
Property rights is not dictatorship. In fact, we already have property rights! We're already allowed to make up our own rules pertaining to our own property. In no way is it a dictatorship now. You're saying that what I suggest would be like localized dictatorship, how would it be like dictatorship if what I suggest already exists?!
If I own property, I can require everyone there to wear red clothing if I wanted to. However, everyone owns their own self, so anyone who wishes not to comply has the right to leave my property, and I am unable to force them to stay.
The government should just idly sit by if they find that a restaurant is putting highly addictive substances in their food, and the customers are "choosing" to come back and eat there over and over again? Please. If businesses were not regulated by the government to some extent they would be entirely lawless for the most part. A business is about money, and money is about getting what you want, which is often more money.
I only see this with tobacco companies. Some people argue that restaurants try to make their food addicting by adding things such as salt to their food, but people like tasty foods! That's the whole point in providing food to people!
The only company that I know of that intentionally adds addicting chemicals to their products to hook their customers are tobacco companies. Surely government intervention is needed, right? If e-cigarettes become a more popular trend, then this will be an example as to how solutions to fixing problems can result from non-coercive actions!
