Monday, June 20, 2005
Smoking Bans
AFF's Brainwash :: Gene Healy :: Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light
Gene Healy writes a decent article in opposition to D.C.'s smoking ban. It provokes some thought in me.
One, it may be the case that smoking violates the rights of non-smokers inasmuch as they have a reasonable expectation of being in a smoke-free place or section and that expectation is breached, at the same time as it may be true that smoking is a form of pollution against the bodies of other individuals, as a subjective cost.
Two, still, bar owners should be the ones setting the terms of the contract in conjunction with which customers choose to enter such an agreement for smoking or non-smoking or mixed pubs by the demonstrated preference of choosing to enter.
Certainly federalism--or centralism--plays a role in this debate, too, and it must be said that it is only consistent with a federalist approach (and an anarchist one) to limit even states from passing either bans on smoking pubs or by the same token on local ordinances for smoking bans.
Link
Gene Healy writes a decent article in opposition to D.C.'s smoking ban. It provokes some thought in me.
One, it may be the case that smoking violates the rights of non-smokers inasmuch as they have a reasonable expectation of being in a smoke-free place or section and that expectation is breached, at the same time as it may be true that smoking is a form of pollution against the bodies of other individuals, as a subjective cost.
Two, still, bar owners should be the ones setting the terms of the contract in conjunction with which customers choose to enter such an agreement for smoking or non-smoking or mixed pubs by the demonstrated preference of choosing to enter.
Certainly federalism--or centralism--plays a role in this debate, too, and it must be said that it is only consistent with a federalist approach (and an anarchist one) to limit even states from passing either bans on smoking pubs or by the same token on local ordinances for smoking bans.
Comments:
The "reasonable expectation" line is the crux of social contract theory. It's used to legitimize the state in enforcement of law. People have a reasonable expectation to safety and security from crime.
My question is since when? Certainly I beleive in human rights, but does that mean I have the right to live in a society completely devoid of crime. How could any one be certain of such a thing and no one but the criminal himself can be held accountable.
So for smokers who claim a right to reasonale expectation of a smoke free environment is left the opportunity to request a smoker to put out his butt. Or could it be that their are places which it is so common place to smoke that non smokers have no reasonable claim to such clean air?
My question is since when? Certainly I beleive in human rights, but does that mean I have the right to live in a society completely devoid of crime. How could any one be certain of such a thing and no one but the criminal himself can be held accountable.
So for smokers who claim a right to reasonale expectation of a smoke free environment is left the opportunity to request a smoker to put out his butt. Or could it be that their are places which it is so common place to smoke that non smokers have no reasonable claim to such clean air?
Dan,
The "reasonable expectation" line is not necessarily a gateway for the state to enter in. It is reasonable to expect that McDonald's will not evict me while I eat the McNuggets which i buy there. If there is a question about it, it is up to the firm to make a posted notice of the terms of contract on entry, or for case law in private courts to hash out.
And yes, it could be, IMHO, that there are places in which it is so commonplace to smoke that smokers should not expect to not have smoke--for instance, if the place shows "No-smoking" signs as well as "Smoking" signs.
Post a Comment
The "reasonable expectation" line is not necessarily a gateway for the state to enter in. It is reasonable to expect that McDonald's will not evict me while I eat the McNuggets which i buy there. If there is a question about it, it is up to the firm to make a posted notice of the terms of contract on entry, or for case law in private courts to hash out.
And yes, it could be, IMHO, that there are places in which it is so commonplace to smoke that smokers should not expect to not have smoke--for instance, if the place shows "No-smoking" signs as well as "Smoking" signs.
