Originally posted by Jack White: For the ninetieth time, no we don't. There is no such thing as the right to smoke. Cars are a legal product, but we don't have a right to drive them; state law permits us to drive them, within parameters set by the legislature. Alcohol the same. And cigarettes, pipes and cigars.
It's still a 'slippery slope' Jack. Continuing your logic.....
Are bananas a legal product and do we have a right to consume them; if so, what about the hazardous peel that is the by-product?
Isn't New York considering the notion of allowing women to be topless, just as men are allowed to be; aren't there potential consequences for the joggers, bikers, walkers who may be distracted and thus cause themselves some harm?
I believe there IS a right to smoke UNTIL it is legislated away.
Posts: 1057 | Location: New England | Registered: August 03, 2007
I walk by the captiol building every day...On the North and South ends, where the House and Senate chambers are, there are 2nd floor balconys that fill up with legislators during breaks in session for their smoke breaks...(I'm also guilty of some time on the balconys)...I wonder if the smoke ban will apply to the balcony?
I highly doubt the law will pass, the Senate bill is still in Committee (SB 0109 2007), the House counterpart (HB 4163 2007) is also buried in Senate committee. Each of these has some 'riders'....They change the definition of "workplace" to any place, public or private, that employees 1 or more people...
I'm guessing both "packages" of leislation get stalled in committee and lapse with the end of session...probably won't be reintroduced until close to election time next year by the state Dems. to use against "big business" GOP'ers during the election.
Im sorry but I completely disagree with the majority of what you (Jack White) have said. Maybe it's because I've been brought up as a 100% republican or maybe it's because I've been brought up in the world of business ownership. Keep in mind before reading this that this is not an attack on your views but rather an expression of mine through the arguments you presented.
Okay, Jason, with the same respect for individual beliefs you extended to me ...
It's no surprise you're a 100% Republican, because you give preference to the rights of business owners to the detriment of the working man. And you're obviously uncomfortable with the precepts of Mill's On Liberty, which I quoted above.
Though privately owned, a bar or any place of public accomodation cannot willfully present physical or health hazards to those who patronize it. A tavern owner cannot operate without regard to the public welfare on the pretext that 'I'm paying for this place, I can operate it any way I want'. The over-arching precept is to cause no harm, and honestly, I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would debate that, even 100% Republicans. If you have a problem with the necessity to operate within those boundaries, you just need to find another business to invest in.
quote:
How about the bar owner just fires the disgruntled employee and finds someone who is more accomodating to the establishment that the owner has built?
Because that's against the law (to your chagrin, I know). And should be. And how about instead of using the perjorative phrase 'disgruntled employee', we call it what it really is -- an employee concerned about his right to stay cancer free while earning a living.
quote:
Before you say that a residence is different from a privately owned restaraunt establishment, it is not.
You're mistaken, Jason. It's very different, the fact of private ownership notwithstanding. Don't tell me you don't understand the difference in a private home and a place of public accomodation. I know you do.
To answer your question, no, I don't think smoking should be illegal in a private home. I've made that clear in many other posts.
quote:
If you don't know that second hand smoking is bad then your an idiot and I should not need to cater myself to you.
I don't necessarily disagree and I'm not all that concerned with the customers. Still, would you change your statement to read, "if employees don't know that second hand smoke is bad, then they're idiots"?
Okay, I'm about argued out for one evening. I have early client appointments tomorrow and I don't even know if my driveway, currently under 10" of snow, is gonna be plowed.
Good luck on your final!
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4065 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Maybe you should work on coming up with a working example of felicific calculus and then people can actually take what Mill had to say to heart.
They already ready admit they don't have perfect knowledge and cannot possibly predict the future, which completely undermind's their entire theory of morality because they can't possibly know the consequences of every action. How can a Consequentialist do anything without having any clue of the consequences . He wasn't of much of one as Bentham, but he still was.
We can't even figure out what human rights we even have be reading Mill because we have zero way of figuring out their quantity.
Doesn't work....
I'm not saying Kant's "I had good intentions, really I promise" idea is ideal or even close to it, but it's better than Mill's.
I don't really want to think that if I give my friend a cigar and he ends up choking on the smooke and dying that I'm responsible and that I'm evil because the result of my action was a man's death.
However, that's just me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jms2788,
"Think for a moment about whether it is ethical to throw a living creature into boiling water before sucking it down with a cup of melted butter"
Your parsing of "private property" into two categories - namely, one's home vs. a "place of public accomodation" - is an artificial and arbitrary distinction. Private property is either private property or it's not.
Likewise, you are misusing Mill by making an out of context link to the notion of harm. By the logic of your argument, my Krav Maga school ought not allow its customers to practice Krav Maga because we routinely get punched. Sometimes people lose teeth, sometimes they tear ligaments, sometimes worse. By the logic of your argument, we ought prevent these customers employees from getting hurt. The fact is, Jack, the risks are de facto accepted by anyone who sets foot in the joint.
Or, to put it bluntly, sure a man's right to swing his fist ends where your nose begins. But why are you walking in front of his fist?
_______________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week."
Posts: 1485 | Location: New York/Denver | Registered: August 05, 2005
Are bananas a legal product and do we have a right to consume them; if so, what about the hazardous peel that is the by-product?
Awww, I dunno ... that's kinda extending the point into silliness, isn't it. I'm pretty sure there's no constitutional provision giving us the right to consume bananas.
quote:
I believe there IS a right to smoke UNTIL it is legislated away.
See, I think we're having a semantic disagreement over the word 'right'. To me, the phrase "smokers' rights" implies that smokers are a constitutionally protected group, which they are clearly not.
You have the right to write a letter to the editor critical of the government. You have the right to attend or not attend church. You can't be denied lodging or the right to vote because of the color of your skin. A private club has the right to refuse membership to anyone on any basis. These are rights that can't be legislated away by a state or municipality.
By contrast, the law of my state allows me to drive a car and specifies conditions under which I may do so. It allows me to buy alcohol, but not before 12 Noon if it's Sunday. And it allows me to smoke a cigar, in prescribed places and under prescribed circumstances.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4065 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Likewise, you are misusing Mill by making an out of context link to the notion of harm. By the logic of your argument, my Krav Maga school ought not allow its customers to practice Krav Maga because we routinely get punched.
No, that doesn't follow at all, and I'm not misusing Mill in the slightest. Look, your customers attend your school for the purpose of becoming proficient at an elegant martial art. Clearly, getting hit and maybe losing teeth is part of that learning experience, like paying a trainer at a pro gym to teach you how to box. You expect to get hit. The health and well-being of your instructors and other employees aren't being put at any risk they're unwilling to assume (unless they encounter a particularly gifted student, I suppose). But Mill's definition of harm is that which is inflicted on an unwilling, bystanding individual against his wishes, not an eager participant.
quote:
But why are you walking in front of his fist?
But I'm not. I'm just a cocktail waitress in a saloon, or the guy in an office with a desk next to a smoker, who wants to stay cancer-free while earning a living.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4065 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Scottological, the Supreme Court, and several Federal and State courts, have ruled time and time again that private propety that is designed as a place of public accomodation is treated as public...these private owners relinquish several of the rights traditionally associated with private property...
Also, private property is not out of the realms of federal and state regulation to its use. There is a laundry list of cases going back hundreds of years on this.
Banana peels...believe it or not, there are dozens of cases about the hazards and consequences of banana peels...most are civil tort cases, but they create the standards of slip-and-fall that we all abide by today...so yes, there is in effect 'regulation' of peels that have been devrived from the litigation of subsequent decisions on the peels.
Cigars are legal products, yes, that doesn't mean you can use that legal product as you wish...cars, guns, computers, scissors, I don't car what leagal product you mention, there is an illegal use that can be associated.
Smokers, as a class, don't have rights...Jack is correct there as well. Drinkers don't have rights, either. Liquor is heavily regulated from purchase at the store to sale after 12:00 on sunday to not being able to drink then drive your car (another risk society frowns upon.) You also can't drink while walking down the sidewalk, in the aisle of a shopping mall (yes, even thought it's private property) or at a highschool or college football game.
There is a right to smoke until it's legislated away is backwards...that implies that legal rules trump moral position...on the same logic, there would be a right to murder without pesky murder laws...darn those legislators.
The problem is, like Jack, I also don't want to see smoking bans. I think the responsiblity of mature decision-making adults should prevail...If establishments make it known that they accomodate smoking, the consumer should be able to make a choice. (However I disagree with Jack, I think seatbelts and helmet laws affect my insurance rates, so your reluctance to wear them does affect me...it hits my pocket book).
That is how this thread started...the argument isn't "the right to smoke" or "the right to do what you want on your property"...rather it's the economic freedom that usually makes the changes in Constitutional law on issues like these...from regulation of milk to race discrimination in restaraunts to prohibiting commercials of alcohol...the issue the Court examines is commerce...sometimes with a twist of Due Process or a Privlidge & Immunity for appeal.
Shift the argument away from public health, a role states are allowed to justify, and make it a restriction on interstate commerce and it becomes a Federal Constitutional issue that states can't regulate in a 'protectionist' manner...
Now, before all the real lawyers jump on my argument, I'm aware that this is a pretty loose argument and commerce clause argumetns are much more sophisticated, but whose got the time...just offering food for thought...
jag
p.s. Can you all tell I have my exam on Constitutional Law sunday and have been overstudying?
quote:
We should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 1377 | Location: Moving in December | Registered: September 15, 2006
Good response Jack, You see how much I needed a distraction from studying? Maybe I thought writing about policy is the same as studying for a policy final
quote:
Though privately owned, a bar or any place of public accomodation cannot willfully present physical or health hazards to those who patronize it. A tavern owner cannot operate without regard to the public welfare on the pretext that 'I'm paying for this place, I can operate it any way I want'. The over-arching precept is to cause no harm, and honestly.
I understand where your coming from here, and while we could both argue our own ideas all night long. I'm going to take the easy way out. "physical or health hazard" "cause no harm"........McDonalds, Taco Bell, Buca De Bepo (all you can eat pasta). I mean lets face it, when it comes to healthy eating establishments, America is one of the worst in the world. While I understand that allowing smoking in public areas isn't helping the problem it's just as much the right of a business owner to allow as it is for Taco Bell to use grade D beef (better meat is used in dog food). While second-hand-smoke and unhealthy food are seperate issues, I hope you see the connection. Atleast with a smoke friendly bar the owner isn't directly harming the customers. It is a complex issue, and it's one that can be debated indeffinitely. I just feel that those that are going to a smoke friendly bar are going to smoke and drink, that which they can and do at their own home anyway.
quote:
Because that's against the law (to your chagrin, I know). And should be. And how about instead of using the perjorative phrase 'disgruntled employee', we call it what it really is -- an employee concerned about his right to stay cancer free while earning a living.
Good call on the "emplotee concerned about his right to stay cancer free while earning a living" =P Let's put it this way, you own a bar, and your dream is for it to be a cigar friendly bar, with locals and regulars coming in to enjoy a nice cigar and a drink. Now, you have an employee that comes up to you and says "I don't want cigar smoking to be allowed in here, its killing me" is that employee someone you want working with you to make your goal a reality. Firing him and hiring someone who enjoys cigars should be completely legal. After all its the reason we smoke cigars in the first place. Trying to say you don't know the risks of smoking cigars? Cigar smokers know the risks, but are willing to put the pleasure of smoking before all else. Its the same reason which is why a cigar friendly bar should be possible, we should have the right to make those kinds of desicions. Same with skydiving, should we illegalize it because its dangerous for the instructors?
quote:
You're mistaken, Jason. It's very different, the fact of private ownership notwithstanding.
Just trying to make a good what's next haha However, I'm interested, what's your stance on private cigar clubs such as the Havana club? Should smoking be disallowed because its unsafe to the employees? Without smoking these places would close and the employee would now be out of work.
Editing the idiot comment as soon as im done with this. Sorry, that one came out wrong, thank you for understanding it as it was meant to be.
ugh, this wasn't supposed to be this long. Anyway, good debate, now its time for me to get back to studying. Wow, being done with finals with a cigar in hand would be so nice right now.
-Jason
"Whether I see my humidor as half full or half empty, something's getting smoked"
I'm interested, what's your stance on private cigar clubs such as the Havana club?
I think exceptions to smoking bans are appropriate and should be easier to come by. No one loves a comfortable cigar bar more than I do. In the entire city of Boston, there are exactly three establishments where you can enjoy a Padron with your single malt, and just two others out in the suburbs.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4065 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Likewise, you are misusing Mill by making an out of context link to the notion of harm. By the logic of your argument, my Krav Maga school ought not allow its customers to practice Krav Maga because we routinely get punched.
No, that doesn't follow at all, and I'm not misusing Mill in the slightest. Look, your customers attend your school for the purpose of becoming proficient at an elegant martial art. Clearly, getting hit and maybe losing teeth is part of that learning experience, like paying a trainer at a pro gym to teach you how to box. You expect to get hit. The health and well-being of your instructors and other employees aren't being put at any risk they're unwilling to assume (unless they encounter a particularly gifted student, I suppose). But Mill's definition of harm is that which is inflicted on an unwilling, bystanding individual against his wishes, not an eager participant.
quote:
But why are you walking in front of his fist?
But I'm not. I'm just a cocktail waitress in a saloon, or the guy in an office with a desk next to a smoker, who wants to stay cancer-free while earning a living.
He's not misusing Mill, Mill's theory just cannot be applied because felicific calculus doesn't work, Jack seems to be overlooking that.
He's cherry picking. It's like following 7 commandments because you don't like the other other three. There are better philosophers who say what Mill said without such large holes.
Jack, we can't use Mill because their is absolutly zero way to quantify happiness. Not by numbers,however, but by happiness alone.
You seem to be ingnoring what I'm saying, Jack
According to your buddies Bentham and Mill, the following needs to be figured out before you can tell me not to smoke for "the greater good".
Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
Certainty or Uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
Purity: The probability it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
To these six, which consider the pleasures and pains within the life of a person, Bentham added a seventh element:
7. Extent: How many people will be affected?
Have you used this formula to figure this out? Of course not, it's impossible, you can't do it. Maybe my pleasure alone is greater than all non-smokers? Of course, this isn't the case, but do you see how morally "wrong" that is? To quantify pleasure like that.
Stop citing Mill, he would say you were acting unjustly without using that forumla. In fact, he did something similar when he was alive. Your own source would call you unjust, Jack.
I'm not saying I'm completely disagree with you, but Mill is easily reproached.
At minimum, please use a newer utilitarian such as Peter Singer who's not a hedonic utilitarian and doesn't really need felicific calculus.
Mill falls into all these little traps. Such as, if it gives me more pleasure to kill several thousand people than for those pewople to live, I can do so. Mill tried to wiggle his way out of that, but he can't, the proof is in text.
His philosophy is dangerous. Ok, well my pleasure is greater to kill someone than there pleasure if living. Therefore, it's right for me to kill them. Mill tried to say this lead to general unhappiness, but not reallly. If I hurt nobody else in the process and then lived in the woods by myself, Mill wouldn't have a problem.
Let's say I kill a man who has no family and no friends and then I go live in the woods and don't speak to another human. Mill's in text philosophy wouldn't say this was wrong. Mill, of course, would try to defend what he wrote because he realized how stupid this was.
Like I said before, Mill tried to weasel his way out of it, but he basically sounded idiot tripping over his words and getting confused. Mill himself probably knew it couldn't a applied. If he didn't, he's a lunatic and completely out of his mind.
Trust me Jack, if you take what Mill said seriously, you're heading in a very, very dangerous direction.
As I said, I don't completely disagree, but the democratic and liberal parties might want to chose a more modern utilitarian who's not so easy to reproach.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: jms2788,
"Think for a moment about whether it is ethical to throw a living creature into boiling water before sucking it down with a cup of melted butter"
I'm not ignoring anything. I just never heard the term 'felicific calculus' or the name Bentham before this, and am unable to comment until I read a little and find out what the hell you're talking about.
At first blush, though, it seems dangerous to determine the morality of an action simply on how much fun it is.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 4065 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
I'm not ignoring anything. I just never heard the term 'felicific calculus' or the name Bentham before this, and am unable to comment until I read a little and find out what the hell you're talking about.
At first blush, though, it seems dangerous to determine the morality of an action simply on how much fun it is.
Bentham and Mill's father educated Mill. Mill and Bentham do differ, but Bentham is a basis.
It's not really simply on how much fun it is, it's how much pleasure it brings to pepople. The only problem is it's impossible to quantify pleasure. You can guess, but you might be wrong.
A lot of problems with Mill. I don't think you're wrong when saying what ever should be done to prevent the public from harm is a positive, but Mill isn't the best example. Maybe in 1870 he was, but not now.
I think he himself began to realize that near the end of his life....
"Think for a moment about whether it is ethical to throw a living creature into boiling water before sucking it down with a cup of melted butter"
First of all, I fully acknowledge that SCOTUS and any number of legislative and regulatory bodies dictate what I can and can't do with my private property. They do it all the time and in countless ways.
That said, I claim also that they have no right to do so. That leaves me with two choices: join some whacked-out militia dudes in the woods, or suck it up and live with it.
I choose the latter because I doubt those militia dudes would take kindly to an effete metrosexual whose prefers Zegna suits to untucked plaid shirts. And, truly, I would hardly thrive in an environment where I would have to shave with a bowie knife. I mean, really, what facial moisturizer can save your skin after that?
_______________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week."
Posts: 1485 | Location: New York/Denver | Registered: August 05, 2005
I think most of you are missing the hypocrisy and lunacy surrounding this issue of smoking bans. For decades the government has taxed harmful substances such as tobacco and alcohol for the enormous amounts of revenue such taxes generate...the so-called sin taxes. The government gladly accepts your $2-$3 tax on a pack of cirarettes and now denies you the choice of smoking in public.
The hypocrisy of all this never ceases to amaze me. The government, which wants to ban all smoking just about everywhere, collects billions of dollars in taxes on tobacco. The government says it wants to protect everybody's health by taxing tobacco out of existence and banning all public smoking but it would lose billions if everybody did quit s
. He wasn't of much of one as Bentham, but he still was.
