Illinois to Pass Statewide Smoking Ban

If the owner of the bar wants to allow it, sure.

Why do virtually all people refuse to recognise that rights can conflict with each other? No point in screaming about one set of rights to the exclusion of the others.

A point I concede, I merely wish to point out why regulation might be acceptable for certain private activities.

That's why grocery stores must be licensed to sell alcohol. There is an inherent risk. I know you reject this concept, since you favor grocery stores dispensing Oxycontin, but the logic is sound when measured against the organizing principles of our society.

It's a travesty that one can't purchase discount plutonium at the local outlet mall

Here in Ca smoking is banned everywhere. But before the ban I used to go to this club and they actually had a closed smoking room(windows were open). So you could hang out at the bar smokefree and if you wanted to smoke you could take your drink and go and relax in this room. I actually thought that was the best of both worlds and how more bars couldn't do the same.
Now when smoking was banned that room went away too.

There are no rights in conflict here. It is one right-that of the owner to decide what takes place on his property-in conflict with some peoples' mistaken belief that they can forcibly dictate terms to the proprietor.

There is no more "right" to a smoke-free bar than there is a "right" to tell a homeowner he can't smoke when you come to visit him.

I think this is a perfectly sensible option since it is the owner of the establishment doing it on his/her own terms, instead of being forced into doing it. Most smokers would probably be more than happy with that type of setup.

Does the property owner have the right to allow customers to juggle live grenades within his establishment? Or start making meth in the men's bathroom?

B/c you are making two false assumptions:

1) Every nonsmoker prefers a non-smoking establishment.
2) Every nonsmoker prefers a non-smoking establishment to the same extent that a smoker prefers a smoking establishment.

This is simply not true as evidenced when smoking bans are actually put to a vote. Instead of the 80% you cite, instead the measure either fails or passes by only a narrow margin.

Edit, I just thought of a third false asumption but since it is not proved by the voting record I will put it here.
3) Those who frequent bars and restraunts smoke in the same proportion as the population in general. Maybe not so much to do with restraunts, but I have a feeling when it comes to bars the % of smokers would be significantly higher.

Are cigarettes illegal as grenades and meth are?

In California buildings they are.

How about a better example. A man enters a restaurant and starts juggling knives dangerously close to customers, in fact nicking a few of them. Does the owner have the right to allow him to stay?

This is where I apply some arbitrary distinction and walk right into some pedantic little trap where you believe you've proven hypocrisy or at least inconsistent standards, right?

Sorry, not playing along. Those are absurd comparisons with no reasonable place in the discussion.

But it's quite a valid point. Why can we regulate meth but not nicotine?

But if a restaurant or bar owners allows something as dangerous as cigarette smoke, why wouldn't he allow something equally dangerous? Maybe he could hide cobras in the toilets (supposing cobras were legal to have).

Strawman? Sure he does. Those customers have the right to leave as well.

No, it really isn't, but I'm not surprised you see it that way.

Well, since I've never been in favor of regulating either, you'll have to ask someone else.

You really want to go down this road?

Get back to me when nicotene is a schedule 1 narcotic.

Oh please. Marijuana is a schedule 1 narcotic when it's no more harmful than Advil.

OK, what if the bar/restaurant owner allowed a man to start spraying cancer causing chemicals throughout the bar?

If the place is clearly marked and/or conventionally known to be a place where knives are thrown and minor injuries caused, I'd say yes, the imaginary proprietor in your latest absurd hypothetical would be perfectly within his rights.

What if smoking in bars warps the space time continuum so the Holocaust never happens?

Get outta here with that shit.

No, that's your definition.
Once again, and as usual, you're guilty of assuming that others should automatically agree by default, and proceed with their arguments on that basis.

Hang a sign that says "Carcinogenic substances are regularly sprayed throughout this establishment. Patrons wishing to avoid contact with these substances are advised to seek other accommodations," and knock yourself out.

So you would force the owner to hang such a sign? You realize that second hand smoke meets the description that Timmy has given, right? So if we don't ban it, you are in favor of proscribing speech requirements on the bar owner that may be harmful to his business?

By what definition is there a "right" to something at someone else's expense?




Wait, look who I'm talking to....

So I guess you've never seen a sign that says "Smoking is permitted in this entire establisment".

I don't think disclosure infringes on anybody's right, because asserting the opposite implies the right to conceal such information to the detriment of others, and that would make you liable for their injuries.

I don't get how this smirk fits with your requirement that Timmy's bar owner hang a warning sign. That's no less an assumption about what is correct than I have made.

You see fit all the time to demand (angrily) that people accede to your choices. Read Henryhill's words above. You are a complete jackass because you assume that it is perfectly reasonable to define every word, every term in the debate so that it only suits your personal priorities. No room for any other possible definitions in your ridiculous world of absolute black and white.

They're already forced to do that with a lot of stuff here in California.

Then again, everything from cell phones to bottled water causes cancer...

I don't believe it was I who first invoked the word "correct". There are simply those who fall on the side of personal freedom and individual responsibility, and those who want choices removed when people dare disagree with them. I see absolutely no reason why this subject could not be handled through voluntary means.

What I demand is that they respect my right to decide for myself in areas over which they have no rightful dominion. And "rightful" is not simply an unsupported opinion. It is an objective assessment based on who has done what to earn control over the property.

What I assume is that reason should take precedence in the first place. Not emotional rhetoric or irrational perceptions of entitlement. What I get in response is ridiculous comparisions and retarded bullshit like "well, some regulations already exist, so you have to accept this one, too. nyah! ," and I'm supposed to dignify that with respectful politeness? No.

Give me something better than invalid comparisons and "I have a right to what I want, where I want it, at no cost or inconvenience to me," and I might take you all more seriously.