4 ms·

When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation

by ezoe 7y ago

When one's personal liberty crash with other's personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If you believe there is a right to smoke, think about the violation of other's right. I don't want to inhale the smoke or aerosol containing nicotine. That's my right. If an action which exercising your right violate other's right, that action must be forbidden for protecting the other's right. So, in this case, the right to smoke shall be allowed in the condition in which my right of no inhaling it shall be honored. Now, if you don't have a level 3 biohazard facility, you shall not be allowed to smoke. My right is constantly violated almost everyday.

013a 7y ago
You do not have a right to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just something that have no meaning. That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke. Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).
- FrozenSynapse 7y ago
  Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.
  - 013a 7y ago
    Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that makes me feel funny."
    - ezoe 7y ago
      In my country(Japan), there are cases which ordered the neighbor/colleague to compensate the health damage he cause by passive smoking for his smoking inside his house or his desk.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    Nobody ever considers the downside to all this heavy-handed governance. When you give the government the power to regulate lives at such a level, what do you do if social mores change, and what you support is suddenly the contrary view? Do you capitulate, or do you stand firm?
- lm28469 7y ago
  > They are God-Given Honest question, what do you mean by that?
  - 013a 7y ago
    Non-legally speaking, the term "Right" in American law refers to guarantees which are recognized to be Natural, in the sense that you're born with them and they would continue to exist even if the government were to disappear. The Declaration of Independence, though not really a "legal" document, words it the most clearly: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness In other words, the Law doesn't "grant" you a Right to something. It recognizes that these Rights already existed, and (sometimes) forbids the government from destroying them. This is also worded pretty clearly in the of-course infamous second amendment: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It isn't saying that "people have the right to bear arms". Its saying that "your right to bear arms can't be infringed". So, then, where does that right come from? Its Natural. There's an interesting, somewhat clear follow-up to this recognition of the wording of the constitution and founding documents: they don't exhaustively enumerate the rights people have. So what rights do Americans actually have? In fact, the ninth amendment recognizes this: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Constitutional interpretation is a complex, contentious thing. The way I see it, which is hardly professional: they recognized that because they aren't enumerating every Right, it follows that there must exist rights that some people believe they have, and it isn't the place of the government to either Confirm that Right or Disparage it. If I believe I have a right to kill someone for no reason... well, this shouldn't be allowed in a functioning society. So it follows that Law will inevitably supersede some Rights, just by the nature of Rights being, to a degree, self-decided (by your belief system, or your nature, or parenting, or whatever). Thus, certain protections were put in place to explicitly protect rights they believed were critical (like freedom of speech), but others may actually be "disparaged", and the ninth amendment just says that this is the case: people DO have other rights beyond the ones we listed, but we can't deny them JUST because we listed some other ones. That's why its fascinating when people throw around language like "I have a right to not breath in smoke". There's a lot at play there. First: If you believe you have that Right, then you do! No one can take that away from you; its your right to not breath in smoke. But, also, Second: Your belief that you have some Right does not, by virtue of it being a Right, lead to the government being compelled to protect it. A Right does not have to be respected, confirmed, disparaged, or protected by the government. Its just something you have, because you're Human. In other words, the phrase "I have a right to X" gets thrown around a lot, but it doesn't really mean much except the cases where it is enumerated, unless a bunch of people recognize that they also have that Right, in which case it is codified into Law. In an ideal world. (And I do want to clarify in my comment I made earlier: I was being too brash by saying that the OP "does not have a right to breath in smoke". Maybe they do have that right. My point was really to emphasize that the right isn't Recognized. I have a right to run down the street naked. That doesn't mean the government will or should let me do it. So, saying "I have a right" to something isn't really all that meaningful, unless you're specifically referring to the rights protected by the constitution or law.)
Tactic 7y ago
If I don't like someone's speech that doesn't mean they are not allowed to say it. It means I can go elsewhere or ignore it. If you don't like someone's perfume your right isn't that they stop wearing it, it's that you go elsewhere and ignore it. If you don't like smoke... it's the same thing. You have every right to not want it. In which case it is incumbent on you to do something about it. Unless you are making a health related argument. That is a different right other than you don't want it, that is a health concern, which is why smoking inside is predominately not allowed. I'm all for personal rights... but they come with personal responsibilities that are upon you.
- samcday 7y ago
  I don't think this is at all analogous to speech. For example, you might be entitled to say whatever you want under free speech protections in the US, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to walk up to random people and shout in their face. If you do that long enough you'll definitely earn yourself some misdemeanors. If you consistently did it to a particular person against their wishes, you'd eventually get some kind of harassment felony charge.
  - joenot443 7y ago
    At the risk of being pedantic, I think the free speech analogue is still valid. You would likely receive the same harassment charge if you were purposely walking up to strangers and blowing smoke in their face. Here in Canada, there are no laws which prevent you from standing on the street corner preaching whatever you like, just like you're allowed to smoke tobacco on the street corner.
ionised 7y ago
I don't want to breath smog or vehicle fumes either, because I have asthma and an asthma attack could kill me. I doubt you'll stop driving tomorrow to spare my health though.
eqdw 7y ago
Your right to breathe clean air in your house is violated by somebody using a juul in a different house five miles away?
tracker1 7y ago
> When one's personal liberty crash with other's > personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If > you believe there is a right to smoke, think > about the violation of other's right. No. One's personal liberty should extend so far as to where it doesn't impose on someone else's rights. People are and should be allowed to be offensive, annoying our outright distasteful. YOU can go elsewhere. If the owner of a business wants to allow smokers/vapers, that should be their decision. I'm not blind to the pragmatism of public spaces and near outside entrances, etc. That said, your premise is wrong and too narrow. Which is probably a reflection on the greater issues becoming ever more relevant to shutting down conversations, ideas and election meddling that is coming to light. It's probably time for people to start actually listening to ideas they don't agree with, empathize with those positions and rationally come to reasonable compromise. Right now there's only escalation and it will likely lead to a very real, very violent and very different civil war.

by ezoe 7y ago

013a 7y ago

You do not have a right to not inhale someone else's smoke. Let's be very clear about the language you're just throwing around like it doesn't mean anything, because the Rights recognized by the Constitution aren't just something that have no meaning. That's why I never said that I believe people have a Right to smoke, yet for some reason you quote me like I did say that. People don't have a right to smoke, just like you don't have a right to not inhale other peoples' smoke. Even your usage of the language "rights allowed" shows a clear misunderstanding of how Rights work. Rights are not "allowed" or "granted"; they are "recognized". They are God-Given, assuming you believe in that kind of thing (our fore-fathers did).

FrozenSynapse 7y ago
Their actions make me sick and not comfortable. This shouldn't be allowed.
- 013a 7y ago
  Unfortunately, you also don't have a recognized right to not be sick, nor one to guarantee comfort. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated. But the situation is a little more complex than the absolute of "ban everything that makes me feel funny."
  - ezoe 7y ago
    In my country(Japan), there are cases which ordered the neighbor/colleague to compensate the health damage he cause by passive smoking for his smoking inside his house or his desk.
- LocalH 7y ago
  Nobody ever considers the downside to all this heavy-handed governance. When you give the government the power to regulate lives at such a level, what do you do if social mores change, and what you support is suddenly the contrary view? Do you capitulate, or do you stand firm?
lm28469 7y ago
> They are God-Given Honest question, what do you mean by that?
- 013a 7y ago
  Non-legally speaking, the term "Right" in American law refers to guarantees which are recognized to be Natural, in the sense that you're born with them and they would continue to exist even if the government were to disappear. The Declaration of Independence, though not really a "legal" document, words it the most clearly: > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness In other words, the Law doesn't "grant" you a Right to something. It recognizes that these Rights already existed, and (sometimes) forbids the government from destroying them. This is also worded pretty clearly in the of-course infamous second amendment: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It isn't saying that "people have the right to bear arms". Its saying that "your right to bear arms can't be infringed". So, then, where does that right come from? Its Natural. There's an interesting, somewhat clear follow-up to this recognition of the wording of the constitution and founding documents: they don't exhaustively enumerate the rights people have. So what rights do Americans actually have? In fact, the ninth amendment recognizes this: > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Constitutional interpretation is a complex, contentious thing. The way I see it, which is hardly professional: they recognized that because they aren't enumerating every Right, it follows that there must exist rights that some people believe they have, and it isn't the place of the government to either Confirm that Right or Disparage it. If I believe I have a right to kill someone for no reason... well, this shouldn't be allowed in a functioning society. So it follows that Law will inevitably supersede some Rights, just by the nature of Rights being, to a degree, self-decided (by your belief system, or your nature, or parenting, or whatever). Thus, certain protections were put in place to explicitly protect rights they believed were critical (like freedom of speech), but others may actually be "disparaged", and the ninth amendment just says that this is the case: people DO have other rights beyond the ones we listed, but we can't deny them JUST because we listed some other ones. That's why its fascinating when people throw around language like "I have a right to not breath in smoke". There's a lot at play there. First: If you believe you have that Right, then you do! No one can take that away from you; its your right to not breath in smoke. But, also, Second: Your belief that you have some Right does not, by virtue of it being a Right, lead to the government being compelled to protect it. A Right does not have to be respected, confirmed, disparaged, or protected by the government. Its just something you have, because you're Human. In other words, the phrase "I have a right to X" gets thrown around a lot, but it doesn't really mean much except the cases where it is enumerated, unless a bunch of people recognize that they also have that Right, in which case it is codified into Law. In an ideal world. (And I do want to clarify in my comment I made earlier: I was being too brash by saying that the OP "does not have a right to breath in smoke". Maybe they do have that right. My point was really to emphasize that the right isn't Recognized. I have a right to run down the street naked. That doesn't mean the government will or should let me do it. So, saying "I have a right" to something isn't really all that meaningful, unless you're specifically referring to the rights protected by the constitution or law.)

Tactic 7y ago

If I don't like someone's speech that doesn't mean they are not allowed to say it. It means I can go elsewhere or ignore it. If you don't like someone's perfume your right isn't that they stop wearing it, it's that you go elsewhere and ignore it. If you don't like smoke... it's the same thing. You have every right to not want it. In which case it is incumbent on you to do something about it. Unless you are making a health related argument. That is a different right other than you don't want it, that is a health concern, which is why smoking inside is predominately not allowed. I'm all for personal rights... but they come with personal responsibilities that are upon you.

samcday 7y ago
I don't think this is at all analogous to speech. For example, you might be entitled to say whatever you want under free speech protections in the US, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to walk up to random people and shout in their face. If you do that long enough you'll definitely earn yourself some misdemeanors. If you consistently did it to a particular person against their wishes, you'd eventually get some kind of harassment felony charge.
- joenot443 7y ago
  At the risk of being pedantic, I think the free speech analogue is still valid. You would likely receive the same harassment charge if you were purposely walking up to strangers and blowing smoke in their face. Here in Canada, there are no laws which prevent you from standing on the street corner preaching whatever you like, just like you're allowed to smoke tobacco on the street corner.

ionised 7y ago

I don't want to breath smog or vehicle fumes either, because I have asthma and an asthma attack could kill me. I doubt you'll stop driving tomorrow to spare my health though.

eqdw 7y ago

Your right to breathe clean air in your house is violated by somebody using a juul in a different house five miles away?

tracker1 7y ago

> When one's personal liberty crash with other's > personal liberty, it's not personal anymore. If > you believe there is a right to smoke, think > about the violation of other's right. No. One's personal liberty should extend so far as to where it doesn't impose on someone else's rights. People are and should be allowed to be offensive, annoying our outright distasteful. YOU can go elsewhere. If the owner of a business wants to allow smokers/vapers, that should be their decision. I'm not blind to the pragmatism of public spaces and near outside entrances, etc. That said, your premise is wrong and too narrow. Which is probably a reflection on the greater issues becoming ever more relevant to shutting down conversations, ideas and election meddling that is coming to light. It's probably time for people to start actually listening to ideas they don't agree with, empathize with those positions and rationally come to reasonable compromise. Right now there's only escalation and it will likely lead to a very real, very violent and very different civil war.