5 ms·

Leaving everything to “personal choice” is nice, if you live in an alternate universe where no one has any causal effect on anyone else. In this case, you are i

Leaving everything to “personal choice” is nice, if you live in an alternate universe where no one has any causal effect on anyone else. In this case, you are inflicting a harm on others. An acceptable compromise is one where restaurants and others must obtain licenses to become official smoking establishments, just as bars need a liquor license. That way, children can be barred from entering, and no one will invite others to one of those establishments for social events. But it’s pretty selfish to inflict cigarette smoke on others.

version_five 5y ago
What would the criteria and terms of the license be? I'm serious, how would licensing help and not just be some extra bureaucracy? Certainly I agree that a licensing system would be better than the status quo (where I am anyway) where it is impossible to allow smoking indoors in restaurants. > it’s pretty selfish to inflict cigarette smoke on others. The only time something is inflicted is when the government forces everyone to do it. There were smoke free places before bans, and it's peoples choice to go to a restaurant, nobody is coming to your house and smoking in it. It's simply not a place for the government to tell businesses what they can permit. If you don't like smoking, go to a place that doesn't allow it. Even as I write this, I really don't like the idea of going to a smoky bar, but I also don't see why I have standing to impose my views on those that do, just because I have a majority opinion. I don't like dogs and if I was dictator, I wouldn't allow them out in public, but thankfully for people that like them, it's not up to me. This is literally no different except for the proportion of people that agree.