4 ms·

"I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth." Huh? Why does thi

"I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth." Huh? Why does this person think libertarians would believe secondhand smoke is a myth? They might argue against laws prohibiting smoking indoors, but it wouldn't be because they believe second hand smoking is a myth. This piece is filled with non-sequiturs.

bogs_carut 13y ago
The conflation of libertarianism with a variety of nonsensical positions is likely a deliberate attempt to discredit the ideology. It's nonsense.
rayiner 13y ago
It necessarily follows. Even libertarians acknowledge that people's rights don't extend to hurting others. So any libertarian that opposes a smoking ban must believe that second hand smoke is a myth.
- tlrobinson 13y ago
  That logic would only apply to public property, right?
- samolang 13y ago
  These libertarians oppose smoking bans imposed on private establishments. They believe that second hand smoke is fine if it only affects people who voluntarily enter the establishment (similar to how they're fine with people throwing concerts even though the noise level of concerts can damage the listener's ears).
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Or one could think that second hand smoke is harmful, but that bans entail greater harm when all is said and done. I'm not saying I hold such a position, just that "I object to policy Y opposing X" does not imply "I don't think X is bad."
- tracker1 13y ago
  I can't speak for anyone else... I don't smoke, and don't care for it. My own position is that nobody is forced to be in a situation where they have to endure second hand smoke. It may be difficult, but if you chose to work in a bar that allows smoking, you chose to work there. Oddly, about the only people who might be forced to endure it are family/children of smokers, specifically while passengers in a car where the parent smokes. And there's no law against this. If a business/property owner wants to choose to allow smoking in their establishment, then it's the customers (or potential customers) that have the choice of being there or not. It really isn't the place of the government to nanny state this one. And, again, I don't like smoking but don't feel it should be outright illegal. Drinking 2L of soda is probably as dangerous as being exposed to second hand smoke, but that isn't illegal either. If you don't like it, walk away from it in favor of someplace/business/location where it isn't allowed by the property/business owner.

bogs_carut 13y ago

The conflation of libertarianism with a variety of nonsensical positions is likely a deliberate attempt to discredit the ideology. It's nonsense.

rayiner 13y ago

It necessarily follows. Even libertarians acknowledge that people's rights don't extend to hurting others. So any libertarian that opposes a smoking ban must believe that second hand smoke is a myth.

tlrobinson 13y ago
That logic would only apply to public property, right?
samolang 13y ago
These libertarians oppose smoking bans imposed on private establishments. They believe that second hand smoke is fine if it only affects people who voluntarily enter the establishment (similar to how they're fine with people throwing concerts even though the noise level of concerts can damage the listener's ears).
dllthomas 13y ago
Or one could think that second hand smoke is harmful, but that bans entail greater harm when all is said and done. I'm not saying I hold such a position, just that "I object to policy Y opposing X" does not imply "I don't think X is bad."
tracker1 13y ago
I can't speak for anyone else... I don't smoke, and don't care for it. My own position is that nobody is forced to be in a situation where they have to endure second hand smoke. It may be difficult, but if you chose to work in a bar that allows smoking, you chose to work there. Oddly, about the only people who might be forced to endure it are family/children of smokers, specifically while passengers in a car where the parent smokes. And there's no law against this. If a business/property owner wants to choose to allow smoking in their establishment, then it's the customers (or potential customers) that have the choice of being there or not. It really isn't the place of the government to nanny state this one. And, again, I don't like smoking but don't feel it should be outright illegal. Drinking 2L of soda is probably as dangerous as being exposed to second hand smoke, but that isn't illegal either. If you don't like it, walk away from it in favor of someplace/business/location where it isn't allowed by the property/business owner.