Smoking Laws in NY and NJ

Just because I own some land it doesn't mean I can set up shop and do whatever I want with it.
The topic is not "whatever you want", it's smoking.

I hate kissing a smoker...

To me, the issue isn't about smokers rights vs. non-smokers rights. It's about private property rights.

If I started a restaurant, why should the government be in a position to decide for me whether I can or cannot allow smoking on my property?

Well, the government decides a lot of things you can do on business property, so why should smoking not be one of them?

Just because I own some land it doesn't mean I can set up shop and do whatever I want with it.

Right. You cannot interfere with the rights of someone else. Apart from that, it's a free country -- at least, that's what it's supposedto be.

Well, the government decides a lot of things you can do on business property, so why should smoking not be one of them?

The short answer to your question is, why give the government one more reason to intrude into the lives of private property owners?

Now, here’s the long answer. As an example to your point Malcom, let’s use the Department of Health argument -- What's the difference between the government instituting food safety standards and doing the same with smoking?

The difference is that you can protect yourself from second hand smoke (if you're a non-smoker) and first-hand smoke (if you are a smoker): you can leave the restaurant, or you can quit. However, the same is not true of food-borne illnesses. In the latter case, the government is adhering to its legitimate purpose of protecting the rights of life, liberty and property of individuals through force or fraud. Since no one can protect themselves from the hazards of food-borne illnesses, short of not eating out, the government has the responsibility to guard against a threat that an individual otherwise cannot guard him or herself against.

Bottom line, government has the power and the obligation to protect your rights from others. It doesn’t have the power, nor the resources to protect you from yourself.

Actually, you can really say the same thing for smoking. I think you're only thinking about the smokers, I'm talking about the non-smokers. Should the government not protect our health from smokers?

the only thing i think girls hsould be able to smoke are poles. thats win-win baby.

Actually, you can really say the same thing for smoking. I think you're only thinking about the smokers, I'm talking about the non-smokers. Should the government not protect our health from smokers?

Again, isn't that something that non-smokers can do for themselves? I mean, if you're in a restaurant with 300 other people and they're all smoking and you're not, is it the government's role to bust in there and tell everyone to put out their cigarettes, or is it your responsibility to leave?

well beemn, its not a majority vote type of thing i wouldnt think. i would think its a HEALTH thing.

the bottom line question for me is, why should nonsmokers have to adapt to someone elses habit that hurts both people?

sorry to butt into the argument guys but i have to throw my two cents in

well beemn, its not a majority vote type of thing i wouldnt think. i would think its a HEALTH thing ... the bottom line question for me is, why should nonsmokers have to adapt to someone elses habit that hurts both people?

My argument is they don't have to "adapt". Non-smokers can take matters of health into their own hands and leave a smoke-filled restaurant, and go to a non-smoking one.

According to those that favor smoking bans, there would be no restaurants that a smoker could go to. In a free country and in free markets, everyone has a choice.