2. I didn’t call you an idiot or stupid, I said your statement was.

3. No, I pointed out that Meslon was no better than a Nazi in his attitude to smoking. You may want to look into the Nazi treatment of smokers if you think I’m kidding.

4. Now we know free speech is not welcome here.

btw, do you stand by your statement that second hand smoke is akin to assault?

1. You didn’t bother to consider the logic at all. I’ll explain in small words. If you know something is harmfult others and you do it anyway, then you have intentionally caused harm.

2. You don’t like it, but when you attack the person by calling them “idiotic” or “stupid” you are using a personal attack to try and invalidate the idea. That is an ad hominem attack. You clearly don’t understand the logical fallacy of such an argument.

3. You didn’t try to start a discussion, you tried to bash someone because you don’t agree with them.

Because of the above, this discussion is done. If you continue this sort of behavior I’ll ban you by email and IP address. You are more than welcome to discuss anything you want on this blog. You are more than welcome to disagree with anyone. But the continued use of personal attacks is not welcome, nor conducive to a constructive discussion.

And then you ask me if I have stopped to consider that this a valid subject to consider. DUH!!! I’m the one that started the discussion.

And please don’t start with that ad hominem attack crap. If a person is retarded, you call him retarded; if he is short, you call him short; if he says something stupid, you point out he said something stupid.

Saying a smoker who exhales smoke in the presence of another person is assaulting him is stupid and idiotic. There just are no other words for such a comment and it is obvious that you cannot carry on a discussion without resorting to nonsense.

Or do you just indulge in ad hominem discussions when you don’t like what someone says?

“Akin to assault?” What in the hell are YOU smoking.

On a side note, I don’t think government regulation is the solution. Market forces will correct the problem, if it needs to be corrected. Enough people feel that second hand smoke is a problem that restaurants that don’t allow smoking will do just fine, for example. Market forces will allow for choice, which government regulations don’t.

That said, if the situation is actually harmful, as depicted by some of the evidence, government regulation of an activity that causes harm to others is not as unduly anti-freedom as it is often portrayed. The flip side, of course, is that it may not be particularly harmful. In which case it fits right in with the other environmental activist nonsense. The real issue is that we have government regulation based on the precautionary principle, which is absolutely the wrong answer for dealing with public policy.

Eric’s Answer: I don’t know because there are conflicting pieces of evidence. But, there is at least some evidence that it does.

So, assume for a moment that second hand smoke in enclosed spaces conclusively causes harm to non-smokers.

That being the case, due to the publicity of this, smokers are aware that their activity can cause other people harm. This means that smoking in enclosed spaces with non-smokers present is akin to assault. If we believe that government is instituted to protect our life, liberty and property then government has an obligation, based on that social contract, to take action to prevent smoking in enclosed spaces.

That is the basis of the argument for regulating smoking in enclosed spaces. If you subscribe to the philosophy that your right to do as you please stops one inch short of your fist hitting my nose, then you should agree with this position, as long as it is true that second hand smoke causes injury. The real question then, is whether that is the case, or not. Assuming, of course, that you agree that the reason we institute government is to protect life, liberty and property. That sentence created an implied negative about someone who didn’t agree with regulating second hand smoke that wasn’t appropriate to an open conversation. Rather than simply delete it, I thought it was more appropriate to strike it out and explain why.

Government office spaces? The govt. is the private property owner. Do what it wants.

Govt. services offices? I think they should be smoke free since all of us must do business with the govt. at some time.

Sidewalks? No harm done. Not enclosed.

Stadiums? Don’t care. I’m fine with the regs there if the govt. is the owner. Otherwise, it should belong to the owner.

Again, if you aren’t talking about private property, then what? It doesn’t seem that hard. What smoking regs are about though IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. Restaurants – bars – clubs. Banning smoking from places regardless of what the owner wants for his own business.

That most certainly is anti-freedom.

And I don’t smoke and, when my daughter is with me, don’t go to places that allow it. But thanks to the big government, that is getting easier and easier.

Then Eric says:
there is evidence that second hand smoke in enclosed spaces causes harm to non-smokers.

To which I reply, Make up your mind.