I recognize that ‘the children’ exception is a very slippery slope. My take on the children’s rights issue was one that put me at odds with many fellow Libertarians nearly a year ago when I wrote my own series on the topic. Many of my questions I posed in that series still have no good answers. The main question is: Where do we draw the line? No matter where it is drawn, someone’s rights will be violated.

I am pretty sure though that a smoking ban for daycare centers would be reasonable. Bars on the other hand, let’s be honest: when ADULTS go to a bar they are not that concerned about their health at the moment. People drink alcohol, bring home strangers and have unprotected sex, and (gasp!) smoke cigarettes. Requiring a bar to be smoke free is like having a whore house without the whores.

As I mentioned to Francois, there are certain gray areas where libertarians can disagree. I would say that an ER, where your goal is to get to the closest place you possibly can to save your life, is a different situation than a restaurant.

When you get into the gray areas, I’d say that the “pure” libertarian viewpoint would be to oppose government smoking bans in government buildings or hospitals. But I accept that it’s a gray area, and that there’s disagreement within libertarianism on the subject, while still considering it a possible “litmus test”.

Why don’t you have a choice with hospitals? You could wear a bracelet that says: “Do not put me in a smoking hospital”.

The above should read “don’t pretend that NON-smokers have the option…”.

Too early in the morning.

So your definition of “liberty” means you have to move state if you don’t want smoke. LMAO – how generous of you. Smokers can smoke before and after going to a bar or restaurant, or can go to the smoking area outside, but the non-smoker has to move home. What a joke.

Last time I checked, consenting mutual agreement means that both parties agree on the situation in question.

So your definition of liberty is that you can make anyone you’d like run their business on their private property according to your demands?

Francois,

Regarding government buildings, being against smoking bans doesn’t make you non-libertarian. My point was that I can see making exceptions for places where you cannot give consent, i.e. a courthouse that you are legally summoned to, without having to turn in your libertarian credentials. If you choose not to make those exceptions, that doesn’t make you non-libertarian.

You could move to California, or NY, or DC, or Montgomery County, MD, or any number of places around the country now implementing smoking bans in restaurants or bars.

The question should be: Where are smokers to go once smoking bans finally become ubiquitous? (Unless your definition of “liberty” means “stay home if you don’t like it”.)

Or if a group of friends happen to book a party at a smoking restaurant, I don’t have much choice except not join my friends that night.

Or if I want to go to a nightclub and don’t want smoke my only choice is not to go out to a nightclub (since there are no no-smoking nightclubs in the absence of a ban).

In reality I have no liberty to avoid smoke unless it is banned in these places, unless your definition of “liberty” means “stay home if you don’t like it”.