Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

chipj29 · 03-04-2007, 10:53 AM

Here is my 2 pennies on this.
If you are a non-smoker, you do not have a choice on whether or not to smoke, if there is a smoker near you. Sure you can go somewhere else, or go outside, but whose rights are more important...the smoker or the non-smoker? Give the smoker the right to smoke, and he does it not really caring who is affected by it. Give the non-smoker the right to not smoke, and it affects no one around him/her.

There are directs impacts, and indirect impacts. For example, banning transfats. The eater of the transfats is directly impacted. No one else around them is impacted directly. Now you could argue that one could be impacted indirectly, as if the transfats make the eater sick, then healthcare costs can rise. But that to me is like in-indirect.
The helmet law has direct impacts on the rider choosing to not wear a helmet. It may also have direct impacts on the family of the rider emotionally. There are no concrete indirect impacts. Again...indirect impacts-healthcare etc.
In the case of smoking, the smoker is obviously directly impacted by the smoke, as are the people around them. Again with the indirect impact-healthcare thing.

You could also argue from the standpoint of a restaurant owner. Let's say you decide to ban smoking in your restaurant, while the place next door still allows it. That gives your customers the right to choose no doubt. I am not going to argue whose business is going to suffer. I am merely going to point out that one restaurants business WILL suffer. A smoking ban would level the playing field.

03-04-2007, 10:53 AM	#47
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	Here is my 2 pennies on this. If you are a non-smoker, you do not have a choice on whether or not to smoke, if there is a smoker near you. Sure you can go somewhere else, or go outside, but whose rights are more important...the smoker or the non-smoker? Give the smoker the right to smoke, and he does it not really caring who is affected by it. Give the non-smoker the right to not smoke, and it affects no one around him/her. There are directs impacts, and indirect impacts. For example, banning transfats. The eater of the transfats is directly impacted. No one else around them is impacted directly. Now you could argue that one could be impacted indirectly, as if the transfats make the eater sick, then healthcare costs can rise. But that to me is like in-indirect. The helmet law has direct impacts on the rider choosing to not wear a helmet. It may also have direct impacts on the family of the rider emotionally. There are no concrete indirect impacts. Again...indirect impacts-healthcare etc. In the case of smoking, the smoker is obviously directly impacted by the smoke, as are the people around them. Again with the indirect impact-healthcare thing. You could also argue from the standpoint of a restaurant owner. Let's say you decide to ban smoking in your restaurant, while the place next door still allows it. That gives your customers the right to choose no doubt. I am not going to argue whose business is going to suffer. I am merely going to point out that one restaurants business WILL suffer. A smoking ban would level the playing field.