Smoking banned on open air patios starting Jan 1 2015

[icemachine]

Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic? Just off the top of my head, we've had a national building code since the 60s and provincial ones since the 70s. An absolutist stance on property rights is awfully antiquated and not particularly relevant to a smoking ban.

Property rights are extremely relevant to the smoking ban. The ban tells the owner what they can or cannot do with their property. I'm all for government banning smoking in public places. It seems crazy to me that we allow people to smoke on public sidewalks and in public parks but we ban smoking on people's private property.

Except bar and restaurant patios are legally considered "public places" not exclusive private property

[MatttthewGeorge]

I'm starting to find it hard to believe that you are being serious. The bar owner "resists arrest", gets shot and dies, all because of a smoking ban?

Even playing along for a moment, it is the business that gets fined, not the ultimate shareholder. The bar may get shut down/lose licenses, etc, but nobody is being arrested.

Yes I am being serious, although I agree my example is not the best as you are most likely correct in that if the owner did not pay the fine he would not be arrested but lose his business. However I fail to see how that is moral.

How is it okay for a private property owner to lose their property because they choose to do what they wanted with said property? The patrons voluntarily decided to go to the business and the staff (assuming there is some) voluntarily decided to work there. No one is forced to go into said business and no one is forced to work at said business, yet the owner is to lose their business and property because of the government has deemed how you can use your property?

More to the point, this absolutist interpretation of property rights you are advancing (all or nothing, any infringement of any sort any you may as well embrace communism, etc) is absurd and not reflective of any modern society. I cannot turn my house into a convenience store due to zoning laws. I am similarly prohibited from adding five more stories to it. A bar is not permitted to refuse entry to certain classes of people. A property designated as a heritage building cannot be tampered with. Building codes require permits and approvals before certain works can be done. If you rent your living space, there are certain obligations you must comply with. There are countless ways in which we regulate and restrict property rights. In no way does this lead to the total erosion of peroprty rights or people getting shot.

Everything you've just mentioned is an erosion of property rights. Just because a law is in place doesn't mean it is just. If turning your house into a convenience store does not violate the rights of others, or if adding 5 stories doesn't violate the rights of others, then there's no reason why these things cannot be done.

As for refusing entry to a certain class of people, a business has every right to serve who they want. Recently a woman made a human rights complaint against a Muslim hairdresser that refused to cut her hair because she was a woman. A haircut is not a human right. It is his business and he should run it as he sees fit. It will succeed or fail based on the merits of his business. Being served is not a human right.

As for the heritage building issue, this is also unjust. If you are the owner of a building you should be able to do with it as you please. It is your building, not someone elses. As soon as you're told you cannot tear the building down, you don't really own it, do you?

As for renting, you are not a property owner and must therefore comply with what the owner has set out. Don't like the owners rules, then don't rent from that owner, you are not forced to.

In any event, this is not a property rights issue so much as a labour rights issue. The primary justification for the initial smoking ban is the health of workers. People who have to work in a smoke-filled environment are at risk of serious health consequences. To suggest that they are free to work elsewhere if they choose ignores the reality that, for many people, there is limited freedom to choose where you work. It is (necessarily) as coercive a choice as any.

Again I just cannot agree. Say I'm a heavy smoker. I start company X by myself and become successful enough that I need to hire someone else. The employer should have the rights here, as it is their company and their job to offer. The employee who accepts said job should not be able to tell me, the employer with the job to offer, that I cannot smoke in my business. I am not forcing them to take the job, and they can voluntarily decided if they want the job or not. A person may be in need of a job, and may have to accept a job they do not wish to take, but it is not their right to demand what the employer does not wish to grant. Again, the employer has the job to offer. They are not forcing anyone to take the job. A job is not a right.



Overall this all comes down to force. I do not believe the use of force is moral unless it is in self-defence. If the majority of people make a law to use force it does not make the law moral. I should have the right to my life and to use my life how I see fit, as long as it doesn't not impede on someone else's life. Private property is the direct result of using my life to purchase something that is mine, and I should be fit to use said property how I see fit, as long as it does not impede on someone else's life and property.

The role of government should be to protect the rights of it's citizens. It should make sure that I do not impede on the life or property of anyone else, and they do not to me. If I do, or they do to me, then they have the right to stop the rights violator, as their job is the protect the rights of it's citizens. Smoking bans do not protect the rights of citizens because property rights are violated with the smoking ban. The citizens who do not like the smoke have not had their rights violated because they are not forced to patronize or work at the private property, they voluntarily do so.

[MatttthewGeorge]

Aren't you being a tad hyperbolic? Just off the top of my head, we've had a national building code since the 60s and provincial ones since the 70s. An absolutist stance on property rights is awfully antiquated and not particularly relevant to a smoking ban.

Property rights are extremely relevant to the smoking ban. The ban tells the owner what they can or cannot do with their property. I'm all for government banning smoking in public places. It seems crazy to me that we allow people to smoke on public sidewalks and in public parks but we ban smoking on people's private property.

Except bar and restaurant patios are legally considered "public places" not exclusive private property

If the bar has a patio on public land (such as a permit from the city for a piece of the sidewalk) then I have no problem with the ban. But as I've stated above, what an owner does on their private property should be at their discretion, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. And going to a bar is not a right.

[icemachine]

Property rights are extremely relevant to the smoking ban. The ban tells the owner what they can or cannot do with their property. I'm all for government banning smoking in public places. It seems crazy to me that we allow people to smoke on public sidewalks and in public parks but we ban smoking on people's private property.

Except bar and restaurant patios are legally considered "public places" not exclusive private property

If the bar has a patio on public land (such as a permit from the city for a piece of the sidewalk) then I have no problem with the ban. But as I've stated above, what an owner does on their private property should be at their discretion, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. And going to a bar is not a right.

I'm not suggesting there is a right to go to a bar, but it is a public place, and thus government can legislate what is and isn't permissible.

[MatttthewGeorge]

Except bar and restaurant patios are legally considered "public places" not exclusive private property

If the bar has a patio on public land (such as a permit from the city for a piece of the sidewalk) then I have no problem with the ban. But as I've stated above, what an owner does on their private property should be at their discretion, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. And going to a bar is not a right.

I'm not suggesting there is a right to go to a bar, but it is a public place, and thus government can legislate what is and isn't permissible.

Private property is not a public place. The property owner allows you to access their property.

[zane9]

Perhaps the beer lovers who still smoke could quit. They'll be able to enjoy all the great craft beer into their old age.

[Belgian]

...And going to a bar is not a right.

I'm not suggesting there is a right to go to a bar, but it is a public place, and thus government can legislate what is and isn't permissible.

Private property is not a public place. The property owner allows you to access their property.

I guess you could say the Eaton Center is also privately owned, no less than a bar you might walk into hoping for food and drink (and breatheable air). Does the general expectation of public access and the right to not breathe smoke trump the right to smoke? Should you have to walk into several bars to find one that serves the 83% ?

Perhaps it is impossible to be fair to everyone. Somebody said only children are concerned with fairness. I don't think it's fair to tell smokers there's no place they can light up, but it's also not fair to expect others to tolerate it. Tough titty I say. It's also probably unfair kids can't bring peanut butter to school, because like tobacco smoke some people are seriously allergic to it. (Though I do find some school bans hypervigilant given the need to prepare young people for real life.)

Suppose for a minute that tobacco smoking were just invented, and there had never been a ban - regardless, would bars and restaurants seriously put up with people lighting tubes of smoking material? Would they embrace the 'right' of just any new bizarre behavior? From a completely outside perspective smoking appears quite mad. It's an antiquated privilege rooted in a much different time when people used store-bought opium and cocaine as remedies and health tonics.

I would suggest that social acceptibility (what we ALL feel is good) will always trump anybody's radical idea of personal freedom. I think defending the right to smoke will not protect our meaningful personal rights that we need to defend, there's other fish to fry, just my feeling...

[icemachine]

If the bar has a patio on public land (such as a permit from the city for a piece of the sidewalk) then I have no problem with the ban. But as I've stated above, what an owner does on their private property should be at their discretion, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. And going to a bar is not a right.

I'm not suggesting there is a right to go to a bar, but it is a public place, and thus government can legislate what is and isn't permissible.

Private property is not a public place. The property owner allows you to access their property.

But bars and restaurants are public places as defined by law.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Ontario+ ... definition

Not surprisingly the first two things that come up are Smoke Free act and Liqour Licensing Act.

[zane9]

.... But as I've stated above, what an owner does on their private property should be at their discretion, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. And going to a bar is not a right.

To follow your logic: if access to smoking hadn't been curtailed by government, a bar owner could tell smokers to "fcuk off and get the hell out of my bar". His property, correct? Going to a bar is not a right.

[Belgian]

[But bars and restaurants are public places as defined by law.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Ontario+ ... definition

Might even call a bar a Public House or just a 'Pub' if you're into the whole brevity thing.


It's interesting to note that so many 'private clubs' tried to allow private members to smoke, and the city shut them down because mostly they weren't really private (as I understand) and it was abused as a work-around.

[MatttthewGeorge]

But bars and restaurants are public places as defined by law.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Ontario+ ... definition

Not surprisingly the first two things that come up are Smoke Free act and Liqour Licensing Act.

Just because there is a law does not mean it's correct. While the public may go to the place, it does not make it a public place. It is private property that that property owner has allowed the public to have access too.

[MatttthewGeorge]

.... But as I've stated above, what an owner does on their private property should be at their discretion, as long as it does not violate the rights of others. And going to a bar is not a right.

To follow your logic: if access to smoking hadn't been curtailed by government, a bar owner could tell smokers to "fcuk off and get the hell out of my bar". His property, correct? Going to a bar is not a right.

Absolutely! Bar owners do this all the time with obnoxious people. Also I've seen a bar owner kick someone out for not stopping their e-cig puffing. His bar, his rules.

[Belgian]

It is private property that that property owner has allowed the public to have access too.

Well if a bar didn't let the public have access, too, there wouldn't be much revenue... though someone could bartend naked and nobody would be there to complain. Freedom!!

[MatttthewGeorge]

I guess you could say the Eaton Center is also privately owned, no less than a bar you might walk into hoping for food and drink (and breatheable air). Does the general expectation of public access and the right to not breathe smoke trump the right to smoke? Should you have to walk into several bars to find one that serves the 83% ?

Sure the Eaton Center is private property. If the mall management wanted to allow smoking in their mall, they should be able too. As much as you may want to shop there, you are not forced to.

Perhaps it is impossible to be fair to everyone. Somebody said only children are concerned with fairness. I don't think it's fair to tell smokers there's no place they can light up, but it's also not fair to expect others to tolerate it. Tough titty I say. It's also probably unfair kids can't bring peanut butter to school, because like tobacco smoke some people are seriously allergic to it. (Though I do find some school bans hypervigilant given the need to prepare young people for real life.)

It sure is possible to be fair to everyone, via individual rights. Every individual has the same rights as everyone else. All laws are based on protecting these rights. Any law that restricts the rights of even one individual should be stuck down.

I'll stay clear of the peanut butter at school thing. I have two elementry school aged boys and this issue gets me fired up way more than the smoking ban! ha!

Suppose for a minute that tobacco smoking were just invented, and there had never been a ban - regardless, would bars and restaurants seriously put up with people lighting tubes of smoking material? Would they embrace the 'right' of just any new bizarre behavior? From a completely outside perspective smoking appears quite mad. It's an antiquated privilege rooted in a much different time when people used store-bought opium and cocaine as remedies and health tonics.

Totally agree.

I would suggest that social acceptibility (what we ALL feel is good) will always trump anybody's radical idea of personal freedom. I think defending the right to smoke will not protect our meaningful personal rights that we need to defend, there's other fish to fry, just my feeling...

It will, but it shouldn't. Individual rights should always trump the whims of social acceptability. Remember it was once socially acceptable for black people sit at the back of the bus. Social acceptability is a terrible way to run a society. Majority does not equal morality.

In the end this smoking ban is not an issue for me, per se. I'd rather fight this fight over something much larger than a smoking ban and didn't make my first post to open up this can of worms. For the most part I have kept my political views to myself as I knew they would be met with much debate. And that's fine, but I'd rather be fighting this fight in regards to our liquor laws than our smoking laws!

[Belgian]

Individual rights should always trump the whims of social acceptability. Remember it was once socially acceptable for black people sit at the back of the bus. Social acceptability is a terrible way to run a society. Majority does not equal morality.

"Once acceptable..." You've just made my point I'm afraid. It's now not socially acceptable to discriminate on skin color - this shows that social acceptibility is allowed to evolve and (in this much less grave matter) exclude most smoking.

Not trying to 'win' this argument, but you see what I mean. In (parts of?) Poland today it's still socially acceptible to express anti-semitic and anti-color hate. While both Germany and Japan, once two of the most horribly racist countries are nowadays consistently ranked the two least racist & most exemplary leading nations in the world.

Majority (eg. Poland) does not equal morality, correct... but social acceptability and morality (Germany) are ideally linked in the public's mind. This is far from violating people's rights, it protects individuals & advances nations. The 'bigger fish to fry' that we spoke of.