Comment by shkkmo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by shkkmo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party.

I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights.

I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution. It can protect smokers and property owners rights while also also protecting the rights on non-smokers, employees and tenants.

In the case of feeding the homeless, I think the ability to give charity is an important right. I think it is more important than the right to have an attractive city center that encorages tourism.

However, the relative importance of these rights isn't important. The available solutions are important. If there is a solution that protects the rights of both parties, it is the proper solution to use.

This is why these cities should be using incentives and support to encourage feeding the homeless in proper locations (near support infrastructure and away from valuable retail or tourist destinations).

We should always choose to encourage proper behavior as opposed to banning improper behavior whenever possible.

> Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party

I encourage you to read my post about externalities. I believe you would find the arguments from the economics perspective interesting.

> I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights.

Is smoking really an autonomous behavior? It is a common behavioral symptoms associated with a nicotine addiction.

Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure...

Tobacco smoking might be the only drug that causes unavoidable physical harm to non users.

> I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution.

The WHO has suggested that solutions through engineering, such as improved ventilation, are ineffective at reducing the unsolicited harm (or social costs) that non smokers have to incur.

http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure...

Even if you could make that case in theory, how do you define addition in such a way that doesn't allow any disliked behavior to be classified as "addiction"?

Tobacco use is scientifically an addiction[0]. It is not merely classified as one. So your concerns are baseless.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_dependence

So only physically dependent people get their rights taken away? Seems discriminatory.

> Is smoking really an autonomous behavior? It is a common behavioral symptoms associated with a nicotine addiction.

Yes, it can be. Many nicotine users are social users, and not all of them become physically dependent.

> Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure...

Yes, of course they should.

I'm hoping you meant: "Should people with uncontrollable addictions have the right to continue that addiction"

To which I would answer: Yes, as long as the addiction does not lead them to violate other laws.

From your PDF: > No safe levels of exposure to second-hand smoke exist. Obviously not true, except under asinine definitions of 'safe'. By the same argument, I should be calling for a ban on cars.

We have acceptable levels of radiation exposure.

> Approaches other than 100% smoke free environments, including ventilation, air filtration and the use of designated smoking areas (whether with separate ventilation systems or not), have repeatedly been shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke.

I am 100% certain that there are engineering approaches that can limit exposure to any tobacco smoke to levels which are as safe given a reasonable definition of safe. Any claim otherwise is patently false.

Now, the degree to which these engineering approaches are economically feasible is a valid question.

That PDF, and the anti-smoking movement in general, tends to avoid any facts that don't perfectly match their message and whitewash the issue.

I am a former smoker who quit, cold turkey, on my first try. On rare occasions, I still like to visit hookah bars. 100% smoking bans, as advocated by that WHO document, violate my right to engage in that rational desire and to live my life the way I choose.

Now, I'm done being off topic. I continued the discussion of smoking in my previous post only to draw out my point of how outright bans for undesired are bad when there are alternative that can protect the rights of involved parties.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com