Suffolk county NY considering banning smoking in private residences

[UNM1136]

I think I read Animal Farm in the fifth grade, and make my kids read it.

"Some animals are more equal than others."

pat

[beenalongtime]

So when someone gets a fine, and shows they are burning a tobacco/pipe scented candle, I expect this to show as unenforceable.

[Baldanders]

I think I read Animal Farm in the fifth grade, and make my kids read it.

"Some animals are more equal than others."

pat

I have kids (high school) pick that for independent reading projects fairly often, and usually they don't really understand the theme.

You'd think your selected quote would hammer it home.

ETA: sixth grade for me. I read 1984 first.

[blues]

I have kids (high school) pick that for independent reading projects fairly often, and usually they don't really understand the theme.

You'd think your selected quote would hammer it home.

ETA: sixth grade for me. I read 1984 first.

"Brave New World" has to complete the set. Or "Alas, Babylon". All the fun reads from back in the day.

[Joe in PNG]

Or "Alas, Babylon". All the fun reads from back in the day.

Which happens to take place in my home area.

[Baldanders]

"Brave New World" has to complete the set. Or "Alas, Babylon". All the fun reads from back in the day.

"Brave..." is another favorite of mine.

I liked "Alas..." but I don't remember it well at all. I mostly remember discussing if a 20 gauge was a bigger or smaller caliber than 12 gauge with similarly ignorant friends, because one of the characters had a 20.

Which, to really take this thread off course, reminds me of another favorite from back in the day which taught me a lot...



The role-playing game supplement that taught me

-how "gauge" is determined

--how matchlocks, flintlocks, etc. work

--the difference between pinfire, rimfire, and centerfire cartridges

--the difference between Boxer and Beradan priming

--sizes of birdshot and buckshot

--the story of the Rolin White patents

--and more I have forgotten.

I never played GURPS much, but reading the suppliments was educational.

[Cory]

You bring up a fair point about the scale of a problem. Am I the only person who has health problems from second hand cigarette smoke? If I am, and no one else is bothered by it, then I should probably go live in the mountains by myself. However what if 10% of the population is bothered by it, 10% smoke themselves and 80% are indifferent. Then it would be a 50-50 as to who wants to do it and who wants them to not do it. Should that matter?

What if scientists could prove that 100% of people exposed to second hand smoke are harmed? Would that then shift the onus to get people to not be allowed to smoke anywhere that it might impact someone else, including their own apartment if the air might cross units?

If scientists could prove that 100% of people are harmed by second hand smoke, the vast majority wouldn't be big enough pretentious assholes to argue that government justified force or threat of force is the solution.

-Cory

[Sanch]

If scientists could prove that 100% of people are harmed by second hand smoke, the vast majority wouldn't be big enough pretentious assholes to argue that government justified force or threat of force is the solution.

-Cory

My understanding and flavor of libertarianism is that everyone is free to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm someone else. The quote I’ve heard is “my right to throw a punch in the air ends at the tip of your nose”

If scientists proved 100% of people are harmed by second hand smoke then someone exposing another to second hand smoke is causing harm. No different than swinging their arms wildly and punching them in the face. Or spraying toxic chemicals on their lawn to kill weeds that rain runoff brings to your yard and kills your pets. It’s just a matter of scale of harm.

I recognize that people do things that harm others every day. Clapping my hands might cause emotional harm to a millennial snowflake. Wearing a red hat might cause emotional harm. Should that be illegal?

I’m those cases, people can choose not to look at the hat, not to freak out by innocuous sounds. A person can’t choose not to breathe.

For those who support smokers rights, I am genuinely curious what laws you believe should exist in relation to people harming another for the satisfaction of oneself. Some examples:

Lead paint produces better reds and whites than non-lead. Should your neighbor be allowed to paint their house and their side of the fence with lead paint? Imagine you have children. It’s something that they prefer that gives them gratification, and it’s more likely to harm them because the paint is on their side of the fence. But a few chips might land in your yard from time to time. Is this okay?

Playing the drums at midnight in the backyard under the moon might make someone happy. Are you okay if your neighbor does this? Should it be legal to do so?

Masturbating naked on the patio might make someone happy. While your kids are playing I’m the yard. Should this be legal?

I’m listing things that asymmetrically benefit the person doing them while harming others. So how do we draw a line as to what should he allowed that harms others and what should not? Is it a matter of majority rules? 10% of the population smokes and less than 1 in 1000 probably wants to jack off naked on the patio if allowed. So having a law against publicly viewable masturbation only hurts 1 in 1000 or less people, whereby having an anti smoking law hurts 1 out of 10. So maybe it matters the extent of people who want to do the thing that’s not allowed? I’m not arguing here, trying to discuss to find an answer.

Of course, the answer would seem to be polite discourse, asking your neighbor not to use lead paint on their fence, jack off on the patio, or play drums in the backyard at midnight. But if you politely ask a smoker not to smoke in their yard because it’s blowing over the fence into your yard exposing you to dangerous second hand smoke, I suspect that would be met with a “f—- you it’s my house I’ll do what I damn well please” and so polite discourse may not work there.

I’m not trying to argue, trying to politely figure out an answer that jives with my libertarian views. And also to hone in on what those of you who are libertarian minded would think should be the boundary for nuisance laws.

[Rosco Benson]

For those who support smokers rights, I am genuinely curious what laws you believe should exist in relation to people harming another for the satisfaction of oneself. Some examples: (snip)

Lots of straw man arguments there. Of course public indecency is correctly prohibited. Not that we could do anything about it, but one of the best I ever saw was an elderly man in a suicide watch cell. He had stripped naked, was chewing on the feeding tube that came out of his belly, was dancing from foot to foot, was alternately banging on the window and flipping us the bird with one hand, while whacking off with the other. He was already in jail, so what could we do?

What we're discussing is smoking within the confines of one's own home. The neighbors might not like the odor wafting out a screen window, but they might also be crazy vegans who are offended by the aroma of steaks on a grill. Wanting something prohibited because you don't "like it" is different from regulating activity that poses a real threat of great bodily harm or which is blatantly offensive to essentially all reasonable persons. Proportionality in all things.

That said, I don't have a problem with deed restrictions. If I buy a property KNOWING that I can't fly a flag, park a boat in the driveway, or smoke, that's fine. I knew about it going in. I may have even chosen that property because I prefer such restrictions. However, I do have a problem with such restrictions being imposed after the fact.


Rosco

[Cory]

I’m not trying to argue

Yes, you are.

You are presenting straw man argument after strawman argument. None of this changes the fact that it simply is NOT the governments role to correct this perceived issue.

-Cory