I also suffer monetary damages in that anything I was wearing has to go to the cleaners the day after. I must also shower to get the scent off of me.
It also totally messes up my allergies as my nose is runny and my eyes watery for days after. And I am not alone in this. It also stinks.
The result is I do not call for the gov'ment to get involved, I just don't go to places that allow smoking.
If there actually was real evidence (as if my personal experience is not enough), then would it be ok for the government to tell a restaurant owner he could not allow smoking?
That you think a good response to my question about the smoking ban in relation to the doctor's right to free speech is to explain that there is no evidence of health damage from 2nd hand smoke (even if that were true) suggests you aren't smart enough to engage in a discussion on property rights and liberties. Because based on your reasoning, if there WAS evidence of harm from 2nd hand smoke, then your argument against banning it would disappear.
You have a reading comprehension problem. I started my post to you by saying “First”.
I was refuting your fallacious claim about second hand smoke with the scientific facts. I was not addressing your straw man of equating smoking bans to baring doctors from giving professional advice in areas they are not qualified and trained to give advice in.
A doctor’s license gives him permission to give an opinion in an area where he has training and expertise. By accepting that license, he accepts the states right to make the rules about what advice he may and may not give.
A restaurant or bar’s license is to do business. I don’t agree they should need a license to do business. I do agree there should be laws baring them from passing off dog meat as pork or serving tainted food. I also believe there should be laws about them claiming their hamburger can cure cancer or whatever. That’s fraud.
A doctor, by virtue of his medical license is presumed to be qualified to give the advice he is dispensing. The state has an interest in maintaining the integrity and public trust in that license. Doctors mostly sell advice. True they also sell skilled services like setting a broken bone, but mostly they sell advice based on a presumed expertise.
There is a well documented and well organized movement in the medical community to spread false information about guns and gun safety. I’ll not post the links since you seem uninterested in facts and would rather try to debate theoretical points.
The doctor accepted the license. When he did that he recognized the states right to regulate his professional speech. In this case the state is not trying to regulate his political speech or his religious speech, etc. They are regulating his professional speech.
Personally, I’d rather hold the doctors accountable by reporting them for boundary violations and driving their insurance premiums through the roof. If they want to play games they need to be ready to pay the price.
You obviously didn’t read the risk management advice to physicians in my earlier post. Doctors and their insurance companies can be held liable if a doctor gives advice in an area he is not trained and qualified to give advice in.
Most malpractice carriers now specifically exempt coverage for torts in areas where a doctor has given advice in an area he is not trained and certified in. They also exclude coverage for doctors engaged in an activity the licensing agency bars.
This law is an attempt to counter an attack on the Bill of Rights by Doctors Against Handgun Injury, a gun prohibitionist coalition.
This coalition , which also includes the American Medical Association (AMA) and, not surprisingly, the strident American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and 10 other medical organizations reportedly comprising 600,000 doctors, is calling for a variety of patient privacy-invading measures in the name of gun safety. They are in bed with The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
This law is a little heavy handed for my taste, but it isn’t a free speech issue. The professional speech of a licensed professional may rightly be regulated by the licensing body.