Replies

Good points in your post #8. There are some lines to be drawn with private property owners. I just don't think smoking is worthy of that line in all but a few cases. Sometimes the market can't correct the problem if everyone offering a service, say air travel, decides to offer smoking. What are others to do? Drive everywhere? What about medical services? Sure the market should provide the fix, but the problem is, selfish people who are brought up to think only of themselvs and their own instant gratification get in the way. Of course choosing to be considerate would be the far better answer to government intervention. I will never understand why a smoker thinks he OUGHT to smoke on an airplane. It's rude! This is where the debate should include the issue of people being fit for liberty. Raising the next generation with a strong moral sense, an understanding of the difference between good and evil, a Judeo-Christian ethic of putting God first and others second, where selfishness is still a sin, is the most important thing you can do to protect liberty. Without it, you can holler about individual rights, property rights, and liberty this and that all you want. It can't work if the people are unfit to govern themselves.

"Sometimes the market can't correct the problem if everyone offering a service, say air travel, decides to offer smoking."

Actually, if the air travel providers were all making a profit in this scenario, then the market would be working just fine. If you specifically didn't like smoking on airplanes you would be free to risk your capital and hard work to start a non-smoking alternative. If a demand existed you would also make a profit. The market will not meet every individual's demands, but it will offer enough alternatives that people will be satisfied.

Why should the government be involved at all? Why should they make it illegal for someone to offer a smokers only airline? The answer is control, plain and simple.

I will never understand why a smoker thinks he OUGHT to smoke on an airplane. It's rude!

Actually what I believe to be rude is the fact that airlines are forbidden to give travellers a choice. If I remember correctly Aeroflot was the last airline that still had some flights that permitted smoking....that was until the US threatened to end landing rights here unless they banned all smoking on all flights.

Even if the restrictions were to be lifted, I seriously doubt many airlines would bother offering flights that permitted smoking. Since the ban the airlines do not change the air as often as they used to, thus reducing fuel costs, but at the expense of severely hurting the quality of air in the cabin.

I avoid air travel if at all possible, not because I can not smoke, I've never smoked on an airplane, but because I get ill from lack of fresh air. Even in a motor vehicle where no one is smoking I must keep a window open if I don't wish to become ill.

This is where the debate should include the issue of people being fit for liberty.

And who would determine who's "fit" for liberty?

You?

People don't raise "generations," they raise their own children.

Collectivist tyrants on the right are just as dangerous as collectivist tyrants on the left.

I'm a smoker and sat next to two guys who got drunk on the plane.

The flight attendants pushed the booze because we were delayed one hour before take off.

They were well on the way before we even left the ground.

I would have had a much better trip(10 hours) if they had been smoking.

Would you consider those 2 men selfish people the way you consider smokers?