Replies

As for anyone else reading it, I'm sure anyone with an oz. of freedom in their blood already understands how off base the post is.

If you think a person's act of smoking a cigarette has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. After all, that's what a rational person would do if a person robbed them, right?

This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

If you think a person's act of smoking a cigarette has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. After all, that's what a rational person would do if a person robbed them, right?

This rational person would call the police and have them arrest the robber at gunpoint.

You are confusing civil with criminal law.

-ccm

This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of fore against people on their behalf.

WHAAAAAAAT?????

No confusion. Prove it to an impartial jury that you've been harmed by the person smoking a cigarette. The point being, you wouldn't be able to convince even half the jury that you'd been harmed.

This forum is used by some people (ccmay included) that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

If you think a person's act of smoking a cigarette has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. After all, that's what a rational person would do if a person robbed them, right?

I'm a little discombobulated by your second sentence. I'm not sure that suing a robber would accomplish anything -- you're unlikely to collect if a jury awarded you a judgment and even then the robber is unlikely to pay. How, then, is he penalized for robbing you? But I think your suggestion about how to handle restrictions on smoking is insightful and may be the start of a welcome compromise. If I walk down a sidewalk, say, and someone wafts tobacco smoke in my face, I would be at liberty to sue that person and receive judgment, if I convinced a jury. That course probably has a pretty high price tag, but what the hey, it's our personal liberties we're talking about here. If there were 40- or 50-million such lawsuits a year, how would we handle them? But if, say, I went into a restaurant and tobacco smoke wafted to my table, I could sue both the restaurant owner and the smokers nearby. A person could probably get six or eight lawsuits out of one incident. But tell me this? Who's going to be happy with this solution? Besides the lawyers?