A commenter on my posting on smoking bans asked the following:
Here's a question: At what level of toxicity to others should an activity be prohibited in public?
The answer was evident in my previous posting, but I will restate it. (I will leave aside for the moment the question of whether secondhand smoke can be accurately described as toxic. We will kindly assume that the commenter was indulging in a bit of hyperbole.)
My position:
The government should regulate public lands, and owners of private spaces should make their own decisions regarding what kind and level of toxins they will allow, provided that these toxins do not move into other people's spaces (including public ones).
So, in practical terms, what level of toxicity should a tavern, restaurant, or store owner be allowed by law to permit within their own space? Whatever level they choose.
2 comments:
ST ... no arguments with your points from me.
However, like I asked in the other thread, I believe the real question is what one considers "public".
Sure, just as long as the private landholder is held accountable for injuries to invitees and other non-trespassers.
So the bar can be sued for lung cancer and emphysema -- more clients to sue for more money, better chance the victims will recover!
I see where you're going . . . unless your intent was to avoid accountability.
Post a Comment