So, are you violating my rights every time you drive past me?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm not forcing you to breath my smoke, and I'm not forcing you to stay.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

Come on, Doc. Clearly there's a difference between my low-emissions car passing by you momentarily on a public road and my walking up next to you and lighting a smoke and insisting that the only solution is that YOU move.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Essentially its up to the owner of the property as to who moves.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

The main difference I see is that you, personally, object to one and not the other.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Really?

That's the only difference that you see?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Not the only one, but the main one. You mention your "low emissions car" and that the drive by is "momentary". Why add those favorable assumptions to the comparison if your position on the comparison valid on its own? Why not talk about a 20 year old car belching oil puttering by me? The scenarios are equally likely. It appears that you're subconsciously rationalizing the one that you favor.

Edit: And your own heuristic was the "right" to be next to someone and pollute [his] air. However you dress it up, your car is still next to me, polluting my air.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Not to mention driving a Harley down a narrow street and bust someone's ears.

As a matter of rights, it really doesn't matter what someone is doing that another person doesn't like as long as it isn't illegal.

I just read this thread. Interesting. The most debatable point that's been brought up was whether the government ought to be telling people what to do in "their own private property." This requires a little comment, I think.

A problem here arises from the limitations of the English language, in which the words "one's own private property" can describe everything from one's own home in which one lives alone, to one's factory employing hundreds of people, to one's sports stadium employing hundreds of people and at times seating thousands more. Those are three radically different places with radically different circumstances and radically different rules as to what the government can and cannot require there might arguably be appropriate, yet because they are described by the same phrase, emotions are easily transferred from one to another. On the other side of the coin, an apartment that is rented rather than owned by the person living in it is not "his own private property," but it IS his private HOME. So, should it be treated like his home, or like NOT his property? (Obviously, some of both; he has rights of privacy in it, but not the right to sell it or deliberately damage it.)

I would suggest that the important consideration is not whether a place is private property, but rather whether it is a private place. I don't care who's name is on the title deed, a place of business is not a private home, and regulations that are not appropriate in a private home might be appropriate in a place of business.

Without going into whether I think a smoking ban specifically is a good or bad idea, the idea that it shouldn't be done because it is "government interference in private property" is a terrible precedent and should not prevail.

I agree that a property owner's right to use his, her or its land as they direct does not require or even justify an absolutist postion. In fact, even private home activity can be regulated to some degree.

I'd also agree that private property set for private use and private property chosen to be opened to the public raises additional distinctions. If one chooses to open private property to the public, assertions that certain duties of care and/or warnings and waivers towards invitees have a much better standing.

But, I think private property ownership is a very relevant consideration to be given respect and given as wide a deference to the owner and his/her or its desires as the situational circumstances can permit. That is the purpose of property ownership. It's for their desired uses and disallowed uses, not someone else's.

If the Harley is loud, then it's got an illegal muffler, and the police can impound it as a safety hazard.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

It's not too long before renters become entitled to a smoke free environment, which means no smoking in multi unit dwellings if the smoke will find it's way into one of the other units.
When you rent a dwelling unit, it ceases to become your private property and becomes a product that is subject to a number of rules. You can refuse to rent to someone if you believe they cannot afford the unit, but you can't refuse to rent to a person because of their race or creed.
You need to have working smoke detectors, a means of egress in case of a fire, the unit must be asbestos free if it will be occupied by children.
The unit needs to be heated to a certain minimum level in the winter, etc.

So adding "smoke free" to that list will not take much effort, and no one will stand up for smokers, almost no one anyway.

__________________
“ The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.”

Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations 1776

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics"
FDR's second Inaugural Address

Call me crazy, but I think even these regulations are stupid, save the asbestos and heating ones. Property owners should be allowed to permit or deny the use of their property to whomever, for whatever reason. I find it absolutley ludacris that we are now regulating thought and reason, as if it were something we could regulate in the first place, let the racists turn out black folks, atleast then they'll all be in one place (the racists that is).

Exactly, just like there where very few people willing to stand up for black people in the days of Jim Crow.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

Indeed. Any kind of extension to hypochondriac/paranoid/ornery/metaphysical possibility levels can be made to go after any activities. It's also why criminal trials require beyond a reasonable doubt, not any possible doubt because one can unreasonably conger any scenario.

The idea that people smoking in their own townhouses and apartments cause a genuine SHS health hazard to neighbours is nuts but I see it alleged. Endless other excuses are also congered as one can do for banning anything. If I had any rented flat or townhouse of mine ever fogged with neighbours' SHS that isn't the smokers doing anything wrong. I'd be calling the landlord hollering the place will fall to the ground. I had, like many, a slumlord managed college flat and it wasn't an issue and visited my fair share of dumps and it was the same thing.