Muscatine

Nedl, I disagree on the guns comment. If you want to go and shoot animals because it's fun then i could care less. My friend and I go trap shooting every once in a great while - it's a good way to do something outdoors. But I believe in smart gun controls, like not giving guns to people who might rob me with them.

As for city buses and industrial factories - I'm for cleaning them up too. I've got nasty pictures of GPC clouds at night on a calm day.... makes me feel really sorry for everyone that lives nearby. I think we should require buses and cars and etc to be more clean also with better standards requirements.

What's wrong with having 2 inch long grass instead of 1 inch? I don't mind mowing less often - save the city some money as long as it still looks decent.

And I might argue that you can take any drug you need to so long as you aren't hurting someone else. It's imperitive in our government that we consider that other's rights are just as equal as our own. It's not really me that's bothered by smoking so significantly - my grandmother smokes and I still spend time with her at her house. But the people who are bothered shouldn't have to worry about smoke wherever they go.

Now, there's a lot of small arguments here - the 'rights' of business owners, etc. But if no businesses allow smoking then no business are going to lose business.... so it can't possibly hurt the business owner, no? Economically speaking, cigarettes hurt everyone. They cause increased cancer rates and more, increasing health care/insurance costs for everyone - there is scientific evidence showing all the harm cancer causes.

Let's say "John" doesn't like smoking.

Yes John does not get dragged into a busines that allows smoking against his free will. But John has the same right to not have to work his life around someone else's decision. If there is one bowling alley in town and they allow smoking, what's John's option? He has every right to go bowling on his terms, when he wants to. So your argument that Jack can smoke on his terms, when he wants to is the same sort of thing. Now we come to the question, who's rights are stronger. In this case, John's rights are stronger because 1) his action doesn't hurt anybody else, 2) John can't bowl at home, but Jack can smoke at home, 3) Jack's action, smoking, has the most negative externalities.

And so in every legal and economic and moral sense, the right of the nonsmoker trumps that of the smoker.

Nedl, I disagree on the guns comment. If you want to go and shoot animals because it's fun then i could care less. My friend and I go trap shooting every once in a great while - it's a good way to do something outdoors. But I believe in smart gun controls, like not giving guns to people who might rob me with them.

As for city buses and industrial factories - I'm for cleaning them up too. I've got nasty pictures of GPC clouds at night on a calm day.... makes me feel really sorry for everyone that lives nearby. I think we should require buses and cars and etc to be more clean also with better standards requirements.

What's wrong with having 2 inch long grass instead of 1 inch? I don't mind mowing less often - save the city some money as long as it still looks decent.

And I might argue that you can take any drug you need to so long as you aren't hurting someone else. It's imperitive in our government that we consider that other's rights are just as equal as our own. It's not really me that's bothered by smoking so significantly - my grandmother smokes and I still spend time with her at her house. But the people who are bothered shouldn't have to worry about smoke wherever they go.

Now, there's a lot of small arguments here - the 'rights' of business owners, etc. But if no businesses allow smoking then no business are going to lose business.... so it can't possibly hurt the business owner, no? Economically speaking, cigarettes hurt everyone. They cause increased cancer rates and more, increasing health care/insurance costs for everyone - there is scientific evidence showing all the harm cancer causes.

Let's say "John" doesn't like smoking.

Yes John does not get dragged into a busines that allows smoking against his free will. But John has the same right to not have to work his life around someone else's decision. If there is one bowling alley in town and they allow smoking, what's John's option? He has every right to go bowling on his terms, when he wants to. So your argument that Jack can smoke on his terms, when he wants to is the same sort of thing. Now we come to the question, who's rights are stronger. In this case, John's rights are stronger because 1) his action doesn't hurt anybody else, 2) John can't bowl at home, but Jack can smoke at home, 3) Jack's action, smoking, has the most negative externalities.

And so in every legal and economic and moral sense, the right of the nonsmoker trumps that of the smoker.