I would argue in that in the case of smoking, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the activity harms others around you. Therefore, the public has the right to regulate the negative externality that this activity creates -- needless physical harm to others. The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified.
This is in contrast to the other behavioral regulations you mentioned such as gay marriage, feeding the homeless, or even other drugs. The supposed negative externalities these activities produce have been viewed with more skepticism by the general public in recent years.
For example, the argument that gay marriage would somehow harm the way certain children were raised, has been mostly debunked. If sufficient evidence to the contrary would arise, evidence that was comparable to the quality of the evidence for second hand smoke, then the public would be justified in reevaluating the issue.
Fortunately, from a civil rights perspective, this is not the case.
In the case of non-smokable drugs you have to consider how much harm drug use causes vs. drug prohibition. It becomes clear that the negative externalities from the latter are much larger in scope and scale. Therefore, a conversation in ending drug prohibition is justified.
So, I would argue that whether or not a regulation on feeding the homeless is justified depends on the scope and scale of the negative externalities the activity creates, vs the scope and scale of negative externalities the regulation itself may or may not create.
The problem with considering issues involved from the point of view of 'Externalities' is how you measure 'externalities'. Can you be sure that you have measured all the possible externalities?
The regulation of the behavior curtails the rights of a number of people. You don't seem to consider that a significant externality (probably because you aren't one of those people).
You also present a false dichotomy. The question is no 'to regulate or not regulate, which is worse?'.
The question is 'How do we solve this problem while protecting as the rights of the people involved as much as possible?'
There is a tendency to want to regulate away issues rather than trying to understand the needs of everyone involved and craft solutions that actauly work.
There is no universal right to smoke. Smoking harms others and provides no benefit to anyone other than people who suffer nicotine addictions.
Furthermore, smoking bans are bar none the most effective way to reduce public harm from second hand smoke. They indeed "actually work".
EDIT: And to your other response I did mean "the right to continue their addiction." Thank you for pointing that out.
>Smoking harms others and provides no benefit to anyone other than people who suffer nicotine addictions.
You might feel that way, but other people feel differently. There is a fair amount of evidence that nicotine is often used as a form of self medication for both anxiety and depression. It also has a long history of being enjoyed socially by a number of different cultures.
I regularly encourage and support my friends who are trying to quit smoking, I did so even back when I was a smoker. My biggest issue with the anti-smoking activists is that they assume that because they don't like something, nobody can like it.
> Furthermore, smoking bans are bar none the most effective way to reduce public harm from second hand smoke. They indeed "actually work".
They might be the most effective, but they are not the most fair. By your same logic, completely banning cars on public roads is the most effective way to reduce pedestrian fatalities.
Smoking bans trample on the universal right of individuals to to pursue happiness as they see fit. I think it is possible to protect this universal right while also protecting the rights of those who wish to be free of the harm caused by second hand smoke.
I think the unwillingness of anti-smoker to work to accomodate this is as callous as the unwillingness of some smokers to take the effort to avoid exposing people to their second-hand smoke.
And to bring this back to the discussion at hand: Banning something for the public good is rarely fair and often has ignored or unvalued externalities. This is especially true when the ban comes at the expense of a minority of the population (such as a ban on panhandling).
I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights.
I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution. It can protect smokers and property owners rights while also also protecting the rights on non-smokers, employees and tenants.
In the case of feeding the homeless, I think the ability to give charity is an important right. I think it is more important than the right to have an attractive city center that encorages tourism.
However, the relative importance of these rights isn't important. The available solutions are important. If there is a solution that protects the rights of both parties, it is the proper solution to use.
This is why these cities should be using incentives and support to encourage feeding the homeless in proper locations (near support infrastructure and away from valuable retail or tourist destinations).
We should always choose to encourage proper behavior as opposed to banning improper behavior whenever possible.
I encourage you to read my post about externalities. I believe you would find the arguments from the economics perspective interesting.
> I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights.
Is smoking really an autonomous behavior? It is a common behavioral symptoms associated with a nicotine addiction.
Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure...
Tobacco smoking might be the only drug that causes unavoidable physical harm to non users.
> I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution.
The WHO has suggested that solutions through engineering, such as improved ventilation, are ineffective at reducing the unsolicited harm (or social costs) that non smokers have to incur.
http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf
Yes, it can be. Many nicotine users are social users, and not all of them become physically dependent.
> Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure...
Yes, of course they should.
I'm hoping you meant: "Should people with uncontrollable addictions have the right to continue that addiction"
To which I would answer: Yes, as long as the addiction does not lead them to violate other laws.
From your PDF: > No safe levels of exposure to second-hand smoke exist. Obviously not true, except under asinine definitions of 'safe'. By the same argument, I should be calling for a ban on cars.
We have acceptable levels of radiation exposure.
> Approaches other than 100% smoke free environments, including ventilation, air filtration and the use of designated smoking areas (whether with separate ventilation systems or not), have repeatedly been shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke.
I am 100% certain that there are engineering approaches that can limit exposure to any tobacco smoke to levels which are as safe given a reasonable definition of safe. Any claim otherwise is patently false.
Now, the degree to which these engineering approaches are economically feasible is a valid question.
That PDF, and the anti-smoking movement in general, tends to avoid any facts that don't perfectly match their message and whitewash the issue.
I am a former smoker who quit, cold turkey, on my first try. On rare occasions, I still like to visit hookah bars. 100% smoking bans, as advocated by that WHO document, violate my right to engage in that rational desire and to live my life the way I choose.
Now, I'm done being off topic. I continued the discussion of smoking in my previous post only to draw out my point of how outright bans for undesired are bad when there are alternative that can protect the rights of involved parties.
Even if you could make that case in theory, how do you define addition in such a way that doesn't allow any disliked behavior to be classified as "addiction"?
However, for my part, I also surmise that in both cases the outcome is undesirable, so I suppose I'm still vulnerable to the point you make in your edit.
I don't actually expect answers. I just want to reveal some of the depth of issues such as these mentioned.
I meant a philosophical, rather than a legal assessment.
And of course, silly decisions at a city or county level are less damaging than at a state or especially national level.
Principle of "you have your freedom as long as you do not restrict other's freedom". Smokers restrict freedom of those who want to breath air that is not harmful. Hobos restrict freedom of those who want healthy sanitary environment without drug addicts and asocial behavior in public space.
If you want to allow hobos to live as they live, you also have to allow anyone pull their pants and piss right near you in bus or park, allow anyone to harass anyone else for no reason, also allow your kids to communicate with asocial people that have nothing to lose whatever they would do. If you actually think hobos do nothing bad to people you have not met any hobos.
Suppose 90% of people in Fort Lauderdale want to disallow businesses from feeding the homeless while 90% of Philadelphia wants to disallow businesses from allowing smoking inside. What principle allows us to restrict smoking on private property that wouldn't also allow us to restrict people feeding the homeless? Is there a reason one of these is more acceptable than the other?
On edit: For those who feel the difference is purely about outcomes, what if Roger Marbut is right and feeding the homeless in the way banned is a net harm? Would it be okay then? Also, while one can argue smoking bars are a net good, they do, at a minimum, harm those who would like to smoke. We can also construct a scenario in which a smoking restaurateur wants to serve food to his 3 smoking customers (i.e. all are harmed).