That article was utter garbage. There is no way she can consider herself a libertarian. A libertarian defends property rights.

Interesting argument. I hope there are other libertarian viewpoints elsewhere. How is cigarette smoking (in my space) a property right?

Here we go again. There is a lot to be said on both sides, but all too much is hysteria. Personally, I think indoor public spaces largely should not allow smoking (theaters, courtrooms - or is that the same thing - schools). But I do not see that making it illegal to smoke anywhere makes sense. Places that want to allow smoking should perhaps be required to post a two-foot-square sign saying at the entrance.

And remember, I am the same guy that agreed with (if not wholeheartedly) one city's ban on smoking while walking.

But Ms Vincent doesn't want to leave her favorite watering-hole, even though it became such with a lot of smokers there.
Let's look at just one paragraph -

"Secondhand smoke is toxic to bystanders. The nonsmoker's right to patronize his favorite bar while breathing freely trumps the smoker's need to slowly asphyxiate herself and her fellow patrons. Sure, nonsmoking patrons could go elsewhere, but they shouldn't have to. Besides, we all have our favorite bars, places that are convenient geographically or demographically. The latter is especially true of gay people. Often, going elsewhere just isn't an option."

Yikes. Now, one sentence at a time:

Secondhand smoke is toxic to bystanders - objectionable, yes, but "toxic" is is highly debatable except in cases of allergies - same as some perfume bases.

The nonsmoker's right to patronize his favorite bar while breathing freely trumps the smoker's need to slowly asphyxiate herself and her fellow patrons. - nope, sorry. My right to enjoy a lakeside picnic does not trump the right of another to water-ski, even if I find it objectionable and dangerous.

Sure, nonsmoking patrons could go elsewhere, but they shouldn't have to. - Nor do they, noone is kicking them out.

Besides, we all have our favorite bars, places that are convenient geographically or demographically. Hooray, finally a statement I can support.

The latter is especially true of gay people. And lushes. OK, it has to be tied into the next -

Often, going elsewhere just isn't an option. Why ever not? OK, East Overshoe may only have one place where you can feel comfortable, but that does not mean you should be allowed to kick out others who also find it comfortable. That should be up to the proprietor. I may find a certain bar comfortable, except on Karaoke night - should I pass a law against Karaoke?

--------------

I quite agree that "It's my right to puff where I like" is wrong, even dangerous. But dear Ms. Vincent, while not formally a libertarian such as you claim to be, I am enough so to be against expanding government in some of its stupidity. Actually, I thought being "libertarian" meant being against expansion of government, or even for down-sizing it.

DB,
The owner of a restaurant has property rights to his restaurant. A believer in property rights upholds that he can do whatever he wants to do with this property as long as he doesn't hurt another's property.

As such, the libertarian believes that owners of restaraunts should have the final say in whether smoking is allowed or not allowed in his restaurant.

One owner may cater to people who like to smoke. Another owner may cater to people who like to avoid smoke. In the end, it's the owner's property rights that matter. He should have the final say. This is not the government's business.

Similarly, the patrons of a restaurant make the conscious decision whether or not to patronize a certain restaurant. They may very well want to go to one that allows smoking. They may very well want to go to one that doesn't allow smoking. It's their choice.

Nobody is forcing them to smoke, or even inhale second-hand smoke.

Nobody is holding a gun to their head and putting a cigarette in their mouth.

This issue is about responsible people making choices for themselves.

Dewey,
You make an interesting argument. I will generally frequent restaurants with no smoking sections, and avoid smoky places. However, even at those places, I have a problem when there is a long wait for a non-smoking seat and by the way we can seat you immediately in smoking!
I believe that one can argue this issue rationally both ways. Concerning the health consequences, I would like to see smokers penalized on their health insurance premiums. Smokers have greater health costs and decreased quality of life (as they get older). I should not have to pay for that, nor should any non-smoker.

>>>>>>>>>>
You make an interesting argument. I will generally frequent restaurants with no smoking sections, and avoid smoky places. However, even at those places, I have a problem when there is a long wait for a non-smoking seat and by the way we can seat you immediately in smoking!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Agree - but government telling private property owners what to do with their private property is not the answer.

>>>>>>>>>>
Concerning the health consequences, I would like to see smokers penalized on their health insurance premiums. Smokers have greater health costs and decreased quality of life (as they get older). I should not have to pay for that, nor should any non-smoker.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Agree again. You should not have to pay for someone elses poor choices. But the market already does this. Insurance premiums are higher for smokers.

The problem is medicare and medicaid. These programs are funded not by premiums, but by tax dollars. Thus, you do actually end up paying for someone elses poor choices, including smoking, overeating, alcohol abuse, IV drug use, etc.

That's why socialized medicine (and that's exactly what medicare and medicaid are) doesn't work. Risky behaviour should be tied to personal risk premiums, not taxes which are paid by everyone.