Recent "Sin Tax" - Page 8

quote Massive Attack

And neither do smokers. Non-smokers outnumber smokers by a large proportion.

Oops.

Fortunately for us non-smokers, smokers don't (by the act of smoking in a private place where smoking is allowed) force the world to conform to their desires and preferences. Privately owned businesses might choose to cater to a smoking consumer base if such an choice would be profitable. It's not the same thing as passing a law (or a tax or whatever).

quote Massive Attack

It seems like a circular argument until you begin to understand exactly what rights do and don't entail. Most of the people who are promoting your view do not understand that. If you are still confused, please refer to my definition of a right in the post above yours.

Completely disagree with your definition. No entitlements.

quote Massive Attack

If your right to life implies that no one may murder you, why doesn't that extend to smokers who are adversely affecting your health and quite possibly shortening your life? One or two exposures to second-hand smoke won't affect you, but constant exposure will.

Smokers aren't murdering you. You can choose to leave their presence. A murder doesn't give you a choice. He just kills you.

quote Massive Attack

Why are all of the above rights "negative" but the right to health "positive?" Your argument doesn't make any sense whatsoever. No one "has" to make you healthy. If you fall down and scrape your knee, you can't make anyone treat you. You can either treat yourself or pay for the services of a medically qualified practitioner. My argument is that no one has the right to infringe upon your health. Smoking in public is the equivalent of blowing biohazardous agents into someone's face.

If the right to health is a negative right, then that means that no one has the right to lessen your health in any way. So no smoking, no one can sell alcohol, high heels, junk food, play loud music, play sports that involve physical contact, drive, I can go on. There's all sorts of things in the world than can lessen your health. Negative rights don't interfere with one another. If health is a negative right, then it interferes with property and the pursuit of happiness. If it's not a negative right, then it's a positive right, which means one is entitled to health, which means people do have to make you healthy, which interferes with property and pursuit of happiness rights. You can choose to avoid all contact with smokers. They don't infringe on your rights to life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness, and you really don't have a right to health.

quote Dark Magic

quote Marinade

Where do you get the idea that we have an unalienable right to health, that takes precedent over all other rights? Cause from what I can tell, you pulled that right out of your ass.

Oh y'know, the U.S. Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights, and pretty much any other first world democratic Charter of Rights including the Charter of Basic Human Rights declared in Geneva. No important documents. By the way, right to health falls under security of person, and holds legal precedence in Canada, the United States and all of the Western world.

Read Gornisht's explanation on why the Right to Health is a negative right. It wouldn't really do me much good to repeat it.

The right of Security of Persons only gives you the rights to PRIVACY of the body and of it's health, including mental health. It doesn't not give you the right to health, but rather to PRIVACY of health. This is an important difference as it only protects the privacy of the person, not the person themselves. If right to health would be under anything it would be under the right to life, but it's not covered there either.

The section 7 rights can not be violated by the conduct of private companies (IE. Business's or private establishments) or well anything not government controlled. So by the government forcing a private pub to comply to this law they are actually violating their right to liberty.

Yes people have the right to enter the business, though only when it's open, and only under the conditions of the owners. Ever see one of those signs "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."? That's just an example, but most places reserve the right to refuse service to anyone they please. The only things that you can not discriminate against are race, sex, sexual orientation, those sorts of things. It works the same way with employees.

Wrong Marinade, R v Montagler set the precedence that security of person extends to include the health, not the privacy of said health, but the health of the individual. Abortion was legalized on the grounds that abortion committees were breaching the right to security of person by compromising a woman's health, with the other stance being that it was also violating the right of a woman to control her body. Nonetheless the case was made that your health was included in your right to security of person.

Gornisht's explanation of the right is flawed. He is correct in saying that no one has the right to lessen your health, but it's absolutely incorrect to suggest any of his following points would actually be valid. The right is that the actions of others may not directly or indirectly cause hazard to your health. Purchasing alcohol, high heels, junk food, playing loud music and participating in high contact sports are all decisions you make yourself. You are the person lessening your health, not those who sell alcohol, high heels and junk food. In the case of smokers, it is OTHER people causing hazard to the health of the employees and patrons of the establishments allowing smoking.

Allowing smoking in buildings impedes on people's rights to livelihood, security of person and their right to pursuit of happiness. People in a country should be allowed to work in any establishment without hazard to their health, and this is substantiated with the right to refuse unsafe work. Again you could argue that people don't have to work at a place that allows smoking, but that's just trying to deny that repealing the law would actually be taking away people's freedom. I do agree that people should be able to run their businesses as they see fit, EXCEPT when the way they run their business impedes on the rights of the employees as citizens and as humans. We don't allow businesses to pelt their employees and customers with nuclear radiation, or lace every meal with toxic chemicals, because that's a health hazard and a business has no right to cause the loss of health to anyone by any means, even if those people chose to enter the building of their own accord. Get it? It doesn't matter if I have a choice to enter the building or not, if I do so choose to go in there the business STILL doesn't have a right to harm me physically, mentally, harm my health or discriminate against my gender race or religion.

quote Dark Magic

Wrong Marinade, R v Montagler set the precedence that security of person extends to include the health, not the privacy of said health, but the health of the individual. Abortion was legalized on the grounds that abortion committees were breaching the right to security of person by compromising a woman's health, with the other stance being that it was also violating the right of a woman to control her body. Nonetheless the case was made that your health was included in your right to security of person.

Actually R v Montagler was about who should be allowed to make the choice about the abortion; The State, or the Person. It was decided that it should be up to the conscience of the person involved, and shouldn't be decided by the conscience of the state.

Which essentially made the TAC unnecessary, that is what you were talking about right? The Therapeutic Abortion Committee. There was no longer such a thing as an illegal abortion, unless it was without the consent of the mother. The ruling didn't set a precedent about the right to health being protected under security of the body.

Keep in mind that a private business can not infringe on the constitutional, or Charter rights. They can do things that are illegal and would be punishable, such as willing poisoning people, or irradiating them. Allowing people to smoke in their establishment shouldn't be punishable in the same way.

As you said, you have the right to refuse unsafe work, which means you can refuse to work there, and can't be forced into doing it. If you want to get paid it might be a good idea to either work anyway, or find a different job. So it's your choice, work anyway and get paid, refuse to work in the unsafe environment and find a different job. There is no right infringement there.

It's not backwards, just different. Your perception of government is that its main purpose is to ensure and protect property rights. If so, then the right of the business owner to allow whatever he wants in his business outweighs the right of a person to always be in what they deem as a safe environment. But this is not the only conception of government. A perception of government can also be that its main purpose is to protect certain unalienable rights, such as the well-being of a person. If so, then the right of a person to be in a safe environment outweighs that of a business owner to allow whatever he wants in his business.

Neither view is more correct than the either, you can argue that one or the other is more ethical, but that really just depends on your perception of the purpose of government and the subject just becomes shifty and not all that clear. Instead, we have to look at an individual country's constitution to determine what is the right course of action in said country. So if you oppose smoking bans in Canada for example, where Dark Magic has shown that it clearly states that the security of person is an unalienable right, then your only option is to try and change the Charter of Rights. And good luck with that.

quote Charter of Fundamental Rights

The freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices is recognised.

I think it's you that has a backwards view of how rights work dude. Business as a right has the stipulation that it has to conduct in accordance with law. The law is essentially a means to protect our fundamental rights and freedoms. Since any health hazard is infringing on my right to security of person, the laws must protect those rights from being infringed. Businesses freedoms end where the laws that protect my rights and freedoms tells them it ends.


And Marinade, you know that's not how that right works, why would you even consider saying that?

quote Dark Magic

And Marinade, you know that's not how that right works, why would you even consider saying that?

That's exactly how it works... and what I said is what you just said. They have to follow the law. Though the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Freedoms doesn't apply to them. Which is exactly what I said. The laws are not designed to protect the freedoms. Yes there are some that are designed to protect them; however, they can not violate them; being laws are instituted by the government.

No, you don't have the right to go anywhere unless the owner decides that he wants to let you go there. There is no difference between a bowling alley and a private house other than the owner of the bowling alley is permitting other people to enter his property freely. If he wants to say that people can smoke there, that is just as much his right as it is yours to say that people can smoke in your home.