The Dangers of ‘Public Health’...

[bigdancehawk]

From the linked article in OP:

What was the definition of public place before public health advocates redefined it? I would think it would be any place the public is admitted to.

I'm not able to understand the point you're trying to make. Four states and over 400 municipalities have banned vaping in "non-hospitality workplaces." That includes my office, which I had heretofore regarded as my private space. It's similar to redefining "smoking" to include vaping. Our culture has a propensity to redefine terms to the point where their original meaning is lost. Another example is making "issue" a synonym for "problem." "Issue" used to be a useful term meaning a topic for discussion or debate. It also seems that "difficulties" have been abolished as too negative a term for our tender sensibilities. We now merely face "challenges."

 

[Jman8]

I'm not able to understand the point you're trying to make. Four states and over 400 municipalities have banned vaping in "non-hospitality workplaces." That includes my office, which I had heretofore regarded as my private space. It's similar to redefining "smoking" to include vaping. Our culture has a propensity to redefine terms to the point where their original meaning is lost. Another example is making "issue" a synonym for "problem." "Issue" used to be a useful term meaning a topic for discussion or debate. It also seems that "difficulties" have been abolished as too negative a term for our tender sensibilities. We now merely face "challenges."

The 2 points I am making is:

1 - wondering how anyone defines public space. Not wondering what public property means, but the space part. I agree that you ought to be able to establish rules on your own property. But it seems either (deeply) philosophical or common sense that certain rules can be easily overcome by the idea that public space trumps whatever the rules for the property are. I definitely think this would include outdoors space if following the logic. Anyway, your quote above and the piece don't provide a definition of public space and so really I was asking for an answer to that.

2 - similar to the point of national security raised earlier, I can see how it can be argued that public space ought to benefit everyone equally, and that no one ought to be able to do anything that would perceptually endanger that. Now, of course all scientifically literate vapers would dispute the claim of endangerment with exhaled vapor (from a vape device) in that space, but then again some of us (me included) would hold virtually same argument with regards to smoking. And yet, here we are, in a world where both are perceived as endangering the air, with pretty much all that is upholding them is "it is a nuisance." Which, similar to national security, you can't do things in public that are relatively harmless, but would plausibly lead others to be super annoyed by what you are up to (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded space where no fire is present. Or even yelling fire in semi crowded space where there is no fire).

 

[Rossum]

1 - wondering how anyone defines public space

That depends on whether you define it in that manner that actually respects a private property owner's rights, or whether you define it in a manner similar to our current government, where any space that the owner makes accessible to strangers for whatever reason becomes a "public" space.

 

[Kent C]

That depends on whether you define it in that manner that actually respects a private property owner's rights, or whether you define it in a manner similar to our current government, where any space that the owner makes accessible to strangers for whatever reason becomes a "public" space.

That's the answer, but it isn't going to stop the painstakingly hairsplitting that will ensue

 

[AndriaD]

Here's the point I have never gotten: a public space is for the public, yes? Well, are not smokers also part of "the public"? Why do THEIR rights get trampled? It's as if being a smoker means having ZERO civil rights, nor even being recognized as a human member of "the public."

Seems to me that our founding fathers were quite concerned with the idea that the majority should not trample the rights of the minority.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

That depends on whether you define it in that manner that actually respects a private property owner's rights, or whether you define it in a manner similar to our current government, where any space that the owner makes accessible to strangers for whatever reason becomes a "public" space.

The former is not defining it though. Do you not see this?

 

[Jman8]

Here's the point I have never gotten: a public space is for the public, yes? Well, are not smokers also part of "the public"? Why do THEIR rights get trampled? It's as if being a smoker means having ZERO civil rights, nor even being recognized as a human member of "the public."

Seems to me that our founding fathers were quite concerned with the idea that the majority should not trample the rights of the minority.

Andria

All decent points IMO, but doesn't overcome the whole endangerment ideology that "public health" would seem to argue. Smokers are afforded equal civil rights in the same space, but denied the right to endanger others with their recreational activity of choice.

Again, I feel that I or we can easily overcome the endangerment argument based on scientific facts and historical data. But the perception of nuisance and ingrained beliefs of endangerment (regardless of facts) are what would seemingly be impossible to overcome, unless or until majority realizes they've been lied to about dangers of SHS.

 

[Kent C]

Here's the point I have never gotten: a public space is for the public, yes? Well, are not smokers also part of "the public"? Why do THEIR rights get trampled? It's as if being a smoker means having ZERO civil rights, nor even being recognized as a human member of "the public."

Seems to me that our founding fathers were quite concerned with the idea that the majority should not trample the rights of the minority.

Andria

http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html

"Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice."

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787)."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

 

[AndriaD]

All decent points IMO, but doesn't overcome the whole endangerment ideology that "public health" would seem to argue. Smokers are afforded equal civil rights in the same space, but denied the right to endanger others with their recreational activity of choice.

Again, I feel that I or we can easily overcome the endangerment argument based on scientific facts and historical data. But the perception of nuisance and ingrained beliefs of endangerment (regardless of facts) are what would seemingly be impossible to overcome, unless or until majority realizes they've been lied to about dangers of SHS.

Even though I no longer care for the smell of burning tobacco, it seems to me that the only one of those points that really hold water is the "nuisance" point -- even for outdoor areas, because it's very clear that most smokers won't take even one step to put their .... into an ashtray, but will simply drop it on the ground. With enough of them doing that, then you either have to pay someone to clean up the mess, or you have to ban smoking. Even when I smoked, I became quite irate if a visitor to our home simply tossed his .... into the yard that my husband and I worked very hard on, and I would always make them go pick it up and put it in the ashtray where it belongs.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/DemoRep.html

"Just after the completion and signing of the Constitution, in reply to a woman's inquiry as to the type of government the Founders had created, Benjamin Franklin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice."

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10 (1787)."

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

Still seeing need / perception of need for federal militia (or national armed force) as contrary to unalienable rights of individuals. Both in how it is set up, how it operates and who is allegedly benefits. In that domain, it routinely appears the "group needs for the public good" will always, without exception, outweigh the individual rights and/or needs, and nearly always be deemed a very good (aka patriotic) thing.

How all this relates to vaping (or smoking) in public, I'm not entirely sure, other than to say that if we can justify need for national armed force based on blurred understanding of defense (for public good), then not too challenging to extrapolate that to other domains based on similar rationale.

 

[Jman8]

Even though I no longer care for the smell of burning tobacco, it seems to me that the only one of those points that really hold water is the "nuisance" point -- even for outdoor areas, because it's very clear that most smokers won't take even one step to put their .... into an ashtray, but will simply drop it on the ground. With enough of them doing that, then you either have to pay someone to clean up the mess, or you have to ban smoking. Even when I smoked, I became quite irate if a visitor to our home simply tossed his .... into the yard that my husband and I worked very hard on, and I would always make them go pick it up and put it in the ashtray where it belongs.

Andria

I used to be person that just put my .... (cigarette, that is) anywhere. Then a couple years ago a non-smoker gave me insight in procedure that makes most sense which is to put it back in the pack when you are done with it. When outdoors, my need for an ashtray is zero.

 

[Rossum]

The former is not defining it though. Do you not see this?

Sure it does. If you define it in that manner that actually respects a private property owner's rights, then it's entirely up to the property owner whether smoking, vaping, fornicating, being armed, or whatever is required, optional, or prohibited on/in that property. The only "public" places where government gets to decide whether such things are allowed or not are those actually owned by the government.

 

[choochoogranny]

We all now can purchase "firepits" for private backyard smores making. If I extended an invitation to everyone in my neighborhood to join us, will a gov. regulation stop me? If I ask everyone to chip in 25 cents to cover costs, will gov. regs stop me? If I allow smokers and/or vapers to partake in our private party, will The Gov. intervene? If I allow them inside my home?

 

[AndriaD]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

And all these smoking bans are 2 wolves who've ALREADY BUTCHERED the lamb, deciding what to have for lunch!

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Still seeing need / perception of need for federal militia (or national armed force) as contrary to unalienable rights of individuals.

You truly haven't a clue. "That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers by the consent of the governed."

It is why gov'ts are formed - at least gov'ts that hold individual rights rather than collective rights as supreme.

National defense and the Justice system protect and uphold those rights against attack foreign or domestic, respectively. That's basically the only two legitimate functions of gov't at the federal level. Local and state police forces who feed the local, state and federal justice system, are the other legitimate function.

As far as how it relates to vaping and smoking in public... I was responding to Andria's comments regarding the founders' view on majorities, which then relates back to how majorities are allowed to trample the rights of minorities - smokers and vapers - iow, they shouldn't be able to do that given the founders' ideas and the Constitution. According to the founders, mob rule shouldn't happen.

The 'democratic part' (the word "democracy" never is mentioned in the Constitution) was about the fairest way to elect representatives. But... those representatives were not supposed to enact laws that violated rights by majority votes or otherwise. And other than the obvious exceptions, they didn't for about 120 years.

It is only when 'promote the general welfare' became 'provide for the general welfare' that "public good", along with public health became an 'issue' - problem (tip of the hat to bigdancehawk) - where the principles of individual rights were trumped by the utilitarian 'greatest good' - never any part of the founders original intent nor the Constitution. Even national defense was intended to protect individual rights, since only individuals have them, not 'society'. Society doesn't exist and doesn't have "rights". No group does, only individuals - by their nature as humans.

 

[Kent C]

And all these smoking bans are 2 wolves who've ALREADY BUTCHERED the lamb, deciding what to have for lunch!

Andria

Actually it's 51% wolves vs. 49% lambs. Or even 10% wolves and 41% sheep over 49% lambs

 

[Jman8]

Sure it does. If you define it in that manner that actually respects a private property owner's rights, then it's entirely up to the property owner whether smoking, vaping, fornicating, being armed, or whatever is required, optional, or prohibited on/in that property. The only "public" places where government gets to decide whether such things are allowed or not are those actually owned by the government.

So, in either 'place' it is up to property owner to determine property rights.

In original point on this tangent, it is about public space. IMO, there is a distinction to be made. I think it is very likely common sense in what that distinction is.

The space of really any area (indoors, outdoors, on the moon) that is shared and accessible to essentially anyone, would be the public space. It could still be on private property subject to those rules, in general. But I really do think that public space laws or even unwritten rules trumps whatever is the rules for the property. I'm sure there are exceptions, like everything with pretty much every rule (ever).

Surely a private property owner is not permitted to do things that are illegal on their property. Not sure if that needs to be said, but compelled to because to degree the point I am making is not common sense, then it probably needs to be stated that not anything goes on their property as if that is what their rights entail. But, in the way I think it is common sense, it could be a business that only caters to adults, is known for activities that are seedy, and is known to be place where local laws are not enforced much and STILL I think that there would be certain laws / unwritten rules that would trump whatever it is any single individual would think they could do in that moment, without consequence, including owner of the property. Though owner would likely get way more slack than just about anyone else in that space. Short of that, and in the places where 98% of the population goes, I think there are public space rules / etiquette that, in essence, trump private property rights. And has always been the case for as long as civilization has existed.

But has gotten worse under guise of "public health" propaganda / deception.

 

[Jman8]

National defense and the Justice system protect and uphold those rights against attack foreign or domestic, respectively.

In theory, perhaps, but not in practice based on the whole slippery slope thing. Akin to public health.

Snowden has revealed that quite unambiguously our national defense does not do the things you say they (only) do, and IMO it is because of this notion that whatever they do is for "public good" which is what public health is saying. When that is found out to be a lie, we pounce on it and lack trust in anything they might do again. Can you say the same about national defense?

 

[Katya]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" Ben Franklin

 

[Kent C]

In theory, perhaps, but not in practice based on the whole slippery slope thing.

Of course not now - that 'slippery slope' has been in force since around the progressive age and in full bloom during the New Deal and after. That wasn't what was intended or what went on for, again, around 120 years - and it wasn't just theory, it was in theory and practice - but during that period all the crap you say about public space would have been laughed at or fired upon those preaching it. Your comment to Rossum shows exactly what you didn't understand about vices and crimes. 'Seedy' isn't a crime.

But because the Constitution still exists and some judges exist that actually understand it as it was written - then certain cases, like those that uphold the 2nd amendment and strike down private use of public domain and a bunch of others can still set some things right.

So, in either 'place' it is up to property owner to determine property rights.

Again, a complete misunderstanding of rights (or words). Rights are inherent (or as Jefferson/Franklin said - inalienable - not to be 'determined'. Behavior may be 'determined' but not rights. "Property owner" means he who has rights regarding his property.