The New York case though does not come near this because clearly the means initiated by the government are just and proper. The end or overall utility is not only to prevent non-smokers from the ill effects of second hand smoke but lessen the smoking of smokers. Overall, the end result sees a healthier population and between the rights of the smokers and their health and well-being, the goodness

Some states like New York and California have banned smoking in bars and restaurants and in outdoor public places such as parks (Harris, 2012). That also makes a lot of sense because when customers sit next to smokers, they have no choice but to inhale their smoke. Various smokers' rights groups have objected to these types of bans and complained that their rights are being interfered with (Harris, 2012). It

Smoking Ban Tobacco smoke should certainly be considered a toxic chemical, and its risks to human health have been well-known for decades. Any reasonable person -- or indeed anyone who is even slightly familiar with the medical and scientific evidence -- would certainly know this today. Forty years ago, the federal government banned tobacco advertising from radio and television and put warning labels on tobacco products, while class action lawsuits have

And many people believe that in the long run, people will get used to dining without smoking, just as they did with flying on airlines without being allowed to light up (Frumkin pp). But not all New York restaurateurs are happy with the law, such as the owner of the Cellar Bar in Larchmont, New York and manager of the Willett House in Port Chester, New York, who claims of

It is the equivalent of banning air traffic to protect the hearing of people who choose to live next to airports. Modern urban society is associated with many risks and compromises not required of those who choose to live in more suburban communities. Environmentalists tell us that breathing smog is damaging to our lungs, which is a valid reason to exercise the freedom of choice not to live in a

Refutation of Counterargument: James Repace, is a former senior science policy analyst who worked at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) for 19 years and as a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory for 11 years. According to Repace, OSHA first proposed regulating secondhand smoke as a workplace hazard after determining that it caused as many as 14,000 worker deaths annually, far surpassing any other toxic