Local Smoking Ban

[Silicon]

I did mean to say that I accept that the government has the power to enact this ban, not that the government has ANY bussiness (or "right") limiting the use of a legal substance in its traditional setting.

WOOOOHOOOOO!!! Time to throw out the liquor laws!!


HEY... time to throw out the laws enforcing safety at the gasoline pump! That IS the traditional setting of this legal substance, right?!!? Who cares if gas station attendents might get blowed up?!!? They should work somewhere else, and let the market decide!

 

[Michael Redman]

Maybe this would work better (although I doubt it) if we separated the question of:

1) whether local government can ban smoking in these establishments, consistent with our Constitution and other laws; from,

2) whether local government should ban smoking in these cases, consistent with how we want our society run.

As for the first point, the answer is clearly “Yes!” And the veracity of studies proving the harmful effect of smoke do not matter one bit. Local government can ban smoking altogether because they believe smoking is harmful, because they think it hurts public morals, because it detracts from the community esthetic, or a variety of other conceivable reasons. Local governments can also enact any restrictions on otherwise legal smoking that rationally relate to a legitimate governmental purpose, provided that they do not violate controlling law in doing so. (For example, banning smoking by Asians would violate the Equal Protection Clause.)

As for the second point, Shanek has a point about the right of people assembled in private to do pretty much whatever they want, but, on the other hand, we have decided as a society that places like bars and restaurants that open their doors to the general public also have to submit to restrictions designed to protect that public.

People who want to smoke while they eat and drink can always do so in a truly private context, such as at home, or in a private club not open to the public. The argument that patrons can leave if they don’t want to be exposed to smoke works both ways: Smokers can leave if they want to smoke.

I don't know where I come down on this matter myself. However, I see no individual right that outweights the right of the majority to make this decision, and I wouldn't have a problem with such a ban in my community, if the majority of the people really wanted it.

 

[Jagger]

I always thought the smoking ban was just another appeal to that puritan streak that runs down most Americans back.

There is nothing like the majority sacrificing the rights of the minority when you are doing it for the minorities own good. Of course, if there was a real sacrifice involved by the majority, the ban probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Smokers make up about 20-30 percent of the population dependent on locality. If you allowed businesses to follow the dollar, you would probably end up with a 70-30 split between those allowing smoking and non-smoking instead of the do-gooder 100 percent ban.

And I still can't understand the ban in bars. Drinking alcohol should naturally be associated with the equally healty habit of smoking.

 

[shanek]

That's just nonsensical.

No, it's not. People are NOT forced to work ANYWHERE. It is a VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT.

 

[shanek]

It is you who claimed that it is somehow protected by the Constitution.

No, I didn't! I said that he can't use the fact that smoking isn't listed as a right in the Constitution as justification for the law. Moreover, I've clarified that TWICE already!

And people wonder why I tend to fly off the handle here...

 

[shanek]

That's correct, if it's not a workplace.

If it IS a workplace, the government has the responsibility to protect workers.

Why? What is it magically about a workplace that all of a sudden makes it all right for the federal government to intrude into?

And don't give me this "safety of the workers" crap, because you already invalidated that when you responded to my above example.

 

[shanek]

But the links I posted showing agravation of asthma are conclusive,

That's fine, but that wasn't the claim I was responding to.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's not. People are NOT forced to work ANYWHERE. It is a VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT.

(Let's see if I can rile him)

Yes, working is completely voluntary. Why, thanks to the perfect welfare state you must therefore endorse, none need ever worry about becoming homeless because of unemployment! Just think, Shanek has finally solved the ultimate libertarian paradox, and provided freedom to NOT work through the welfare state that libertarians once viewed as anathema. You're brilliant, Shanek! For an encore, would you like to get into a hitchhiker's-guide argument with a zebra?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why? What is it magically about a workplace that all of a sudden makes it all right for the federal government to intrude into?

Why don't you bring that question up with the government? They're really the ones you seem to have a beaf with. Here's a hint, though: workplaces involve commerce.

 

[Silicon]

Why? What is it magically about a workplace that all of a sudden makes it all right for the federal government to intrude into?

Okay, for the umpteenth time, this isn't the FEDERAL government we're talking about.

And it's not magical.

Government can pass worker protection laws.

Government SHOULD pass worker protection laws.

Government should enforce worker protection laws.

And don't give me this "safety of the workers" crap, because you already invalidated that when you responded to my above example.

Safety of the workers.

If you are the owner of a cigar bar, and the only worker in the cigar smoking area, you can do whatever you like. Hire a worker, and the government requires you provide certain safety for that person.

 

[Thanz]

No, I didn't! I said that he can't use the fact that smoking isn't listed as a right in the Constitution as justification for the law. Moreover, I've clarified that TWICE already!

And people wonder why I tend to fly off the handle here...

What you said was:

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to restrict smoking, so they just plain can't do it.

1. These have nothing to do with State enacted smoking bans.

2. He was not using the fact that smoking isn't listed as a right to justify the law; he was using that fact to distinguish it from the Patriot Act, which another post tried to posit as analogous to the smoking ban.

 

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Silicon (in reaction to my post about smoking being a legal substance and bars being a traditional setting for smoking)



WOOOOHOOOOO!!! Time to throw out the liquor laws!!


HEY... time to throw out the laws enforcing safety at the gasoline pump! That IS the traditional setting of this legal substance, right?!!? Who cares if gas station attendents might get blowed up?!!? They should work somewhere else, and let the market decide!

Well I think that is an over reaction to what I said. I am not ready to get rid of all laws regulating the use of tobacco, nor alcohol. I do feel that a ban on smoking in privately owned businesses that are open to the public is unreasonable though.

 

[VicDaring]

If it is accepted that smoke contains a number of carcinogens and is responsible for causing cancer, which I think it generally is, then is it unreasonable to ban employers from exposing employees to it in the workplace? How is this different from banning exposure to, say, radiation or asbestos?

What's accepted, Jaggy, is that direct inhallation causes heart disease, cancer, etc.

What's not been proven is that the wisp of dissapated smoke from the end of my cigarette is harmful in any meaningful way.

Now, I want to be clear here. I'm completely open to the idea that it might actually prove to be harmful. It's smoke! But rather than prove it honestly, the anti-smoking crowd creates hysteria and then tells private business owners that their customers are not allowed to engage in a legal activity. That's a problem.

Show me the honest proof that I'm killin' cocktail waitresses, and I may change my tune. Although even then, their oughtta be some way to set up a smoking-allowed establishment and keep everyone happy (like one smoking liquor license for every five non-smoking license or something).

 

[Silicon]

But rather than prove it honestly, the anti-smoking crowd creates hysteria and then tells private business owners that their customers are not allowed to engage in a legal activity. That's a problem.

So, the New England Journal of Medicine study is dishonestly creating hysteria?


By "not harmful in any meaningful way", haven't you been reading the conclusions of the studies we've been posting? Hundreds of studies spanning the past 20 years. Cancer, asthma, asthma-related pulminary failure... all that sounds pretty meaningful to me.



Why do you ignore our posts with the medical data?

Can you find a conclusion written by any respected medical organization that says there is no evidence for any health detriment to environmental tobacco smoke in non-smokers?

You'll point to one or two studies that proved inconclusive. Put those aside.

Find me a respected body of medical professionals that look at ALL the evidence of all the studies, and say there is no evidence for ETS health risks.

Can you find ONE?!?

(Like, one not by the Phillip Morris Center on Medicine.)

Because I can (and HAVE) posted the converse. And I can post plenty more. Like The American Medical Association, The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, The World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society... shall I go on?

If there really is controversy over the existence of any health problems attributable to ETS, there surely would be medical groups coming out saying no threat has been proven.


If it REALLY is a controversy, where's the reputable opposition?

What medical organization (not pro-tobacco advocacy group) says the jury's still out on this one?

 

[Silicon]

Wait,

I'll even go you one better.


Name ONE reputable medical organization (again, not a pro-tobacco advocacy group) who has NOT come out against second-hand smoke.

If the jury's still out, some group must still be sitting on the fence on this one!

 

[nightwind]

Smoking

Well, pretty much a no brainer here. Smoking and second hand smoke have been proven to be extremely harmful. And it is very difficult to control smoke once you have put it into the air.

It has certainly, in our town at least, made dining out a much more pleasant experience, although the last time I ate out, I listened to my friend whine and whine and whine because he could not smoke. Sheesh.

If this was not a health issue, then I would certainly think it was intrusive on others rights to not to be able to smoke, and this still bothers me a some. I can certainly also see this side of it.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

What's accepted, Jaggy, is that direct inhallation causes heart disease, cancer, etc.

What's not been proven is that the wisp of dissapated smoke from the end of my cigarette is harmful in any meaningful way.

Now, I want to be clear here. I'm completely open to the idea that it might actually prove to be harmful. It's smoke! But rather than prove it honestly, the anti-smoking crowd creates hysteria and then tells private business owners that their customers are not allowed to engage in a legal activity. That's a problem.

Show me the honest proof that I'm killin' cocktail waitresses, and I may change my tune. Although even then, their oughtta be some way to set up a smoking-allowed establishment and keep everyone happy (like one smoking liquor license for every five non-smoking license or something).

We have a known carcinogenic substance (smoke). It is known to have adverse health consequences if inhaled. Why is it unreasonable to require employers to protect their employees from inhaling it at their place of work?

 

[shanek]

We have a known carcinogenic substance (smoke). It is known to have adverse health consequences if inhaled. Why is it unreasonable to require employers to protect their employees from inhaling it at their place of work?

Ever heard of a little thing called "freedom"?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Ever heard of a little thing called "freedom"?

I assume then you would have no objection to employees working in premises with nuclear waste/asbestos etc without any protective equipment? After all, the employee must be "free" to do so.

 

[VicDaring]

From Silicon

Find me a respected body of medical professionals that look at ALL the evidence of all the studies, and say there is no evidence for ETS health risks.

Okay, how about This one *warning...pdf document*

From a UCLA professor and SUNY prof., published in the British Medical Journal in May. Using data from the American Cancer Society.

The study's conclusoin: The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between the exposure to ETS and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Even Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, noted anti-smoking crusader, has publicly acknowleged the validity of the study.
NY Post Article

As far the studies you posted are concerned:

Well, one was a study on children. Since children don't belong in bars...

The other was a study of people with asthma. Those people should know enough to avoid situations that might cause them harm. That's their responsibility. Not mine.

from Jaggy

Why is it unreasonable to require employers to protect their employees from inhaling it at their place of work?

As long as the emlpoyer is up front with any potential hires, and tells them that they will be working around ETS, then the worker can make their own decision whether or not to work there.