Local Smoking Ban

[DavidJames]

[brief hijack]
"Im still trying to figure out why some people support a smoking ban, but oppose the Patriot act. "

I'm still trying to figure out why you have repeatedly ignored the questions gnome and I have asked in this tread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870063597#post1870063597

[/brief hijack]

 

[Tony]

The Patriot act can be used to deprive citizens of constitutional rights.

Like what?

Are you saying that government invasion of privacy (which the smoking ban is) is constitutional? I thought that was the main beef with the Patriot Act.

And I disagree; the two are fundamentally the same. Both are prime examples of the government trampling our rights for our "safety".

 

[shanek]

Smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right, and nothing in the constitution protects your ability to smoke.

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.

 

[calladus]

The big city outside Blackswamp (Toledo, OH) has enacted a local smoking ban on public restaurants and bars over a particular size.

I do not smoke, and actively encourage friends to quit, but this smoking ban seems ill conceived and intrusive. A "goody goody ism" the part of local government IMHO, that is a slip down that hypothetical slope. I've been ranting about this, but have had some good counter arguments presented to me from friends who are in favor of it.

I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.

2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves. I do not think local government has the right to limit the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.

3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies. Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people. The consumption of unhealthy foods leads to an increased economic burden on society with increase health care costs.

Others around me have pointed out
1) Parents of small children do not feel comfortable bringing them into restaurants that allow smoking.

2) Workers and owners will not have to be in a potentially hazardous smoke filled environment.

3) People who do not appreciate tobacco smoke will not be unconvinced by it.

My gut is sure that I'm right, and my friends that are for the ban are crazy do gooders on this issue, but I have been proved wrong before. I was curious what others here thought of the idea of a local smoking ban in general, and a critique of arguments for or against such a ban. Is it a means of protecting the public's health? Is it a case of intrusive government? Is it a case of the majority (non smokers) abusing the rights of a minority (non smokers)?

You should see California, where smokers barely have the right to smoke outside or in their own homes. Restaurants never ask, "Smoking or Nonsmoking?"

As a nonsmoker, I find this pretty enjoyable, and don't even consider what possible difficulties smokers have.

Whenever I leave the state, I get a shock when I walk into a restaurant and get the smoking question. And when I'm in such an establishment, I can always detect the odor of smoke, even from the nonsmoking section.

I know it's selfish of me to be happy in other's misfortune - but I can't help this. I'm very allergic to cigarette smoke - so California is the place to be.

Except for smog, crime, and the occasional earth quake or three.

 

[Zep]

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.

Then they also can't force you to get a driving license, or drive on the right side of the road, or give way at Stop signs, or drive sober, or... Need I go on?

There are various "rules" that society chooses to live by, over and above those freedoms and limitations granted by the constitution of the state. These are basically to allow people to get along with and live with each other in the expectation that they can indeed pursue life, liberty and happiness at a personal level. That these rules vary from one part of society to another is of concern to them, but not necessarily the state as a whole. So trying to pass the buck for local "smoking bans" onto some nebulous "they in the government" (plus nasty advectives) isn't supporting your arguments rationally at all.

Like I'm sure there are a bunch of federal public servants in Washington who said, "Let's piss off the right-wingers in California and bring in a smoking ban there, but we'll leave Toldeo until later."

Counter example to the main argument: Who would permit smoking in hospitals? Explain your reasons for your answer.

 

[Bjorn]

This is not quite an accurate representation of the real world. Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses don't want to be labeled as such, and will claim that all are welcome. But clearly the general atmosphere will be unfriendly and unacommodating if you are not the preferred type of customer. Same goes for smokey bars. All customers are welcome, but it's a hostile environment for many non-smoking people who don't have a choice to go elsewhere.

But they do!

A "smokers only/friendly" bar is a good idea. I believe they would be in the extreme minority if they were to start opening up. Of course we won't know this until they have some reason to start opening up. The way things are now, all bars are smoker friendly unless there is legi

Given the choice, allowing smoking (in general or in certain areas) is preferred by a great majoriy of the bar-owners (or you wouldn't have anything to complain about in the first place).

If and when the new laws are a fact, I would have a million ($) reasons to start a smoking-friendly bar. The problem is that the laws prevent me from doing so - if I start a bar, it has to be smoke-free, whatever smokey name I give it.

It is, I believe, no law preventing me from opening a private, open-to-the-public library that allows readers to smoke ... but the moment I offer them a brandy, it is.

I said that I was able to find clean air to breathe by taking evasive manuvers. This is easy to do walking down the street, but next to impossible to do in a smoke-filled nightclub.

And I was in fact going to support the smoking-ban on the street - for the reason that you can't (in general) decide if you want to walk the street or not, but you can decide if you want to go to my bar.

By that reasoning, I need to keep my stomach out of your restaurant if I don't want to eat e-coli tainted meat or hair in my salads. That way we won't need legislation requiring proper food handling proceedures and hairnets.

And guess what? If somebody started a e-coli friendly restaurant ("Eat and Run" would be an appropriate name, I think) and advertised it as such, you couldn't complain if you still went there and got sick.

But if anyone wants to go there - let them.

On a side note - there is a strong correlation between being a smoker and being a drinker. The reasons seem to be in the way our brains cells react to the two drugs - one who likes one of them tends to like the other and they enhance each other. (and there might be something in the phrase 'addictive personalities').

Ask AA or similar about the percentage of smokers there compared to the standard population.

If I had money and it was legal, I would open a smoker-friendly bar here in SD right now and laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[Bjorn]

The reason this argument doesn't work on a legal level is because of employees. Yes, you're right, customers are completely free to patronize whatever establishments cater to their desires. But workers looking for employment don't have so much liberty, and the courts (at least in California) have recognized this. As a prospective employee, being asthetically disgusted by men kissing isn't comparable to being physically nauseated by second hand smoke. Strong libertarians may not agree with these sort of equal-opportunity employment laws, but that's still the way things stand in much of the US.

But I covered that already:

We make it clear to possible employees that it doesn't matter if they smoke or not, but they have to accept that they will be inhaling (first hand or second hand) cigarette smoke if they are to be employed in our private enterprise

Much like working on a farm, where you have to accept the smell of a few nasty things, maybe even being physically nauseated by it - or don't apply for the job in the first place?

 

[Attrayant]

Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors.

If it's a legal activity, it does

No it does not. As I have already said, otherwise legal activities are either forbidden or tightly regulated when it comes to business and public safety. How do you feel about the smoking ban in airplanes? Elevators?

Please identify the "massively fallacious argument". Your argument seems to be that free market principles should be allowed to decide that smoking establishments should be run out of business (because patrons would flock to clean air establishments our of preference). I submit that that is the fallacious argument. Smokers are the minority. If free market theory works like it should, there should be smoke-free bars/clubs/restaurants sprouting up like mushrooms all over the place. They should be the rule and not the exception. Why do you suppose this is not the case? Because free market theory does not work in this case. No bar or club owner wants to be the first to go smoke free. They'd lose smokers and probably not pick up enough non-smokers to break even. That's why a blanket ban makes better sense. It puts all businesses at the same "disadvantage", which (as they have discovered in LA and other places) turns out not to be a disadvantage at all.

Picture it the other way around. Every bar, club & restaurant is smoke-free. Now imagine some smokers want a bar or club where they can legally light up inside. Free market theory tell us that a bar owner can decide to allow smoking in his establishment and let the public decide whether or not it's a good thing. But, as I have said, a business owner would be cutting his throat by doing such a thing. He would surely lose business as most of his patrons flocked to the other smoke-free bars. What would be the fair thing to do? Enact legislation requiring all businesses to permit smoking (or set up smoking areas) so that no single business owner has to take the risk of being the first to take a hit in the pocket book.

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Even if I'm in a boxing ring with you?

Talk about massively fallacious arguments.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

They can. Whether or not they should is a separate question, but it's got nothing to do with the government's ability to do so. Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever. And the right to outlaw these has held up in court quite well. That's not a question of how things should be, it's a simple statement of how they are. Any attempt to argue otherwise in an exercise in self-delusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Like what?

Are you saying that government invasion of privacy (which the smoking ban is) is constitutional?

Smoking bans are fundamentally no different than outlawing drugs like cocaine. And those have held up quite well. The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution, and courts have leeway in determining how far that right should extend. Since it doesn't extend to smoking marijuana, for example, there are no constitutional grounds for why it must be extended to tobacco. As I said to Shanek, this is a simple statement of how things are.

I thought that was the main beef with the Patriot Act.

Many people find that objectionable, but no, that's not really the main objection. Bigger problems come from things like unconstitutional search and seizure, being able to detain suspects without giving them access to attorneys or speedy trials, etc.

And I disagree; the two are fundamentally the same. Both are prime examples of the government trampling our rights for our "safety".

On a fundamental level, this objection is not held up by society at large. Much of government consists of limits on your rights to protect society. Speed limits are equivalent on this level. Society as a whole is in favor of restricting freedoms for safety, the only question is where exactly to strike tha balance. You may not like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

 

[shanek]

Then they also can't force you to get a driving license, or drive on the right side of the road, or give way at Stop signs, or drive sober,

No, they can't. And you can do all of these things on private roads if you want to. Those things you mentioned are conditions of using government-owned roads.

But we aren't talking about government-owned bars and restaurants. We're talking privately owned businesses here.

 

[shanek]

Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever.

And those restrictions are unconstitutional as well.

 

[Bjorn]

Picture it the other way around. Every bar, club & restaurant is smoke-free. Now imagine some smokers want a bar or club where they can legally light up inside. Free market theory tell us that a bar owner can decide to allow smoking in his establishment and let the public decide whether or not it's a good thing. But, as I have said, a business owner would be cutting his throat by doing such a thing. He would surely lose business as most of his patrons flocked to the other smoke-free bars. What would be the fair thing to do? Enact legislation requiring all businesses to permit smoking (or set up smoking areas) so that no single business owner has to take the risk of being the first to take a hit in the pocket book.

Here in San Diego, smoking is prohibited in all bars and restaurants, just as in your example. How come, then, that it is prohibited to open such a smoker-friendly bar? My money, my risk ...

 

[Tormac]

Unfortunately (IMHO) I've yet to hear of any meaningful legal challenge to these types of smoking bans, so they are here to stay. Local governments seem to be able to get away with it.

While I am not a smoker personally, and would prefer to have smoke free bars and restaurants, I defiantly do not think that any local government should be able to limit the use of a legal product in its traditional setting. If a bar owner wants to have a no smoking policy, then that is fine. No smoking plus a good Rob Roy, and that bar would have my business. But the notion that the local government is going to make the decision makes me uneasy. The fact that smoke free bars just plain do not exist (at least to my knowledge in the general Toledo area) makes me suspect that they are not economically viable.

I am seriously worried when ever a government tried to implement these kind of good intensions. I know that there is still some controversy over second hand smoke being dangerous. I am sure it is not good for me, and am willing to say it is most likely dangerous.

Even if second hand smoke is rather dangerous, does that give a government the right to drastically prohibit its use? I've not seen any solid studies that compare the number of fatalities of non drinkers that are attributable to alcohol (i.e. drunk driving accidents, or drunken fights) but I seriously suspect that it is much easier to link death and injury to non users of alcohol [to the use of alcohol], than it is to non tobacco users via second hand smoke. Does it not follow then that the consumption of alcohol in public places should also be banned? Then there would be no more drunks driving home from the bar, not more violent drunken bar brawls. It seems like a logical continuation of the smoking bans to ban alcohol in public places next.

edited since one sentence did nto make much sense.

 

[Bjorn]

Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever. And the right to outlaw these has held up in court quite well.

Smoking marijuana is illegal in the US, like it or not.

Smoking cigarettes is legal. But someone prohibits me from having a bar where smoking people can smoke and drink at the same time.

It must be the only activity that is specifically prohibited in a bar and not many other privately owned places (yep, I know about the non-smoking airplanes and support the rules, but they are not there by law but because the airlines introduced them on their own. I can still start my 'Smoke is in the Air' airline if I want to).

 

[Tony]

As I said to Shanek, this is a simple statement of how things are.

You may not like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

Thanks for the reasoned response, and I know thats how things are, which is why I have zero respect for the law and those who enforce it.

But im arguing for how the way things should be, ya know, a liberal society in which individual rights and freedom are respected.

 

[Tormac]

Ziggurat suggested that

Smoking bans are fundamentally no different than outlawing drugs like cocaine. And those have held up quite well. The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution, and courts have leeway in determining how far that right should extend. Since it doesn't extend to smoking marijuana, for example, there are no constitutional grounds for why it must be extended to tobacco. As I said to Shanek, this is a simple statement of how things are.

Well others have pointed out that tobacco is legal, while Mary-Jane is not. I agree with you Ziggurat, that this is the ways things seem to be here in the states. I would suggest though that it is not how things should be. Maybe I am longing for an idealized sense of freedom <shrugs>.

I can see how it is a matter of degree between tobacco and marijuana, and a matter of degree between marijuana and coke. But if one takes that degree another step, the use of bratwurst, chocolate, cheeseburgers, and sandwich cookies are also not protected. Does the extra pollution generated by an SUV compared to a smaller car justify banning the SUV? The only reason that any right is "protected" is because enough people are willing to put up a fuss over its loss. That a government "can" do something is guaranteed to the point were it has the man-power and fire-power to impose its will over the populace. As you pointed out earlier Ziggurat, the question between what a government can do and what it should do are two very different things. How ever, quite often, even in western style democracies, governments have shown them selves willing to do what they “can” do, and use lies and manipulation to cover up the question about what it should do.

The whole smoking ban in Toledo may be a little thing, not worth getting too worked up over. However letting a local government get away with little abuses of power will only encourage greater abuses and abuses of power at higher levels of government.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Even if second hand smoke is rather dangerous, does that give a government the right to drastically prohibit its use? I've not seen any solid studies that compare the number of fatalities of non drinkers that are attributable to alcohol (i.e. drunk driving accidents, or drunken fights) but I seriously suspect that it is much easier to link death and injury to non users of alcohol [to the use of alcohol], than it is to non tobacco users via second hand smoke. Does it not follow then that the consumption of alcohol in public places should also be banned? Then there would be no more drunks driving home from the bar, not more violent drunken bar brawls. It seems like a logical continuation of the smoking bans to ban alcohol in public places next.

The comparison with alcohol is, in my opinion, false. Can you give one example of how someone consuming alcohol causes damage to another person, and here is the important bit, without that person breaking the law? The examples you give above of damage (drunks driving and bar brawls) would both involve illegal acts and therefore the law exists (whether it is effective or not) to protect you.

If you accept that second hand smoke damages your health (which is a separate argument), then the difference is that your health can be affected by someone else without having any protection as they are not doing anything illegal.

 

[Attrayant]

How come, then, that it is prohibited to open such a smoker-friendly bar?

If there is such a prohibition, I strongly disagree with it.

 

[Bjorn]

If there is such a prohibition, I strongly disagree with it.

Thank you.

However, such is the situation here in California. I cannot cater to the smokers' need for a place to smoke and drink.