Local Smoking Ban

[Ziggurat]

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.

Bars seem to have done fine in California with the smoking ban in place. I don't think Toledo needs to worry much about that. I can understand that people would be apprehensive about such a major change, but this isn't some untested experiment that they're embarking on, they're joining a lot of other regions that have instituted smoking bans which have worked out fine.

 

[KelvinG]

Bars seem to have done fine in California with the smoking ban in place. I don't think Toledo needs to worry much about that. I can understand that people would be apprehensive about such a major change, but this isn't some untested experiment that they're embarking on, they're joining a lot of other regions that have instituted smoking bans which have worked out fine.

I have found up here in Vancouver that even most smokers don't have a problem with the ban on smoking.
Some have even said that the smoking areas outside the bar, or in a specially designated (and ventilated) smoking rooms within the bar, become whole new social areas of the bar where persons with a common interest (smoking) can congregate.

And believe it or not, most folks I've talked with (smokers and non) see a smoking ban as upholding rights of the individual, as opposed to oppressing them.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

And those restrictions are unconstitutional as well.

Hey, maybe you can bring that before the supreme court, I'm sure they'd love to find out they're all wrong about their interpretation. Maybe you could even start a campaign to try to get yourself nominated to the bench. Oh what a glorious country we'd have if only some supreme court judge was brave enough to rule that almost all government is unconstitutional! "Shanek for supreme court" shall be the rallying cry of oppressed libertarians everywhere!

 

[Tormac]

Bars seem to have done fine in California with the smoking ban in place. I don't think Toledo needs to worry much about that. I can understand that people would be apprehensive about such a major change, but this isn't some untested experiment that they're embarking on, they're joining a lot of other regions that have instituted smoking bans which have worked out fine.

There is a difference though. If the smoking ban is state wide, how far on average, does a smoker have to travel to find a smoking bar? In Toledo, it is a trip to the suburb of Maumee. I can understand smokers not bothering to drive an extra hour to find a smoking bar, but from what I have observed about the habits of smokers, most would drive an extra 15 minutes.

 

[shanek]

Hey, maybe you can bring that before the supreme court, I'm sure they'd love to find out they're all wrong about their interpretation.

When has the Supreme Court ever been presented with a Constitutional argument against smoking bans?

 

[Tormac]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet (reguarding my post comparing a smoking ban with a drinking ban)


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. [/QUOTE]

That both are illegal has certainly not eliminated either. It is illegal to use a handgun to rob someone, but the fact that people still use weapons to commit crimes have lead many to propose a total ban on handguns.

The "protection" that the law offers against drunk driving, or drunken violence, is certainly not absolute, and many would claim is rather minimal at best. Just as some one may claim that all the gun laws seem useless, since it is so easy for criminals to obtain handguns. I've heard that a total ban is the only thing that will actually offer any means of protection against gun violence.

I will have to do some looking to see if I can find some numbers on people who are injured or killed in situations directly attributable to alcohol vs estimates of death or injury is attributable to second hand smoke. As I said before though, while I am sure second hand smoke is not good for me, I think it will be difficult to prove with certainty that x cases of lung cancer are directly attributable to second hand smoke, while it is easier to show that x traffic fatalities were directly attributable to alcohol consumption. The fact that drunk driving, or assault, is already illegal offers little comfort to those who are victims of such crimes.

While I am not for the prohibition of either alcohol or tobacco products in establishments open to the public, the reasoning behind the smoking ban still seems to be easily applicable to alcohol consumption, at least in my opinion. But maybe I’m missing a subtle point of logic concerning the illegality of these things.

 

[Michael Redman]

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.

You missed a very important word here, Shanek: Federal. Nothing in the Federal Constitution gives the Federal government the power to restrict smoking (arguably). In this case, however, we're not talking about Federal activity, but state activity.

It may very well be unconstitutional for the Federal government to ban smoking in restaurants. These bans are completely consistant with the general police power possessed and excercised by sovereign states, however. Unless the ban violates the state constitution, it isn't unconstutional.

 

[shanek]

You missed a very important word here, Shanek: Federal. Nothing in the Federal Constitution gives the Federal government the power to restrict smoking (arguably). In this case, however, we're not talking about Federal activity, but state activity.

But Ziggurat specifically mentioned the Constitution as justification for it, when it just ain't there.

Unless the ban violates the state constitution, it isn't unconstutional.

That is correct, but irrelevant to the point Ziggurat was making. He wanted to know where the right to smoke was in the Constitution. I answered him.

 

[KelvinG]

When has the Supreme Court ever been presented with a Constitutional argument against smoking bans?

Well, I think that's why Ziggurat is suggesting that you take it to the Supreme Court!!

 

[Michael Redman]

He wanted to know where the right to smoke was in the Constitution. I answered him.

The right to smoke is not in the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not protect a right to smoke. There isn't a right to smoke. States can restrict smoking all they want, provided the restrictions are rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and their own constitutions do not protect smoking. The argument for unenumerated rights doesn't apply here, because we're talking about state action.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

That doesn't work, and you totally missed the point. The state does not permit employers to disregard safe working conditions by just warning employees that it's not safe. The employer-employee relationship is not one of equals, and the state does not treat it as such. And if working on a farm presents a hazard, you can bet your ass that the state can require employees to wear protective gear. And that's a central part of the issue too, to be effective the state must REQUIRE that workers wear protective gear, not just recommend it or require it to be available, otherwise some employers WILL abuse the situation and coerce employees to not request it. But requiring employees to wear protective gear (such as gas masks) is not an acceptable solution in restraunts and bars. Your complaints about smoking regulations amount to complaints about worker safety regulations in general, and those complaints are not supported by the courts.

 

[shanek]

The right to smoke is not in the Constitution.

It does not have to be in the Constitution to be a right of the people. The 9th Amendment makes that plain.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. (Attrayant)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if I'm in a boxing ring with you? (ShaneK)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about massively fallacious arguments. (Attrayant)

Actually, this is a rather neat analogy:

ShaneK is saying that by entering the ring, you have agreed to accept being struck in the nose. While in normal circumstances you would have a right to complain about being struck in the nose, your voluntary action of entering the ring waived that right for the duration of your fight.

Similarly, if you go into a restaurant after being informed that smoking is allowed, you are voluntarily allowing the metaphorical punch in the nose. You have chosen to place yourself in an area where smoking is allowed; you therefore have waived or at least lessened your right to complain.

It was a nice turn of phrase and a legitimate argument from his perspective.

NA

 

[Attrayant]

Yes I saw the attempted analogy, but it fails when looked at from a slightly different perspective. The whole point of getting into a boxing ring is to see who can punch the other guy in the nose first (and the most times, with the greatest force, etc.). Therefore I, should I step into a ring, should expect that this might happen. People do not go into public establishments with the express purpose of filling other people's lungs with smoke. Therefore, should I go into a restaurant, I should not expect to have my lungs filled with toxic smoke.

By passing this legislation via their legislatures, the people are asking for a boxing ring that they can step into where they can be sure that nobody is throwing punches. The analogy might have some validity if there were a huge chunk of the public crying out for boxing matches where no punches are being thrown.

 

[hgc]

I won't address the entire opening post, since it has been thoroughly covered already. Just one minor point...

... the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.

I always thought that restaurants and bars were designed for eating and drinking. If they had been designed for smoking, perhaps they would have been called smokatoriums, or something like that.

In NYC, we've had non-smoking in restaurants for a few years, and in bars for a few months, and boy is it ever nice to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. Way to go, Toledo.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes I saw the attempted analogy, but it fails when looked at from a slightly different perspective. The whole point of getting into a boxing ring is to see who can punch the other guy in the nose first (and the most times, with the greatest force, etc.). Therefore I, should I step into a ring, should expect that this might happen.

I don't see that as a serious flaw in the analogy -- as ShaneK is concentrating on the voluntary assumption of the risk in either case. I see your point, but I don't think any analogy will ever be 1 to 1.

NA

 

[shanek]

All I know is, here in NC, where you're unlikely to find any anti-smoking legislation (especially in rural areas), I have no trouble at all locating restaurants that at least have a non-smoking area or even ban smoking outright, no government needed.

 

[Ziggurat]

All I know is, here in NC, where you're unlikely to find any anti-smoking legislation (especially in rural areas), I have no trouble at all locating restaurants that at least have a non-smoking area or even ban smoking outright, no government needed.

Good for you. Here's a harder question: suppose you were a waiter. Would you have "no trouble at all" finding a job at a restraunt that banned smoking? If your employer switched from banning smokers to allowing smokers, how easy would it really be to just drop your job and find a new one? Remember: non-smoking areas are often no sufficient for those with high sensitivities and/or conditions like asthma. These bans aren't just about consumers, they're also about employees. I'm not saying NC should necessarily ban smoking, but California chose to, with good reason, and it's been quite effective in making life generally more pleasant.

 

[shanek]

Good for you. Here's a harder question: suppose you were a waiter. Would you have "no trouble at all" finding a job at a restraunt that banned smoking?

Nope. They're all over the place. Some of them have it as a policy, others lease restaurant space from owners who have it as a policy. It's a market decision. Those who ban smoking in their buildings have a greater pool of potential hirees to choose from.

 

[Silicon]

I live in LA, and I was GLAD they banned smoking in bars and restaurants, and really all workplaces.

BTW, there are cigar-smoking clubs where it's legal to puff away. The owner of the club is allowed to staff the smoking room himself, or any member.

But now I can go to any bar and not smell like an ashtray. I can eat in any restaurant and smell the food. Smokers sit outdoors or on the patio, if they want to smoke and eat at the same time. They don't starve.

I do hate that I can't sit outside and eat without breathing someone else's smoke, but it's a small price to pay.

Oh, before the ban? There weren't ANY NS Restaurants or bars. Never saw one in 20 years.

Smokers are the minority in LA. This minority shouldn't be able to ruin the air for the majority. I look at this as a personal rights issue.

My right to breathe tobacco-smoke free air, supercedes your right to blow it in my face. Sure, you have a right to smoke, but not to make me breathe smoke.

The incense analogy isn't complete. Sure, it would be a pain if someone lit up incense at the next table. That illustrates the person-to-person infringement.

But smoking isn't like that. Smoking is like millions of incense addicts, lighting up in every public space. Dozens of incense tables in every restaurant, and twice as many in every bar, all getting their fix.

And no restaurant owner or bar owner has the balls to make them stop, because they imagine an empty bar if they do.

Oh, and all the bars and restaurant owners whined and balled about how they'd be run out of business. Yeah right. Don't believe it. That was a cry of Wolf. We have more bars and restaurants now than we ever did. And you can smell the food, and enjoy the atmosphere. I started going to bars again.

Libertarians can bite me, or invent a smoke-free cigarette. I'm sick of "Radar-detector Libertarians" who think they should have rights but no responsibility. This isn't about personal choice, chew a pack of nicarette a day, I don't care.

But don't shove it down my throat at a restaurant.