Local Smoking Ban

[Michael Redman]

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

Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant. The 9th Amendment creates no rights, it just protects rights that do exist. No court has ever recognized a right to smoke. The Constitution therefore does not prevent the state from regulating smoking.

 

[Bjorn]

Silicon,

Since the laws are the same, imagine I lived in LA.

I am a non-smoker, but I see the business potential and I want to open my Smoker's Bar. I would be the only one working there - it is a small bar and I don't cook. No employees rights to a non-smoking environment are threatened.

There is a sign outside, warning people that this is a rather smoke-filled environment, come in only if you like it.

I have no intentions of blowing smoke in your face - you have thousands of non-smoking joints to visit for your drinks. But not my place.

Now you keep the law, as it is, for restaurants in general. But should I be prohibited from opening my little get-away? Why?

 

[Silicon]

It's a market decision. Those who ban smoking in their buildings have a greater pool of potential hirees to choose from.

HA!!!! Oh that's rich.

Waiting and being a bus-boy isn't exactly skilled labor that's hard to recruit!

In case you haven't noticed, it's not exactly a worker's market in jobs right now!

The market will decide?!!? MAN!

Restaurant owner: "GEE, I really want to recruit the best and the brightest table-washers for my restaurant. I think that a lot of the marginally-literate are worried about lung cancer, though. Waitasecond, I have an idea! I can ban smoking! Then the best dish-stackers and napkin-folders in the nation would come to work here! Then I can offer free health-care and a bonus plan and stock options!"


(Apologies to folks in the restaurant industry, whom I've undoubtedly offended greatly. I promise I'll tip better from now on.)

 

[Silicon]

Silicon,

...
Now you keep the law, as it is, for restaurants in general. But should I be prohibited from opening my little get-away? Why?

Under LA ordinance, I think you are perfectly allowed to run your bar. As long as you don't have employees.

That's the way the cigar clubs work, AFAIK.

I'm actually for clubs or getaways like this.

As it was, I had no choice in the matter. If I went to any bar, there'd be smoke. Any restaurant, there'd be smoke.

Sure, it'd START from the Smoking section. ;-)

 

[Bjorn]

Someone just informed me of this part of the New York smoking regulations:

The new smoking law allows “separate smoking rooms” only for patients of residential health care facilities and facilities providing day treatment programs, and for bars.

These separate smoking rooms must be enclosed rooms for the exclusive purpose of smoking, in which no business transactions (including vending machines or other food service) is conducted. They are subject to specific restrictions regarding their construction, size and ventilation and must comply with all applicable fire and building code requirements. Separate smoking rooms will not be permitted in bars after January 2,2006.

In other words, from January 2006 health care facilities can continue to provide smoking rooms but bars can not.

Note also how they cleverly prohibited vending machines in the smoking rooms - if they want to smoke, they don't deserve a Coke!

 

[Tormac]

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

Well this is I think were I disagree hgc. When I think of a bar, one of the common activities that immediately come to my mind is smoking. Heck, I even learned how to smoke just so I could use it as an excuse to strike up a conversation with women in said bars, by trying to bum a cigarette or light from her. I am still not convinced that it is the business of government to limit a legal activity in its traditional setting. People have smoked in bars and restaurants for as long as I can remember. It is a traditional activity in this setting.

I can sympathize with the notion that a non-smoking bar would be preferable. In my opinion it would be. That being said, I do not see why government should limit this. If people want to have a bar that allows smoking, I still feel they should. I have several favorite bars that I know are full of smoke. if I want to go to Rusty's to listen to the live jazz, I am prepared to come out smelling like smoke. That’s life. If cigarettes are not enough of a public health hazard to warrant making them illegal, I do not see that the gradualism of making it impossible to smoke in a private business open to the public is warranted.

I do not allow people to smoke inside my car, even though it is a convertible. I do not see why privately owned bars can not make the same decision. Again I hold that it should be the decision of the owner of a private establishment as to what kind of client they want to cater to.

I know that there are a lot of non smokers that see this as a progressive law that makes life cleaner. But I have to ask, if non-smoking bars and restaurants are so much nicer, why are they not popular without the law?

What if there was some kind of compromise position, say a "cigarette license" similar to a local liquor license? What if only a limited number of bars could obtain this license, and had to pay a hefty fee to get it, thus ensuring that most restaurants and bars were smoke free, but some were not. Would this be an acceptable compromise for those who see local smoking bans as a good thing?

 

[shanek]

Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant.

Tell that to Ziggurat. He's the one that brought it up.

No one is saying anything about the Constitution prohibiting the states from anything. But Ziggurat tried to support his assertion with the fact that there was no right to smoke in the Constitution, which is a red herring at best, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution.

 

[shanek]

Under LA ordinance, I think you are perfectly allowed to run your bar. As long as you don't have employees.

So, if he decides he needs help, even if he finds someone who doesn't mind at all working around smokers and may even smoke himself, he shouldn't be allowed to do it? Why not?

As it was, I had no choice in the matter.

Stop whining; you did so. Take some farking responsibility for your actions. YOU went in there of your OWN FREE WILL.

 

[Tony]

Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant. The 9th Amendment creates no rights, it just protects rights that do exist.

Tell that to the anti-gun nazis.

 

[Ziggurat]

I do not allow people to smoke inside my car, even though it is a convertible. I do not see why privately owned bars can not make the same decision. Again I hold that it should be the decision of the owner of a private establishment as to what kind of client they want to cater to.

As I KEEP saying, it's not simply a matter of what kind of client you wish to cater to, it's also a matter of what kind of employee you wish to cater to. Like it or not, the government has decided that employers don't have arbitrary say in that matter, and the courts have backed them up.

What if there was some kind of compromise position, say a "cigarette license" similar to a local liquor license? What if only a limited number of bars could obtain this license, and had to pay a hefty fee to get it, thus ensuring that most restaurants and bars were smoke free, but some were not. Would this be an acceptable compromise for those who see local smoking bans as a good thing?

It doesn't get you out of the problem of what to do with employees who want to work in a smoke-free environment.

 

[Ziggurat]

No one is saying anything about the Constitution prohibiting the states from anything. But Ziggurat tried to support his assertion with the fact that there was no right to smoke in the Constitution, which is a red herring at best, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution.

The supreme court obviously disagrees with you. And it's their opinion, not yours, which dictates the law of the land. Until you get a seat on that bench (or any judicial bench), I suggest you start realizing that your opinion on constitutionality really doesn't matter.

Welcome to reality, Shanek. You should hang out here more often.

 

[Silicon]

So, if he decides he needs help, even if he finds someone who doesn't mind at all working around smokers and may even smoke himself, he shouldn't be allowed to do it? Why not?

Because it would make taking up smoking a condition of employment.

Or it would at least make taking up second-hand-smoking a condition of employment.

Again, there are tons of things that are against the employment laws, even though both parties may agree to them. We don't let anyone agree to pay for work, for example. Pissed off the actors who were kicking back money to casting directors for access to "casting classes". Really pissed off the casting directors who were taking the money! But it was ruled illegal, as is paying anyone to give you a job.


The State of California has ruled Secondhand Cigarette Smoke a carcinogen, so they regulate it as such.

Stop whining; you did so. Take some farking responsibility for your actions. YOU went in there of your OWN FREE WILL.

If this was about personal responsibility, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Smokers would have taken responsibility for second-hand smoke, and wouldn't smoke indoors in public places.

No law would be required.

They know the smoke is deadly, and they continue to smoke. But they argue that it can't possibly be deadly to blow it at other people.

For me to have free will in going to a smoking restaurant, there had to be a choice. There WERE no non-smoking restaurants. Not in LA 10 years ago. (maybe 1 hippy tofu restaurant on the west side. But none that I remember).

No choice, so no way the "marketplace" could decide. Plus, all the bars got MAJOR kickbacks from the Tobacco industry. Free cigarettes they could sell at a premium, etc... All in the name of "free-choice" and "individual rights". How can the "Marketplace" compete with product dumping and kickbacks? Pockets lined by the tobacco industry allied with the bars against this law.

If it was about personal responsibility, the Smokers should have taken it. It's been too long. The majority will excercize it's power now. We take back the air from the minority who hold it hostage.

Smokers, we've have had it with your individual "freedoms" that make us smell like your cigarette butts.

If you have a right to smoke around me, then I have a right to splash you with something that makes you smell just as bad. I have baby diapers, and I'm not afraid to use them!

 

[shanek]

Tell that to the anti-gun nazis.

I have.

 

[shanek]

The supreme court obviously disagrees with you.

Give one reference to the US Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of smoking bans. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

 

[shanek]

Because it would make taking up smoking a condition of employment.

Or it would at least make taking up second-hand-smoking a condition of employment.

But he doesn't mind that! So how is it justified?

Again, there are tons of things that are against the employment laws, even though both parties may agree to them. We don't let anyone agree to pay for work, for example. Pissed off the actors who were kicking back money to casting directors for access to "casting classes". Really pissed off the casting directors who were taking the money! But it was ruled illegal, as is paying anyone to give you a job.

Irrelevant. Why do you people constantly think it makes sense to justify the illegality of something by the mere fact that it's illegal? And that other, similar things are illegal? Can these laws not stand up under scrutiny on their own?

If this was about personal responsibility, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Smokers would have taken responsibility for second-hand smoke, and wouldn't smoke indoors in public places.

That's just completely bogus! If the nonsmokers had taken responsibility for the fact that they VOLUNTARILY went into a place where people were smoking, then we wouldn't be having this conversation!

This is really about YOU forcing others because YOU don't want to be responsible!

For me to have free will in going to a smoking restaurant, there had to be a choice.

There was. As with any private establishment, you can either abide by the rules the property owner wishes to impose, or you can decide not to patronize his business. If he requires shirt and shoes, you gotta wear shirt and shoes. If he requires a tie, you gotta wear a tie. And if he allows smoking, you don't have any right to force him to do otherwise.

There WERE no non-smoking restaurants. Not in LA 10 years ago.

Support this. Somehow, I find this very hard to believe. Not ONE restaurant restricted smoking? When here, in the HEART OF TOBACCO LAND, most of them were? Come on!

Plus, all the bars got MAJOR kickbacks from the Tobacco industry.

Ah. Conspiracy theories again. Amazing how they didn't do that here in tobacco country either...

If it was about personal responsibility, the Smokers should have taken it.

Why do many non-smokers feel their exempt from their personal responsibility? Why do YOU feel that YOU get to tell others how to run their businesses and their lives?

It's been too long. The majority will excercize it's power now.

Yeah, like the majority did when the majority imposed slavery...

Smokers, we've have had it with your individual "freedoms" that make us smell like your cigarette butts.

NO ONE is making you smell anything! YOU take responsibility for YOUR actions, you hypocrite!

 

[VicDaring]

They know the smoke is deadly, and they continue to smoke. But they argue that it can't possibly be deadly to blow it at other people.

No they (we) don't. The argument is simply PROVE the harmful effects. Without fudging the numbers. Just once. Surely that's not too much to ask on this forum.

Smokers, we've have had it with your individual "freedoms" that make us smell like your cigarette butts.

If you have a right to smoke around me, then I have a right to splash you with something that makes you smell just as bad. I have baby diapers, and I'm not afraid to use them!

And this is, of course, what the whole debate is about. Non-smokers find smoke annoying. Well you know what? There are all kinds of things I find annoying in bars, restaurants, and other public places.

Such as:
Certain music genres
Karaoke
Obnoxiously loud people
Excessive body odor

But just because I find these things annoying doesn't mean they ought to be banned (well, except maybe for Karaoke).

The anti-smoking laws are just inneffective legislatures who want to feel like they're doing something. This one is pretty popular and comes with little political risk.

 

[Ziggurat]

Give one reference to the US Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of smoking bans. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

Blah Blah Blah. Give me one reference to the supreme court upholding your right to smoke. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

Banning tobacco is fundamentally no different than banning illegal drugs. You haven't made any argument to suggest otherwise, or to indicate that the supreme court thinks the illegality of drugs is unconstitutional. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No they (we) don't. The argument is simply PROVE the harmful effects. Without fudging the numbers. Just once. Surely that's not too much to ask on this forum.

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?

 

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by VicDaring
No they (we) don't. The argument is simply PROVE the harmful effects. Without fudging the numbers. Just once. Surely that's not too much to ask on this forum.

It is not too much to ask, but I already did this. I provided links to peer-reviewed studies that show that second-hand smoke exposure aggravates asthma in adults and children. Maybe you should pay closer attention to the thread next time. To save you the trouble of looking back through the posts, I'll put them up again:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/1/170

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/23/1665

Agravated asthma is not simply an annoyance, it is a harm.

 

[Silicon]

Oh COME ON ZIGGURAT. You can't trust the New England Journal of Medicine!!! What kind of socialist, pinko, big-government fringe organization is THAT!??!




When presented with evidence, these folks ignore the evidence.

Or they argue that the Gubmint doesn't have any right to make THEM do what the law requires.


I hope you'll all take up my new catchphrase "Radar-Detector Libertarians". It's all about protecting their "freedom" to endanger your life.