Cigars and hookers

[Chronos]

Meanwhile, I don’t see why St. Patrick’s Day ought to be an excuse to waive the anti-smoking laws, given that Ireland now has a smoking ban in bars, too.

[ElvisL1ves]

And the search for evidence of liberal hypocrisy continues …

[Little_Nemo]

Heck, I thought this was going to be a debate on the Cuban embargo.

[UltraVires]

I’m not as willing to give up as Bricker is. Since smoking is only an incidental activity and not prohibited entirely then it is a reasonable “time, place, and manner” restriction?

What if the primary purpose of my business is providing a smoking lounge? Then my business is as illegal as prostitution (in some locations). Does that make a difference?

Obviously I have no legal training, but it seems to me that these accepted legal principles are just hollow words. IOW, take California. How is that smoking prohibition a time, place, or manner restriction? You can’t smoke anywhere. It is effectively illegal in public places.

[ElvisL1ves]

Are you completely missing the reason behind smoking restrictions? Secondary smoke harms people not involved and who lack reasonable ability to evade it. What is the corollary for prostitution?

[villa]

@ElvisL1ves

Are you completely missing the reason behind smoking restrictions? Secondary smoke harms people not involved and who lack reasonable ability to evade it. What is the corollary for prostitution?

I can see some kind of corollary. The harm that the laws against smoking are based on is the harm to employees - not the harm to non-smoking customers, who have the choice as to whether to frequent the smoking establishment. The similar harm to prostitutes is the exposure to potential disease.

I guess it depends how broadly you draw the essential nature of the activity. Exposure to disease at some level is inherent to prostitution. Exposure to second hand smoke is not considered inherent to bartending or waiting tables. However, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to define the job as bartending in a smoking lounge, in which case exposure would be seen as inherent, much as the risk of neck injury is inherent to football. You can remove these risks, but not without undermining the basic nature of the activity - prostitution without penetration, flag football, or a non-smoking smoking lounge.

[ElvisL1ves]

@villa

The harm that the laws against smoking are based on is the harm to employees - not the harm to non-smoking customers, who have the choice as to whether to frequent the smoking establishment.

Them too, but no, it’s mainly about customers.

Exposure to second hand smoke is not considered inherent to bartending or waiting tables.

Not with the new laws, but yes, it used to be.

prostitution without penetration

Try making a living *that *way.

[villa]

I think you are missing my point, ElvisL1ves. I said you can’t remove the penetration from prostitution without inherently undermining the activity… You’ve chopped my post so much I think you completely misunderstood it.

And I think you are wrong on the non smoking in bars rules. Proposals based on customer protection failed. It’s only when they started to be based on employee protection they got leverage.

[ElvisL1ves]

I was making fun of your own missing of the point about innocent bystanders to an activity also being harmed by an activity that is inherently dangerous to its participants.

You can remove smoking from restaurants “without inherently undermining the activity”. It’s been done pretty broadly, too. Your previous claim that customer protection is not a factor in those bans is just silly.

[Duke]

Now that the OP has petitioned this thread to be closed, I can safely point out the difference: One of the two items mentioned in the thread title has been proven to lead to disease, usually smells pretty bad, and sane people wouldn’t want to get their mouth anywhere near them. And cigars are no picnic either.

[MOIDALIZE]

This is what happens when you come up with a fun thread title and work from there.

[villa]

@ElvisL1ves

I was making fun of your own missing of the point about innocent bystanders to an activity also being harmed by an activity that is inherently dangerous to its participants.

You can remove smoking from restaurants “without inherently undermining the activity”. It’s been done pretty broadly, too. Your previous claim that customer protection is not a factor in those bans is just silly.

I didn’t miss any point. Just I think that it simply doesn’t matter if second hand smoke harms another customer of a bar. Because that customer has made the choice as to whether they frequent that bar.

Smoking bans based on customer “rights” didn’t gain traction. For a very simple reason - there is no compulsion to go into a bar. It’s a “problem” that has a very simple market solution - if there is money to be made in setting up non-smoking bars and restaurants, there will be non-smoking bars and restaurants. And lo and behold, without compulsion, there were such bars and restaurants.

However, when the desire became to ban all smoking in bars and restaurants, the proponents realized that they couldn’t base it on some kind of right to go to a smoke free environment. So they got smart and used employee exposure.

Now, go back and read what I said about inherently undermining the activity. It’s based on how broadly you define the activity. You can remove much of the risk from football by making it flag or touch. You can remove much of the risk from prostitution by making it non-penetrative. But its hard to say that you haven’t undermined the basic nature of the activity there. Now, if you are running a smoking lounge, it is similarly impossible to protect fully from second hand smoke and not undermine the basic nature of that activity.

That’s why my ideal situation would have been to make smoking in bars require a separate license, and issue a limited number of smoking licenses that could be auctioned off and generate revenue for DC. But that doesn’t satisfy the people who want smoking banned from all licensed premises, whatever the opinions of the owners, workers and customers of those establishments may be.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

Them too, but no, it’s mainly about customers.

Not in CA.

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 30— In the biggest assault yet on cigarette smoking in the United States, bars, casinos and nightclubs across California will be forced to ban smoking at the stroke of midnight on Jan. 1, as part of a virtual ban on indoor smoking in public places.

The policy is part of a 1994 labor law in the nation’s most populous state, meant to protect the health of employees like bartenders, waitresses and bellhops from the risks of secondhand smoke.

[Little_Nemo]

Are you completely missing the reason behind smoking restrictions? Secondary smoke harms people not involved and who lack reasonable ability to evade it. What is the corollary for prostitution?

Is this even necessarily the case? My understanding is that the evidence that second-hand smoking is harmful is still pretty tenuous.

[begbert2]

@Little_Nemo

Is this even necessarily the case? My understanding is that the evidence that second-hand smoking is harmful is still pretty tenuous.

Even if you’re right, why would that stop it from being the reason for the ban?

[UltraVires]

@villa

I can see some kind of corollary. The harm that the laws against smoking are based on is the harm to employees - not the harm to non-smoking customers, who have the choice as to whether to frequent the smoking establishment. The similar harm to prostitutes is the exposure to potential disease.

I guess it depends how broadly you draw the essential nature of the activity. Exposure to disease at some level is inherent to prostitution. Exposure to second hand smoke is not considered inherent to bartending or waiting tables. However, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to define the job as bartending in a smoking lounge, in which case exposure would be seen as inherent, much as the risk of neck injury is inherent to football. You can remove these risks, but not without undermining the basic nature of the activity - prostitution without penetration, flag football, or a non-smoking smoking lounge.

This. You said it better than I could. It seems as if some posters here are designating the primary activity as eating or drinking, and since those can be accomplished without allowing smoking, then all is well and smoking can be prohibited.

But if you simply define smoking as the primary activity (i.e. I want to open a smoking lounge) then you are saying the same thing, but don’t have the pat, “I want to protect employees” argument and be consistent with legalized prostitution.

[Declan]

@villa

That’s why my ideal situation would have been to make smoking in bars require a separate license, and issue a limited number of smoking licenses that could be auctioned off and generate revenue for DC. But that doesn’t satisfy the people who want smoking banned from all licensed premises, whatever the opinions of the owners, workers and customers of those establishments may be.

The anti smoking establisment wont go for that , as they think they can get it all. I doubt that they really care about individual bars, one way or another, but they are after the culture of smoking, not the establisments that cater to it.

Declan

[villa]

Well true - they didn’t go for it. Doesn’t alter my opinion that it is a much more sensible policy.

The aim of the ban wasn’t to improve the health of workers, however it was justified. It was anti-smoking. I just wish they would be honest on it.

[Mtgman]

@Little_Nemo

Is this even necessarily the case? My understanding is that the evidence that second-hand smoking is harmful is still pretty tenuous.

The evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful is anything but tenuous. The Surgeon General released a new report on it, specifically, in 2006. Here’s an excerpt from the executive summary(PDF).

Twenty years ago when Dr. C. Everett Koop released the Surgeon General’s report,
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking, it was the first Surgeon General’s report to
conclude that involuntary exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke causes disease. The
topic of involuntary exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke was first considered
in Surgeon General Jesse Steinfeld’s 1972 report, and by 1986, the causal linkage between
inhaling secondhand smoke and the risk for lung cancer was clear. By then, there was also
abundant evidence of adverse effects of smoking by parents on their children.
Today, massive and conclusive scientific evidence documents adverse effects of
involuntary smoking on children and adults, including cancer and cardiovascular diseases
in adults, and adverse respiratory effects in both children and adults. This 2006 report of
the Surgeon General updates the 1986 report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Smoking,
and provides a detailed review of the epidemiologic evidence on the health effects of
involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke.

You can find the full text of the report, statements by the Surgeon General, and other info at the home page for the report. If all you need is an overview of the research, including the six major conclusions, there is a factsheet which covers those.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Mr.Excellent

I’m not a staunch supporter of smoking bans, but I think you’ve hit on why support for such bans and legalized prostitution need not be inconsistent, Bricker. Supporters of legalized prostitution, as you correctly note, normally also support mandatory health screenings (and possibly other measures) to mitigate the risk of such activity. By a similar token, supporters of smoking bans believe that the risks associted with working in a restaurant should be mitigated to the extent commercially practicable. For that matter, most people would say that the risks in all workplaces should be mitigated to the extent practicable. (Where that line lies is left as an exercise for the reader.) Some jobs will be more dangerous than others regardless - but in all cases, risks that can be mitigated without unduly burdening the business should be mitigated.

So, I don’t see any particular inconsistency here. That said, I do think that it wouldn’t be unreasonable to allow smoking in bars on limited occasions, like St. Patrick’s day. Surely the additional risk to workers would be slight?

Why just St. Patricks day? Why not every friday and saturday night? I’m not a big fan of smoking bans but if you are in favor of smoking bans then the rationale persists through St. Patrick’s day and Mardi Gras.