This November there will be a ballot initiative to amend Florida’s Constitution. This proposed amendment, Amendment 6, would ban smoking in all enclosed work spaces, including bars and restaurants.
I do not smoke, but I find this proposed ban insulting and intrusive. I also do not think Florida’s Constitution should be used as a vehicle for any special interest group that is out to save the world from itself.
I have created a website hoping to motiviate those who may be opposed to this ban. I don’t want to post it for fear of being accused of spamming…is it okay to list the web address? I’m not trying to sell anything…this is a political issue.
So…is it okay to ban smoking in enclosed workspaces, or do business owners have a right to run their business in the way they see fit?
Hah! You don’t really think California would allow any other state to catch up to it, do you? Of course not! Which is why the legislature is trying to outlaw smoking by people under 21.
I’m a non-smoking Floridian, and I think it’s goddamn stupid. Restaurants already have non-smoking areas, and when you’re in a bar you’re supposed to pollute your body.
Florida’s ban would be one of the most restrictive in the country, and the Pro side has big bucks behind it, including the American Cancer Society.
Imagine, you’re a smoker who owns a small business, say a bookstore. You’ve worked 15 hour days to establish your business, but if this law passes, can you go in the back room of YOUR business and have a cigarette with your sandwich and chips? Not if this ban passes.
Now, stand alone bars and retail tobacco shops are excluded. But if smoking is all that bad, why aren’t they trying to ban it everywhere?
California has banned all smoking, inside and out? So, if you’re a smoker, where can you smoke?
I’m going to post the website…mods, if this is inappropriate, please edit my post.
I seem to remember a time when this was the case, and business owners felt, among other things, that it wasn’t neccessary to have fire exits unlocked or to allow employees bathroom breaks (if in fact a bathroom was even available). Since that time, it has been pretty clearly decided that businesses do not have the absolute right to run their business any way they see fit. The question now is which things can and should be regulated.
Absolutely not. Banning smoking through legislation is a needless restriction when businesses are already perfectly willing to adjust their smoking policies to cater to their customers.
I like the system here in Spokane, where businesses have colored stickers on the front door: green for “no smoking”, yellow for “smoking in designated areas”, or red for “smoking allowed everywhere”. If you’re allergic or offended by smoke, just keep walking until you see a green sticker.
My workplace has a no smoking policy…if you want a cigarette, you have to go outside. No law was necessary…the company decided all on its own.
I’ve visited a fast food restaurant with a sign on the door, “We welcome you to our smoke-free establishment.” Again, no law was needed, the business decided on its own not to allow smoking in the building.
I think this would be better handled through education or the marketplace than by force of law. I’m hoping enough Floridians will choose to keep their freedom of choice rather than allowing the gov’t “protect” them.
I worked in one place where, not only could you not smoke inside, you couldn’t smoke within a painted pathway from the parking garage to the doors–never mind that you could smoke in the garage!
And the very idea of not smoking in bars! Why are you drinking if you’re so concerned about your health? Also, aren’t they aware that a great many musicians smoke? I have a friend who, at his own record release party in Santa Monica, had to keep going outside to smoke.
Here in Arizona, I can “vote with my money”: if a restaurant doesn’t allow smoking, they don’t get my business. In California, you have no choice.
I don’t know about Florida but in California, the rationale behind the law was that it was for the protection of employees. Therefore, businesses with no employees were exempt. I heard of one bar that got around the law by firing all its staff (the owner simply ran the place all on his own), and another that made all its staff co-owners.
In San Francisco I would estimate that, in the early days, roughly half of the bars I went to obeyed the law and half ignored it. The ones that obeyed it initially saw a drop in business - particularly during the daytime, when their usual clientele would be the unemployed middle-aged barfly crowd used to doing nothing but sitting at the bar smoking all day - but this levelled off after awhile. Eventually it reached a situation where there were de facto smoking bars and non-smoking bars, and customers - and presumably also bar staff - could choose which they preferred to patronise. Makes sense, doesn’t it? But the difference was that those serving customers who wanted to be able to smoke would face increasingly severe penalties for facilitating them. I cannot see anything sensible, logical or fair about that.
First of all, non-smoking areas are absolutely useless unless they are physically partitioned off from smoking areas and use indepedent HVAC systems. Otherwise the smell and the carcinogenic chemicals just get everywhere. This is the reason why smoking is now banned on all trans-pacific flights.
Secondly, even though amending the state constition might be a bit much, Florida is playing catch-up. Singapore has a similar law for years. Why should the interests of a few be upheld above the interests of many?
Well, for one thing, we’re not Singapore. I understand Singapore also flogs its citizens for committing crimes.
Secondly, the Constitution should be a framework for operating the state, not for tacking on every special interest agenda. FWIU, it is very easy to get a ballot initiaitive to amend Florida’s Constitution…all you need are enough signatures, and the people can vote on it.
Thirdly, I’m sorry, Urban Ranger, but your last question just sent chills up my spine. We should ignore the rights of the few because there’s less of them? Don’t laws protect everyone? What happens when we start sacrificing the rights of the few just because they’re in the minority? If you happen to be in the minority your rights don’t matter? Remember, the individual is the smallest minority.
No one is forcing a non-smoker to sit in a smoking section at a table with smokers with three-pack a day habits. No one is forcing someone to work in such a place either. I was a waitress, and from my experience, smokers were better tippers, and that was the general consensus of the other workers in the restaurants. If it bothered me, I wouldn’t have worked as a waitress.
Do we really need the State to make our lifestyle decisions for us?
I’m of two very, very conflicting minds about these laws and proposed laws.
As a libertarian, I believe in market-based solutions and minimal government intrusion. As a nonsmoker (lifetime) I feel I have a right to be able to breathe without having my lungs filled with crap.
I recently spent a month living and working in Frankfurt, Germany. European countries are not shy about heavy regulation, and Germany is no exception. And yet . . . there is no such thing as “the no-smoking section” in a German restaurant. Period. If I wanted to go out to eat, I had to sit around smokers. I had no recourse to enjoy a meal out without breathing that shit. So, needless to say, I didn’t go out. The few times I did, I found it indescribably foul, and was barely able to it.
Obviously, the market-based solution so far in Germany has not been on the side of nonsmokers. If I am to be a person of any principles, I have to accept that the solutions are going to sometimes blow up in my face, I guess.
But I don’t see why I should not be able to enjoy a meal out with friends and family, or enjoy an occassional beer (just because someone drinks doesn’t mean they smoke, you know) without being forced to put something in my lungs that I don’t want.
So, I really haven’t sorted out how I feel about these laws. Right now I’m inclined to support them solely for selfish, pragmatic reasons. I’m not saying I’m right, just that it’s how I feel.
Exactly. Noam Chomsky once said something like, ‘if you truly believe in civil rights and liberties, you stand up for them especially when you don’t agree with issue that is being infringed upon.’ Okay, that was a really bad misquote, but his meaning is the same.
You also believe in market-based solutions. I don’t, economically speaking… but since you do, then you should trust that restaurants will be opened by non-smokers or by owners who want to cater to the non-smoking crowd.
I am vegan and cannot eat in most restaurants. Luckily, I live in a city with 4-5 vegan friendly restaurants, and almost every restaurant here has vegetarian options. I am guessing that it is because of the large amount of vegetarians here, and businesses wanting to cash in on that. Veganism hasn’t gotten to that point, so I go to the 4-5 vegan friendly restaurants. Does it suck when some of my omnivorous friends want to go out to a non-vegan friendly restaurant? I guess. But I do not expect the government to cater to my particular beliefs.
I would oppose any measure that forced restaurants into offering vegan fare. Even if I lived in a city that didn’t have any vegan restaurants (much like you and Germany with smoking), I would oppose that measure. I would have to do all my cooking at home then. Or move to another city.
I hope you will no longer be of 2 minds on this issue.
It’s hard for me to really care much about any law banning smoking. Personally, I don’t understand why smoking is more socially acceptable than farting in other people’s faces. Actually, in my opinion it should be less acceptable… farts being quite a bit less toxic. But I accept the fact that most of the worlds cultural beliefs weren’t designd by me, so sometimes I politely and cheerfully spend time in the presence of smokers, even when they are smoking. So sorry, I can’t garner enough interest in this specific law to find out if it goes too far. It’s entirely possible that it does.
Speaking more generally re market pressures vs. legislation. Libertarian market pressure arguments too often strike me as a restating of the golden rule, i.e., whoever has the gold, makes the rules. It seems like a rather narrow, almost Calvinistic, understanding of capitalism and its place in a democratic society.
I prefer to think of democracy itself as a more fair market pressure system. If elected leaders make laws which are unpopular, then they become former elected leaders.
With all respect, colinito, comparing veganism to smoking is just silly. Sure, they’re both personal choices, but your decision to eat tofu near me won’t make me start coughing and gasping for breath.