Boulder, CO has one of the more idiotic smoking policies in the world. Not only is there no smoking allowed in any public resturant/bar, but there’s to be no depiction of smoking either.
About two years back, the fairly famous “Boulder Dinner Theater” decided to put on an production of the musical “Grand Hotel” and there was a scene where the lead actress was supposed to light up and smoke a cigarette (in one of those cigarette-holder thingies) while doing a monolouge.
The Boulder Smoking Stormtroopers found out and said “Change the scene”. The Boulder Dinner Theater said “No. And besides, we’ve got a fan above the actress so almost no smoke will get at the audience.”
The Boulder Smoking Stormtroopers said “You can’t smoke in a resturant, even on stage. Change it.”
The Dinner Theater said “Even if we wanted to (and we don’t), we can’t: you’re not allowed to change plays willy-nilly. ASCAP(? maybe… I don’t remember who) won’t let you. And besides: you’re being idiots.”
The Anti-Smoking Gestapo responded with a threat to shut down the theater if they went on with the play. Some ninny who claimed even “one molecule of tobacco smoke” touching her lungs would put her into a coma shilled for the Boulder Anti-Smoking Crusaders–going on every radio talk show. She was promptly shredded (“If you’re so sensitive to tobacco smoke that even “one molecule” can put you “into a coma for months”, you should be in a plastic bubble”).
The Boulder ACLU (normally a bunch of wankers who embarrass all the rational ACLUs everywhere else) had their finest hour and slapped Boulder with about 50 lawsuits.
In the end, goodness prevailed and the show went on as planned.
This argument will go on as long as people seem to feel that it’s their right to dine out, visit a bar, go to shops, etc. It’s not a right, it’s a privilege. The common law defines any intentional entry upon another land as a trespass. When you go to the Walgreen’s, that’s a trespass. Since you’re there as a customer, you are seen to have a privilege to commit that trespass. It’s still a trespass, it’s just one from which no action lies. You have no right to go upon any land other than that which you yourself own, or when such entry is upon government-owned land in accordance with the rules established by the government for proper use of that land.
Back where I grew up, in the Quad Cities, Illinois, there was only one fast food restaurant where smoking was allowed. That was the Hardee’s at the Southpark Mall. If you didn’t want to be exposed to smoke, don’t go in the Hardee’s. You have no inherent right to visit Hardee’s. I don’t care if Hardee’s was the only restaurant in town, you still have no right.
As for the employees, nobody is forcing them to work in a particular place. If you wanna be a stripper, bartender, or waitress at a greasy-spoon, you can either take the smoke with the tips or get a job somewhere else. We’re not in Red China, after all, people have choice over where they will be employed.
We also need to finally address the issue of second-hand smoke. So long as the old faulty studies of the 80’s continue to dominate public perception on the issue, people will hold to irrational beliefs about the dangers of second-hand smoke.
…and if this anti-smoking movement doesn’t show us once and for all the failure of democracy, I don’t know what does. Democracy is two guys voting to steal the other guy’s pants. The last 70 years has been one long exercise in democracy of that sort, and this is the latest example.
I also remember hearing that the danger of second-hand smoke was not confirmed, but I didn’t know if that was an independent source or the tobacco companies doing spin control. Do you have any cites on the faultiness of the studies?
I remember that the World Health Organization’s studies from 4-5 years back pretty much refuted the preliminary studies that had caused the “second-hand smoke” stir in the first place. IIRC, the newer study found fault with the original study, but the study itself did not make a hypothesis about the smoke issue. So it negates the only studies that gave support to the “second-hand smoke” theory. Since I’m not one of those people who seems to know where to find all this stuff on the internet, I can’t cite it for you. Since I’m not a scientist I probably couldn’t do much with a scientific report either If anyone knows how to find WHO reports, lmk and I’ll see if I can find the one.
Anyway, I do know it was the WHO and not the tobacco companies, so I can answer that question for you.
Apparently (I’ve never seen the musical and this whole controversy was in, like '98…so it’s been a while) the musical called for her smoking it and blowing the smoke in another actor’s face. Someone suggested that she use clove cigarettes but A) the actress didn’t want to (said they tasted awful) and B) The bimbo in charge of the Smoking Police said that the law was against smoking: it didn’t say it was against tobacco smoke, so that wouldn’t have been acceptible either. In any event, before the controversy, the theater had provided fans so the smoke would go up into the rafters rather than into the audience.
But regardless, why should they have to compromise? Draconian laws by a nasty little suburb of Denver do not trump the first amendment. And certainly the right to perform art that does not endanger anyone falls under the first amendment’s protection.
I can’t find any study by the WHO. They have focused on the effects on children who are exposed over a long period, which has been definitely shown to be harmful. I did find this article.
I can’t find a copy of the original report. (If anyone decides to look for it, note that it’s CRS Report 94-214, March 8, 1994 - there are several.)
And for what it’s worth, thanks for the heads-up, ivylass! I’m another non-smoking Floridian who thinks this is a bad idea on general principles, but I hadn’t heard a thing about this since I don’t watch TV and don’t listen to the radio much.
What’s even dumber about this rule is that the Boulder DINNER theater is a F*CKING RESTURANT! THEY HAVE GRILLS!
Grills produce fire. Big whopping gouts of fire that cook food. This is not only legal, it’s encouraged.
If it is legal to have a huge grill in the kitchen, it’s not unreasonable that, given proper precautions, they can have one teeny little ember on a stage.
I will probably vote for the amendment though I am inclined to think it will not pass.
Smoking cigarettes is a filthy, disgusting habit perpetrated by the weak-willed. It causes disease and supports wicked supercorporations. One of my least favorite things is having my tasty meal ruined by a dry, grey mouthful of wafting gases from some moron across the room who lights his cigarette and lets it hang there in his hand or sit in the ashtray, burning. Not even taking drags on it really, maybe once or twice, just letting it burn. That affects my quality of life. What’s that saying, “your rights stop at my nose”?
When California banned smoking we saw that some establishments remained smoke-friendly. This would happen here in Florida too. People will always circumvent the law to do what’s in their best interests as they see them.
But I sure wouldn’t mind seeing the amendment pass. Which, again, I don’t think it will.
Surely you must recognize that the smoke produced varies based on the substance which is burned. So certainly it is concievable that it would be ok to burn one substance but not ok to burn another substance under the same circumstances and in the same location. Better to stick to the debate over what the qualities of ETS are, and whether it is harmful, in what quantities, and to whom. Comparing apples to oranges is dramatic, but pointless.
And chula, I don’t see where you are reading “There’s nothing illegal about burning a substance, unless it’s wrapped in paper and you’re inhaling it” from. I would be willing to bet that you could get arrested for building a campfire in that restaurant too. Again, this is apples and oranges.
As for the link between ETS and disease, it does seem that the evidence for a causal link is not overwhelming. However, given that we can easily know what chemicals are contained in ETS, and that we can know the toxicity of those chemicals, (and probably, with a little research could determine which of those substances are known to cause disease through means other than ETS), it doesn’t seem unreasonable to conclude that ETS is not good for most peoples health. However, even were ETS completely benign, some of us find the odor repulsive, and, as RTA pointed out, do not feel that others have the right to subject us to it. When they develop a self contained smoking apparatus, then I will have no quarrel with where anyone smokes (although I’ll still prefer that they aren’t on my group health insurance plan).
First of all, I don’t see anyone here arguing that smoking should be prohibited/forbidden because of the people’s “right” to dine out.
In any event, Rexdart, a simple rule - descriptions of the common law found on the back of cereal boxes are usually inaccurate.
A person who enters a restaurant/bar/shop is an “invitee” - a person with an express or implied invitation to enter or use another’s premises. The owner or occupier of the premises has affirmative duties to the invitee. More germane to this conversation, the invitee indeed has a “right” to be on the business premises - I think your definition of “rights” is overly narrow.
A right to be there…yet a business can refuse to serve someone who is dressed inappropriately or is causing a disturbance. How do you reconcile the right of the business owner vs the right of the “invitee?”
Well, I’ll certainly agree that ETS can’t possibly be good for you, but I also have to agree that the evidence that it’s bad for you isn’t really all that strong either, from what I can tell. Certainly we can find out what all constitutes ETS, and quite possibly we’ll find some really rather unfortunate things are in it. But by itself, that doesn’t mean a thing. What we’d need to find out is that if nasty toxic chemical Bob is in great enough concentration to do anything, wouldn’t we? That’s the way we do it with water, isn’t it? So why would we do any differently with ETS?
That said, if any conclusive evidence does show up that ETS is bad for you, I’d be heart and soul in favor of the amendment. Until then, nyet.
Well, I guess the question I have is why our “right” not to smell the admittedly repulsive odor trumps their “right” to smoke in any workplace? I would very much like to see the smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants better separated, but I don’t think the right way to do this is to just ban the smoking section entirely! A law that specifies some fixed sort of separation (or some fixed amount of ventilation, or a glass wall, or whatever) would be fine by me; a law that says no smoking, period, end of story, seems overly draconian.
Ivylass, - the business owner may place conditions on the right he/she grants the public to enter his/her premises. A very obvious example of such conditions is business hours - a member of the public does not the right to be inside the store when it is closed. However, if a member of the public has conformed with the conditions set by the owner, he/she may be there, and the owner has affirmative obligations to that member of the public.
I missed this earlier:
There is no qualitative difference between a member of the public’s right to control access to his/her property and the government’s right to control access. There are Constitution-based limitations on the conditions the government may place on use of government-owned land (such as time, place and manner restrictions only on speech), but the government is acting as a property owner and the invitee/licensee/trespasser system applies to government property as well.
This is a typical ethical dilemma where two factions sharing the same environment are polarized on an issue. I find it fascinating that, given the size of the smoking population, that any smokers should ever clamor to be able to smoke everywhere. But I also find it troubling to suggest that they shouldn’t be able to smoke anywhere.
Banning smoking seems to be an issue of rights… at least, there is a rights issue buried somewhere in there. It isn’t like banning parking on a specific portion of a city street which can be seen to not entail the decimation of choice, or a ban on murder which has been the core of human moral systems since forever. Instead it seems that there are some very reasonable solutions to the problem which should not be handled with a ban. IMO.
An issue of conflicting rights of significant population groups doesn’t lend itself well to a ban in the general sense, I don’t think.
If anyone knows how to find WHO reports, lmk and I’ll see if I can find the one.