Recently, various cities and States have been forcing businesses to become “Smoke Free”.
I say this is a violation of property owners rights and should be left up to the property owner if he/she should allow smoking on their property or in their business.
This is not a “smokers rights” issue, so lets not get into that.
Property owners should have the right to allow smoking on their property if they so choose. Especially if the establishment is a bar, tavern, restaraunt or similar place.
What are your thoughts, should the city/state step in or not?
There is no right to run a restaurant serving the public. If a property owner chooses to use their property as a restaurant, bar, or tavern, they have to seek a license to do so, and that license obligates the property owner to submit to a number of regulations, concerning things like how many people they can have in the restaurant, the sanitary and safety conditions in the kitchen, the wages paid to the staff, whether they can refuse to serve non-white people, etc. Regulation of smoking on the premises is not intrinsically different from any of the other regulations that are imposed as part of the privilege of running a restaurant.
Well in Ottawa it was framed as legislation to protect workers. Since the state legislates various workplace regulations dealing with noxious substances the property ownership aspect can be side stepped.
Given the unknowns about second hand smoke, dosages, use of ventilation to purge the air within the club/bar etc I’d say that there needs to be a more definitive answer to secondhand smoke’s impact and specific guidelines to dosage/air space before the state heads out and imposes any regulations.
Are you suggesting that employees be subjected to toxic fumes without adequate warning and restitution? Should these toxins not be regulated in a public space?"
The property ownership aspect comes into play when you opt to build a restaurant. How you operate the place is not (in my view) a property rights issue. I own my house and the land it’s on, but I am restricted as to the types of modifications/operations on my land.
You are correct in that the government does have the legal authority to pass such an ordinance; but I disagree with you in your understanding of there being no intrinsic difference between other regulations installed by licensing.
I find that licensing is to protect the customer from certain aspects that they may not be able to prevent, or have knowledge of upon entering the establishment.
If this smoking ban is being waved as a new health violation, then I submit it is over writing the “spirit” of and aspect of free enterprise.
If people don’t want their health violated in that certain special way, they simply don’t have to go to a smokey venue. Where as, protecting one’s self from other such health threats (the real reason licensing is in place [beyond certain government corruptions]), may involve a bit more than merely deciding not to get near them.
THAT is what licensing should be for - in relation to the customers.
if they provide gas masks or some other form of protection to all employees and enforce their use. You may have one or two cigarettes at a bar, but the waitstaff smokes a part of every cigarette that every person smokes for eight hours a day five days a week. Thats a lot of cigarettes. People- even people in fairly low wage jobs- should not be exposed to dangerous chemicals without protection. Every job that involves exposure to cancer causing agents is subject to health and safety regulations for the protection of their workers, and I don’t see why food service should be different.
I suspect that in a few years you will be able to apply for a “smoking liscense”. Insuring that the state will be able to acquire new money through the fees associated with the liscense. It could be viewed, cynically, as a way to increase revenue in the future.
HYPO-
Bobs Tavern down the street has suffered a huge decline in costumers because the smoking crowd has traveled the few miles to go to the tavern in the next city with no restrictions on smoking. Bob applies for and pays the $500 for the smoking permit. Now he gets his costumers back. Were back to square one, except now we have this “smoking beauracracy” in place.
Eh, no, that’s not how it works. Why not “if you don’t want to work in an environment with unsafe working conditions, don’t” ? We have health and safety regulations in place that are designed to ensure that workers don’t have to necessarily face the choice between hazard to life and limb and employment. If you assume that secondhand smoke is a long-term hazard to health (and I’m not necesarily saying it is), then there is no material difference between imposing some kind of restriction on exposure to secondhand smoke or exposure to any other toxin.
And, ExecutiveJesus, the Constitution says nothing about this. Restricting smoking is not a restriction on free speech, or free association, or freedom of religion. It’s not a search or seizure, or quartering soldiers or an ex post facto law. The Constitution says diddly-squat about smoking in restaurants. Or personal responsibility, for that matter.
The Constitution also says nothing about the legality of rubber duckies.
But if they were banned in certain instances of the law, I’d draw the same complaint.
The Constitution set up a system of law as defined by common law. That system has been replaced by statutory law. It’s the same reason that you don’t really own your car. Examine your car title. It says “certificate of title”. The original title is in the hands of the secretary of state. This is why you car can be ceased.
Or any propery you “own”.
That is more specifically where I’m coming from - rootwise from the Constitution.
It’s a bit of a tangent from this thread - possibly justifying another. It’s a rather lengthy explaination.
Ridiculously trimmed down, common law requires that there be a specific victim of an action. If one walks into an establishment on their own free will, they are no more the victim than the perpetrator.
