Another point on this not unrelated to blowzero’s is that it is being put to the test. I.e., the fact that it has become politically popular enough to pass laws eliminating smoking in restaurants is evidence indeed that there is this pent-up demand. Surely, these politicians endorsing this wouldn’t do so if it were political suicide. And, it is not like this is being done stealthily, by making the laws look like they are something else (like this Administration is good at doing with names on legislation such as the Healthy Forest Initiative). These laws were not deceptively couched as “Defense of Smoking” acts. People know what they are and many seem to support them…at least enough to make it politically palatable for legislators to vote in favor of these laws.
Of course, this sort of evidence won’t convince a M-rket Fundamentalist but for those of us who realize that markets are not perfect, and that there are other ways for people to express and implement their desires, it is good evidence indeed.
Note that SHS only danger in not just a potential cancer risk. Lung related problems are definately linked to SHS.
Oddly, out here in CA, the restaurant owners predicted a huge collapse in business when the anti-smoking in eateries law came into effect. Didn’t happen. The bar & niteclub owners made the same prediction- didn’t happen. So- the much vaunted “market” did not act to close down these businesses. Not even when there was competition such as right across a state border.
You CAN compare smoking to eating fatty foods- however, eating food is nessesary and eating a moderate amount of fatty foods is not at all harmful. No amount of smoking is nessesary. You CAN also compare smoking to driving cars- but we DO have many mnay smog controls on cars- but none of smoking- and SOME amount of driving is again- nessesary. No amount of smoking is nessesary.
One reason for all the worker safety laws is that some workers have no choice. They are basicly slave labour- illegal immigrants, or family members. However, workplace safety laws come into effect even if the workers are illegal aliens or family members.
Just looking at a logical extension of the smoking ban, why does the state not outlaw smoking in one’s own home when another person (especially a minor child) is present? Would any of the supporters here of the restuarant/bar ban on smoking also support such a domicile ban on smoking? Seems like one could make the exact same health related arguments in both instances. In fact, the domicile smoking situation is somewhat more dangerous in that children cannot choose whether to live in their parents’ home, while diners can certainly choose to not enter a restaurant that allows smoking.
I’m not really taking a side here as I’m somewhat conflicted on this issue. Just trying to understand the whole issue and where people draw the line on legitimate restirctions on the use of property.
The state doesn’t license someone to operate their own home. They do license people to operate restaurants open to the public, and require those who hold such licenses to observe certain standards related to health and safety of both the workers and clientele. The health related arguments for smoking might be the same, pro and con, in the private home situation, but the state doesn’t require that a private home not open to the public observe the same sanitation standards in its kitchen to which restaurants are required to adhere.
There is no calim of mysticism here. No circular reasoning. It is your (and other’s) strawmen only which apeal to mystical or automatic forces. The question is legitimate. Why are so few restaraunts smoke free without the forced ban? What is it about this desire for smoke free environments which requires the use of force? I suppose you think that most restaraunt owners are or secretly desire to be poisoners? (hows that for a strawman :))
I’m sorry, but your starwmen are gettin more and more rediculous. I cannot recall anyone who has said that people only express desires by participating in economic activities. Often they protest. Sometimes they kill or steal. Many will write, paint, or otherwise create art. Some (very odd people indeed;)) will post opinions to internet message boards.
The legitimate question from above, is why is this desire different from other common comercial choices. Some of you obviously think that it is. Can you explain how this choice is so different?
But I don’t suppose that this sort of question will even register with communist / statists like you. But for those of us who believe in freedom there are certain questions
There. We’ve both been insulting and snippy. Can we discuss this rationally now? For example:
I don’t think there is any problem with a license system. We have a perfectly good system for licensing serving alcohol We could modify it slightly (make them put in filters, provide workers with masks or filtered lounge areas etc.) and simply add smoking to those licenses. We could include smoking in some of our “public drunkeness” standards. So, you could smoke at home, or in a licensed establishment, but not in other public areas. In open space areas like parks we could make it a complaint based restriction. That is, it is ok to smoke in an open area as long as no one nearby complains. IOW we could legislate the old time manners of asking before lighting up. It seems to me these proposals achieve most of what the anti smoke nazis. (Ok, sorry about that. My last jibe. I promise ;))
While it is certainly true that you do not have to obtain a license to live in your home. It is also true that you are most definatley required to maintain certain health and safety standards. In most cities, you are even required to maintain certain esthetic standards. If we return to the lead in the drinking water example used as a red herring earlier, it is obvious that child welfare will do nasty things to you if they find you adding lead to the drinking water you give to your kids.
Also, notice that the smoking bans are not necessarily related to licenses. If I am not mistaken, they do not only apply to for profit business, for example. I have not read them all, so I could be mistaken on this part.
I guess what I am saying, is that I don’t understand why a ban on smoking in the home is really out of the question. I understand that none of the ban proponents is advocating such a thing. But I’m not sure why the principles they invoke to justify the bans could not easily apply to private homes.
Can we please drop this red herring? There are no slaves in this country. Certainly none which are endentured legally. Many people are in desperate conditions. They make choices none of us would call pleasant. But they are not slaves. The word has a specific meaning which should not be perverted in this way.
If I cannot claim doctors are slaves under socialized medicine, then you should not be able to claim migrant workers are slaves when they work for a pitance.
The state has all sorts of building codes that one must comply with in one’s home for the sole purpose of the safety of the inhabitants. For example, in most cities, one is not allowed to have open fires in one’s yard. How is that different from the issue of smoking? Both pose health hazards.
Yes, funny how that works. If “smoke free” establishments were
in high demand, the free market would provide them. Why do you suppose that is? Restaurant owners should be able to declare their establishment “non smoking”, and guess what - they are, but unfortunately tobacco-nazis are adamant about forcing their views on everyone. Truly fascist.
Do you have peer reviewed citations for this assertion? Thanks in advance.
I think you have more to fear from UVA and UVB light as potential sources of cancer than you have from SHS. Have you heard of some of the latest studies that, even when caught early and deemed “cured”, it seems that the cancer all too often reappears later on in some other part of the body? Much more often than formerly thought. I don’t have the url, but you can find it on medline.
And which lung-related problems are associated with SHS? In the 1960s and 1970s, 55% of the population smoked (give or take a few percentage points). Today only 20% of the population smoke (again, give or take a few percentage points). Yet lung diseases, such as asthma, are not only increasing in frequency, but are becoming more severe. You would think, with the drastic drop in numbers of smokers, as well as the reduced venues for smoking exposure, that lung diseases such as asthma would have dropped proportionately. How do you explain this phenomenon?
No, you won’t catch me making a case that smoking is harmless; it’s very dangerous to smokers. But I think that we’ve been fed such a line of bull about the evils of SHS, that we’ve given up looking into the real causes of diseases. Smoking is stinky, so we’ve looked no further than this oversimplified correlation. Who knows how much time we’ve lost now that it’s apparent that there’s much more to diseases such as asthma.
In other parts of the country they have this thing – let’s call it “winter” – wherein most people are not inclined to go outside and stand in -35 degree wind chills or freezing rain just to support their local businesses, let alone to indulge in the consumption of a legal substance.
**
According to NHTSA, automobile accidents kill some 50,000 people per year in the USA alone. The average age of death is 39 years. This does not factor in permanent disabilities due to traumatic head injuries, losses of limbs, nor the staggering costs of rehabilitation resulting from serious injury.
No addict, whether their addiction is due to nicotine, opiates, caffeine or, heck, even chocolate, would agree that abating their withdrawal symptoms is unnecessary. Hmmm, maybe if they sat out nicorette gum at the bar. Or chewing tobacco (no sidestream smoke from chaw). Just a thought.
Is eating seafood or nuts necessary? Of course not. But, to a person who has these food allergies, proximity to those substances can cause immediate discomfort, if not a potentially lethal reaction. Not 10,20, or 30 years down the road, but right away.
We must force businesses to remove these (and other common allergens) from their premises immediately. Absurd, isn’t it?
The fact that many smokers have little regard for the health and comfort of the people around them, the fact that few non-smoking venues were/are available in places without legislation, and the fact that government has a compelling interest in protecting the health of its citizens. And quit calling it “force”; It’s called a regulation. You’re “forced” to stop at stop signs; restaurant employees are “forced” to wash their hands after using the rest room; construction workers are “forced” to wear hard hats. But we don’t generally refer to those things as “force”; you’re just using that word to try to make some point that doesn’t exist.
I gotta say, your debating technique is pretty weak.
It’s not circular reasoning. It’s the very definition of economic demand. As I pointed out to you in a prior thread, it is as fundamental as asserting that people will buy more of a good at a lower price than at a higher price. If there is a profitable demand that has been identified, the market will accommodate it. The free market is ruthless in this type of efficiency.
Economic demand is defined as the set of people willing and able to pay for a good at a variety of prices. Collectively they can be represented as the demand curve. Supply is defined as the set of entities willing and able to provide a good at the price each entity has in mind. Collectively they are represented by the supply curve.
If in a given environment there is a particular good that no supplier is willing to provide, that means the supply and demand curves don’t intersect. That doesn’t mean there’s no demand. It means it’s weak.
OTOH, if there’s a shitload of, say, smoking bars, then that demand is strong. This is not circular. Again, it’s the very definition of demand.
You might feel that there’s a compelling reason to ignore the efficiency of the market; those arguments can be made (though I don’t buy 'em, not for a bar). But using economic demand as an argument is a non-starter. Unless, as has previously been suggested, you can explain why non-smoking bars, out of all the products in the world, render something as fundamental as the Law of Supply and Demand inoperable.
The ban on open fires in one’s yard is not an issue of the inhabitant’s health as much as it is an issue of public safety (fires getting out of control and all that).
Unless you’re using the property commercially (which includes renting rooms), I’m not aware of any system of ongoing inspections to ensure that the building is up to code. There are guidelines that must be complied with in order for an occupancy permit to issue for new construction, and city inspections for additions to a property, but that’s a different matter. There may be different rules in places with earthquake hazards, but that’s a slightly different animal, and also would fall under the public safety rubric (collapsing buildings in close areas, etc.)
The distinction as I see it is whether the property is open for public use or not, or whether the proposed use has an impact outside of the property. If the property is held open for public use, or if the proposed use has a non-attenuated impact on the property, it is subject to state regulation. But if the property is not held open for public use, or if the proposed use does not impact outside the property, the scope of permissible government regulation is considerably narrower.
And Razorsharp, once again, we must come back to the point that there is no right to run a restaurant. The state has a legitimate interest in regulating the safety and sanitary conditions in restaurants. Whether the state is correct in an absolute sense that secondhand smoke is dangerous or not is open to debate, but there is certainly a reasonable basis for them to find that there is a danger.
We have to move off of this “private property” red herring. Even the OP has conceded that the state has the power to ban smoking in public areas. Raising “property rights” suggests that the state has no authority to impose these guidelines, which is patently incorrect. The state has that authority, just as it has the authority to mandate that employees wash their hands after leaving the bathroom.
And yet, if your neighbor was putting small amounts of rat poisoning in her kids’ food everyday, and you reported that to the police, surely she would be arrested. If SHS is scientifically proven to be hazardous to people’s health, why do we allow parents to expose children to it for 18 years?
OK, I’ll take this slow. Its not circular reasoning because THERE IS NOT POINT! Its a question. An inquiry. A reasoned search for information not currently in ones possesion. The question was:
** “What characteristic of the demand for non smoking venues makes this demand either invisible or impossible to meet without invoking the governments power to force people to meet it?”. **
See? It is not an argument for or against anything. It is a legitimate question.
If so few non-smoking venues are present in an area then something has to be preventing them. Either there is some nefarious motive on the part of restaraunt owners or smokers which causes them to deny such venues to non smokers. Or, perhaps the demand for such venues is hidden or non existent. I don’t know of any government regulations which require such venues to permit smoking, so that can’t be it. Maybe I’ve missed something. Perhaps there is another reason why restaraunts routinely permit smoking on their premises.
And just so we are clear on this. The strawman I constructed was a jibe. Remeber the smiley? If you are saying that my ability to create strawmen is weak, then I take that as a compliment. Thank you.:wally
At the moment, administering rat poison to humans is a crime, whereas smoking is not. Legal behaviors are subject to regulation all the time when they occur in public places.
Now, whether smoking should be illegal or not is a different question, and one which hasn’t really been posed by the thread.
Perhaps I missed an earlier post. But I don’t recall anyone suggesting that the state “has no authority to impose these guidelines”. The argument is whether or not it should. And considering the rights of property owners is certainly germane to such an argument. Suggesting that property rights exist is not the same thing as believing in some uber libertarian form of anarchy. If you are refering to some other line of reasoning whereby property rights implies state impotence then I would be most interested to hear it.
It is possible to respect the property of others and acknowledge the legitamacy of the state’s power to regulate some uses of that property. Just as it is possible to propose state regulations (traffic laws for instance, to pick one few would argue with) without denying the rights of people to own property. The question is whether or not banning smoking is such a legitimate use of state power.
Just FYI, some asthma stats from various spots on the American Lung Association’s website (www.lungusa.org)…asthma is much more common than I suspect some of you believe. Of course, these stats don’t include numbers of Americans suffering from other conditions aggravated by cigarette smoke, or who have reduced lung capacity for other reasons:
“26 million Americans have been diagnosed with asthma in their lifetime. Of these 26 million Americans, 10.6 million have had an asthma episode in the past 12 months…
These statistics most likely reflect an underestimate of true asthma prevalence, since studies have shown that there are many individuals suffering from undiagnosed asthma.”
“More than 25 million Americans are now living with chronic lung disease.”
“Secondhand smoke causes or exacerbates a wide range of adverse health effects, including cancer, respiratory infections, and asthma.”
“Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).”
These aren’t directly from peer-reviewed journal articles, as they are intended for a general audience, but the ALA’s statistics (not to mention the EPA’s) are culled from peer-reviewed research.
As for your assertion that asthma levels/severity should be decreasing because the proportion of smokers in the U.S. has decreased: you are ignoring a whole host of other things that cause asthma, such as environmental pollution from a variety of sources. Or do you think that has decreased, too?
From personal experience, I can assure you that I’m one asthmatic who starts hacking her lungs up pretty much within 5 minutes of being exposed to secondhand smoke. It’s by far my worst asthma trigger.
