Actually, in states like CA, smoking is illegal in most enclosed places based on the health impact to others. And yet, smoking is allowed in tabacco stores and, as we are discussing, homes. If we believe the SHS hypothesis, then children should be able to sue their parents for exposing them to a known toxin, and the state should have a vested interest in ensuring that minor children not be exposed to that danger.
Sorry, privately owned businesses are not “public areas” as evident by establishments that are forbidden to minors.
Employees are subject to state bureaucracies. Patrons of restaurants are not required by law to wash their hands before leaving the bathroom.
Yes, it is a legitimate question, although a fairer statement of it would be something like:
"Why does the result through the market seem to suggest that the demand for nonsmoking establishments is so small whereas the demand through the political process seems to suggest that the demand is quite large. I.e., why is there this apparent divergence"
Or, if I wanted to adopt the counter-bias to yours, I would phrase it as
"Why is the market forcing people to suffer the discomforts and health effects of having to endure smoking in nearly all eating establishments of public accomodation when it is clear from the democratic political process that considerable desire exists for non-smoking establishments?"
At any rate, your guess is as good as mine here. One possible explanation that comes to mind is that smoking is an addiction. I.e., while some smokers may know the health consequences and make the conscious decision to accept them in return for the pleasure they derive from smoking, many say they would like to quit but haven’t been able to do so. I think such widespread addictions can distort a market system because someone with an addiction can have pretty strong demands that would tend to overpower the demands of those who do not have an addiction.
Anyway, that is just one idea. There are many other reasons markets can fail which is why some of us don’t believe M-rkets=G-d and actually believe in novel concepts like Democratic government in addition to markets.
Nope- for two reasons. 1- The OP here is not a debate on whether SHS is dangerous. It concedes that whether or not it is dangerous, there should no law passed which restrict business owners from smoking or allowing same. Thus, the whole debate on whether or not SHS kills is a sidetrack. 2. Cecil says so. Here- that’s gospel.
The key triggers for asthma attacks are cold air, exercise, the menstrual cycle and aspirin, according to a new study.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1697143.stm
The Big Lie, to be fair, didn't originate in San Francisco. It opened in Washington in the first year of the Clinton administration, 1993, with an Environmental Protection Agency report that began the civil war in saloons and restaurants. Denounced eventually in Federal Court as "corrupt science," the EPA gave the number of dead each year of lung cancer due to passive smoke as 3,000. So now it wasn't a question of choosing your own poison, you were poisoning me.
Two years later, the Congressional Research Service, an independent arm of Congress, found that there was no scientific basis for the notion that secondhand smoke endangers health. This study was demanded by Rep. Henry Waxman ,D-L.A., the leading anti-smoking advocate in Congress. When it came out the way he didn't want it to come out, he stuffed it -- and the media censored it.
In March 1998, the World Health Organization found that secondhand smoke was a zero. The WHO, the very SS of the Nicotine Nazi world, deep-sixed this extraordinary report based on a study that covered 21 countries over 10 years, costing millions of dollars.
Today, the WHO cites dozens of statistical studies "proving" that passive smoke kills, but never mentions its own report! Par for the course for the zealots who live on the line that the end justifies the means.
http://examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.zion.1129w
A federal judge has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency wrongly declared secondhand tobacco smoke a dangerous carcinogen in a landmark 1993 report, a decision that could imperil hundreds of local and regional ordinances banning indoor smoking.
http://www.sepp.org/reality/courtrules.html
Yeah, that seems to be the only way you understand things.
BTW, those two sentences you quoted don’t go together; they were responses to two separate points of yours.
My answer was, “I don’t know; what’s your point?” What part of that didn’t you understand?
This is downright amusing. You say it’s just a question, yet in the very next paragraph, you make the unfounded assertion that non-smoking venues would automatically exist unless something stops them from existing. Things don’t automatically exist just because we want them; if you believe that to be the case, then please share your evidence for this assertion.
Uh, yeah - if the only 3 reasons you can think of are nefarious motives, hidden demand, or no demand, I’d say you missed something.
Before Starbucks, take-out coffee was swill. Tell me, what nefarious motives were preventing anyone from opening a chain of gourmet coffee shops? Do you think people didn’t like good coffee before the 1990s?
I don’t know how old you are, but remember back 20 years or so when the only beer you could get was domestic piss-water like Bud and Miller? Does that mean people didn’t like good beer? The point I’m making here is that somebody may start a business to meet the desires of the public, or they may not. It’s NOT automatic. And before any analogy-impaired people try to jump on this and say “Duh, Starbucks isn’t the same as the government”, I know that - the only point I’m making is that there can be any number of things that people want, but that is not supplied by the market, and it does not imply sinister motives OR lack of demand.
Oh, I see - you’re one of these people who think that if you imply something, that you didn’t really say it. So if you imply that my argument was weak by some lame-ass parody that’s completely off-point, it doesn’t count because it was just a joke, huh? Whatever.:rolleyes:
Sorry, they are, in the sense that they are open to the general public. They are not owned by the government, but the landowner has chosen to make them open to the public (or, let’s say, the adult public), and therefore is required to abide by certain rules, such as rules related to zoning, fire safety, health, and non-discrimination.
Minors are not full-fledged members of the public, and therefore don’t have the same rights to go anywhere or do anything that adults are allowed to. And many of the places that minors are forbidden to go (e.g. adult book stores, taverns) are restricted to them by laws (such as those forbidding sale of pornography to minors), not just because of the business owner’s whims. So the fact that an establishment has the right to prohibit minors does not mean that any regulation of that establishment is off-limits as an infringement of the property owners’ rights. There is no absolute right to run a business on one’s property.
**
Restaurants are also subject to state bureaucracies. They are licensed to serve liquor, required to be laid out in such a way as to promote fire safety, and are required to maintain certain sanitary conditions in the kitchen and in the common areas. Requiring air free of tobacco smoke is simply one more form of regulation.
Debate the merits of the science all you want, but a restriction on cigarette smoking is no more a restriction of the property owners’ “rights” than any other form of health or safety regulation. It may or may not be good policy, but it’s not an infringement of rights.
No, no, darlin’. You predicated your response on an explicit assertion; I was just questioning the assertion. But, you’re right – we should stay on task. 
Darn! The url to Cecil’s say so is missing. I’ll go hunt for it. Thank you.
I believe the general standards on this board and in other places (and simply general standards of writing) is that you should make it clear when you are quoting verbatim from a source as you were here.
Can you find independent verification for the claims made in this opinion piece? [Note that the WHO part was already discussed above.]
Ah, you can always count on Fred Singer and SEPP to quote the industry-line on tobacco smoke, climate change, … Here is the link to a press release, admittedly also from a partisan group, but what it points out, among other things is that Judge Osteen’s ruling was overturned on appeal:
(I don’t know if it was overturned along with a repudiation of what he had said about the science or whether they overturned it on more technical legal grounds and didn’t take up the issue of the science.)
Here are a few more points from this webpage of the same group (with gorier details on these points available there):
I practically guessed point 3 or something like it when I saw it was a court based in North Carolina! (“Let’s see, North Carolina, what’s a major industry there…”)
This study, or at least the BBC article about it, doesn’t address the issue of secondhand smoke as a trigger. (Also, note that triggers are different than longterm causes.)
But, the most amusing thing about your cite is that all you have to do is go over to the righthand side of the page where they have links to other related stories from BBC to find this article that says:
OK, but should people be able to demand anything at all? There are many things which people want and which they should not get. I was not trying to make an exhaustive list. I was only trying to understand how this particular “market failure” as you put it necessitates government actions.
Right. But are you replacing the god of the market with the god of the mob? Seriously, dude, I still cannot find anyone but you claiming that the market is some sort of magical fairy of wish fulfilment. You understand the difference between Democratic and Republican government right?
Snide tit for tat aside, Are you guys seriously saying that anything a mojority votes for is therefore good and ok? I’m sure your not saying that. But some of your posts seem to imply it.
This is why the question is still worthy of an answer. What principle applies when a portion of the population desires to enlist the government in the fulfilment of its wishes?
Look, I 'm not claiming that the demand for non smoking venues doesn’t exist. I’m part of it. I don’t smoke, and find smoke while I’m eating to be very annoying. I woudl most definately patronize a restaraunt which did not have smoking sections. And I’m not claiming that free markets are magical wish fairies. There is often a temporal difference between when a demand becomes apperent and when it is fulfilled. I can add another to your list. Fed Ex. When he floated the idea he was told that no one would pay $10 to send a letter over night when they could send it in a couple days for 2 or 3 dollars. The understanding of the demand was wrong (that is untapped). The same can be said of the coffee and beer markets you mentioned. They were untapped markets which went untapped for a some time.
The non smoking venue market is another example. The question has to do with whether or not this market is being repressed (Why do I have the “Elp elp I’m being repressed” quote running through my head :)) in some way which requires force to redress it.
You two seem to be saying that either the demand is being smothered in some way such that government intervention is required, or that government intervention is a perfectly legitimate way to get an economic demand met. I can’t be sure which (or if there is a third possibility).
I don’t think there is an easy, simple principle. In general, however, I think the government can intervene unless doing so is clearly violating someone’s rights without really protecting the rights of another. In this particular case, I think there are lots of “rights” involved: the rights of smokers to smoke, the rights of non-smokers to breathe, the rights of the restaurant owner… On weighing these rights, I personally feel supportive of having government play a role. [Note that I don’t think the property right issue is all that important here because I believe that a restaurant is a place of public accomodation. Plus, I find private property rights to be amongst the most problematic of all rights in a highly interactive society. I think they are useful in a variety of ways (in providing an incentive for people to be productive, for example) but that the allocation of property to individuals in a highly complex, interactive society is too arbitrary to elevate property rights above many other rights. I think libertarian-types seem to arrive at most of their positions by making private property rights the most fundamental and I don’t think that is justified. This causes them to make silly statements like that taxation is theft of money from them when, in fact, I don’t really believe it is their money. After all, if everyone said all the money they earned is theirs by some fundamental right, then we arrive at a logical contradiction because there would be no money to pay for the things that society has such as roads, police, corporate law, etc. and which they have benefitted crucially from in actually earning said money.]
I can agree that the government can intervene when it does not violate rights. However, I would suggest that this is the only way in which a government should intervene. Further, I would propose that such an intervention should only occur when it can be demonstrated to protect someone’s rights.
Just to be sure, however, you are sure you have a useful definition of rights? I’m not accusing, or anything, but in the past we seem to have stumbled a little with an implication that maybe patrons had more of a right to go to a restaraunt than the owner has to run it. We are not confusing rights with needs are we?
I’m not sure the rights of non smokers are being violated. We are not talking about laws which would require smoking bans anywhere non smokers are. Specifically, private homes are exempt. We may be talking about the “right” of non smokers to breath non smokey air when they go to public venues. But I’m not even sure about that. We could have enacted filter requirements, seperated eating / drinking areas. Perhaps seperate smoking lounges. But the majority of these laws (unless I have been misled which is certainly possible) are simply bans on smoking. Consider, for instance, that we do not ban the handling of raw meat. We simply regulate that it must be done in a way to minimize potential risks. Smoking bans don’t seem to follow these limitations. Thus my questions regarding the principles behind them. Are you sure that they are not simply one portion of the population wanting to impose their way on another portion?
Hi ya, Eva.
I’m gonna indulge in the rudeness of staying off topic to respond to your thoughtful post.
Missed that thread; only get in here occasionally. Thank you for pointing it out.
I know, love, and have observed many asthmatics, so those statistics seem credible. I have asthma myself – just developed a few short years ago. It is a dreadful thing to have to endure.
The problem is that the propagandists, with their own motives in mind, have carelessly mislead people --and perhaps even stifled would-be research – by proposing/suggesting that the evils of asthma and other diseases would be substantially abated if only we could eliminate SHS.
The unintended consequence of such narrow, and perhaps erroneous, focus is to have created lazy thinking, such as “if there was no SHS, asthma (and many other terrible diseases) would just go away”. I would love to see someone investigate the unnecessary harm done by such preaching. I have observed some of the harm firsthand. It is my opinion that, in many ways, the ALA and other such organizations have done their followers a huge disservice.
**
Ah, there’s the rub. Does it really? There is conflicting research on just that subject.
**
As you can see from above, I’m not ignoring the other causes; I’m actually contending that, with their screaming hyperbole, the various associations have created a false sense of hope and a false sense of security. I bought their bill of goods and, despite drastic reductions in exposure to various “pollutants”, asthma continues to increase in frequency and severity. Perhaps if they put as much time and resources into research as they do hooting and hollering about one single component, we might be farther along in answers.
Cats here. I lose lung cells when a cat’s in the vicinity. At times the wheezing starts when just sitting next to a cat owner, although it is infrequent. I suspect they must have been up close and personal with their feline friends before they left the house.
From this vantage point, it’s too bad we can’t have separate venues for cat people.
But SHS doesn’t bother me. Go figure. This is why we need more research and less rabble rousing by these organizations.
I have to disagree somewhat with this opinion. Although you have a good faith contract when you enter a restaurant or bar – food and service in exchange for money – you (the editorial you, not the personal you) are there at the pleasure of the establishment. A guest. Unless the establishment is receiving government funding, there’s no automatic entitlement that requires the establishment to serve you.
Indeed, if you are ejected for real or perceived bad behavior, and you refuse to leave or try to return after being asked to leave, you can be charged with trespassing. The threshold for what constitues bad or harassing behavior varies from venue to venue; there’s no public standard.
If you don’t meet a dress code you can be refused service. Again, no public input required.
Businesses aren’t compelled to accept credit cards and may require cash transactions. If you don’t agree to those terms, you go elsewhere.
Conscientious business owners give preferential treatment to their loyal, regular customers and cater to their comfort. Chances are that “good” customers will be given preference in seating and service over an incidental customer. There’s no requirement of equality there either. You can complain, but if you have no standing you probably won’t get much satisfaction. Once again, the public does not set the rules for the business. Instead, the business establishes rules to attract and maintain their clientele.
I know someone who tried to go to a strip club, but one of the dancers knew he was an acquaintance of someone she didn’t like. He was unceremoniously asked to leave. Hey, those bouncers are big guys and he was a geek. But, really, that was an extremely arbitrary reason to ask a paying customer to leave and he presented no threat to anyone’s health or well-being. He didn’t know the young lady personally, and she did not know him personally. Nonetheless, he had no automatic guarantee of being allowed to stay, let alone being served. The public, to my knowledge, was not polled.
Sidebar: Just realized that strip clubs tend to have more “particular standards” than most venues. This is causing fits of laughter.
Anyhow, basic sanitation requirements aside, most businesses are technically private property, can institute their own rules regarding the comportment of their customers, and can be selective in the treatment of individual customers. As a customer/guest, you agree to abide by the establishment’s rules, climate (i.e. formal, informal, reservations required, etc.), and fees.
At casinos you will be bumped, without notice, from your luxury accommodations if a high roller comes into town and requires that same accommodation. As unfair as this is, there’s no requirement of allegiance to the general public, and no sign that the average joe is going to be persuasive enough to alter this policy.
All this points to, yes, businesses are private. At least technically. It’s where public interest intersects with private interest that is the point of contention.
You’ve made some interesting points and I’d like to cogitate on them a bit more. Thank you.
Skyfire: The smoking bans in restaurants/bars that I’m famaliar with (eg, the one in CA) relates to the health of the employees, not the customers. The customers are not part of the equation. The issue is that owners are exposing the employees to unhealthy air.
But I’m not the one who said it was a market failure. I’m the one who’s trying to get away from all this Econ 101 stuff that everyone keeps attempting to use in an unfalsifyable way.
Now you seem to be shifting the discussion from “Does the desire for non-smoking venues really exist?”, to “Given that the desire exists, are government regulations appropriate?” I think we have to remember that this is not a simple case of people wanting goods or services that they can’t get; it’s a health issue. We can debate about the effects of secondhand smoke, and I’m not convinced that the evidence is conclusive for it being a carcinogen, but at the very least, can we at least agree that it is an irritant and can cause headaches, coughing, and shortness of breath?
There are all kinds of things that, for the public good, are disallowed by ordinance, things which don’t necessarily have scientific studies proving that they cause death, e.g. public nudity; excessive noise, public urination/defecation, etc.
Quite simply, it is considered in the public good for people to be free of exposure to these things, and their rights are put above those who wish to engage in such activities. In my opinion, yes - such laws should and do exist.
Never said that; never implied it.
I don’t consider clean air a “wish”; I consider it a fundamental necessity. You make it sound like it’s tantamount to wanting a flying car or something.
But it’s not an economic demand. Smoking has nothing whatsover to do with the economic activities carried out in restaurants and bars. People want a healthy and comfortable environment; I would compare it to the desire for clean restrooms or for a place to be free of vermin. Does a property owner have a right to run a restaurant that’s full of rats?
The problem with that analogy is there’s no significant group of customers who want dirty restrooms and vermin. There are no customers or employees who intentionally soil their own restrooms, or encourage rats and maggots to breed in their own homes, and thus would feel right at home in a filthy, vermin-infested restaurant.
There are plenty of customers who want smoking sections. There are also many employees who will gladly provide those smoking sections, since they get far more first-hand smoke in their lungs every week than they’ll get second-hand in a lifetime.
But are these things banned in the same way smoking is? Can I not open a nude bar if I want? Can I not have loud music? do my bathrooms all have to provide stalls for urination? The smoking bans seem to be a different animal in some way. I’m trying to understand how much of this difference is due to the differences between smoking and the other things you mentioned, and the Politically Correct hatred of tobacco.
OK, but don’t go too far with this claim. What you are explicitly legislating with the smoking bans is that all rooms should be free of toboacco smoke. You are not imposing clean air standards (nothing is said about farting for example). You are not requiring that private homes be subject to the tobacco ban. And, again, you are not providing for other means to this stated outcome. Very little mention is made to measuring the amounts of tobacco smoke and legislating a limit on that. The bans simply restrict the smoking of tobacco. So, while I understand the desire (I have mentioned that I don’t like smoke either), I’m not sure this is really the over riding purpose of the bans.
And just for completeness, I was using the word wish in the context of its meaning as desire, need, or expectation. I was not trying to say that smoking bans were akin to fantasies.
Well, it most certainly is an economic demand. It is a regulation which requires retail (economic entities by definition) venues to enforce a ban on smoking. Smoking most certainly does have alot to do with economic activities in many bars and restaraunts. As much As I hate smoking, I’m sure many people enjoy very much a smoke during or after dinner. And the link with smoking and drinking is too simple to require explanation. Specifically, then, people want a healthy comfortable environment, and for some that means the ability to smoke. Why does the desire of one group trump the desire of the other?
There seems something fishy to me about the claim of those supporting such laws that it’s all about health. I suspect this is just used to persuade legislators into going along.
Have you ever noticed that when a group of people goes to a restaraunt with smoking/non-smoking sections that they sit in the smoking section? The unstated belief on the part of the non-smokers is that the smokers have a stronger need to eat/smoke than the non-smokers do to eat/be free of smoke.
And, have you ever noticed that smokers are more “fun”? More socially adept? That, if a group went into a restaurant and separated into the smoking and non-smoking sections that those in the smoking section would be the more entertaining group?
Just throwing these thoughts out to see if you agree/disagree…