Just popping in here to say that Philip Morris seems to be okay with the recent smokng bans:
See, all the glowing rhetoric extolling democracy as the foundation of America’s polity is nothing more than a ruse to placate an apathetic citizenry into accepting a not so thinly veiled degree of Facism, because… well, it’s for your own good.
And this says it all:
Yeah, our rights exist soley at the whim of government’s benevolence. Well, if you were born after 1960, you probably believe that, but that is a myth that has been created since the mid-sixties, by those dedicated to the distruction of the tenets of traditional America and replacing them with their vision of a collectivist utopia.
So, getting back on track with the original OP, what we have is a battle between Individualists and Collectivists.
Collectivists are of the persuasion that put their faith in the concept of government being the provider of rights.
Individualists believe that rights are intrinsic.
As for the “tenets of traditional America”, the words of the Founders side with Individualists.
That’s pretty cut and dry. The purpose of government is not to grant rights, but rather, to secure and protect rights.
As for the Collectivist viewpoint, the words of Article Four of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights sums it up.
I choose individualism, how 'bout you?
Now, see Skyfire’s post, it’s quite revealing with regards to the “privately owned business” vs. “public area” debate.
Hmmm… me thinks you are attacking the messenger. By providing the link, I removed any perceived notion of plagarism. Thanks, but no thanks. I don’t need your lecturing on forum etiquette.
The individualist viewpoint would be that the owners are not exposing the employees to unhealthy air, but that the employees are making the choice to work in a venue where they will be subject to second-hand smoke.
My experience is opposite; my friends and I all agree that my desire not to have an asthma attack during dinner trumps their desire to smoke. (Most of them don’t smoke, anyway.) Even my sister, who smokes and is also a huge pain in the ass, gives in on that point; apparently she has the willpower to make it through dinner without lighting up.
I’m not even going to touch your second item, because I’m trying to avoid profanity today.
Razor:
BTW, I didn’t say whether I agreed with the reasoning behind the law or not, just that those who are arguing that the law is intended to protect customers are incorrect-- the law is intended to protect employees. At least that is the stated justification.
I’m a property rights kind of guy and although I haven’t fully made up my mind on this partuclar issue, my insticts are to say the gov’t should butt out when it comes to privately owned facilities.
Lol, I had been thinking this when making the last post. I live in NYS and, since the ban went into effect, the local watering hole has been like a morgue. Normally, on Thursday and Friday nights, it was a fun place where local businessmen and blue collar workers mingled, laughed, and had a good ol’ time. Even when it wasn’t standing room only it was a lot of fun.
If I had to guess, I’d say that close to half of the bar clientele were smokers. And, yes, they were fun. I don’t smoke and I don’t like smoke drifting into my face from a burning cigarette. But they had top of the line smoke eaters in there, prohibited cigars, and i can’t remember a time when I felt assaulted. Or, maybe I was too distracted to notice. 
Actually, though, I’ve found smokers to be very cooperative people as a group. Probably more so than any other group that springs to mind at the moment. Usually they notice and adjust if they see their smoke drifting directly into someone’s path. If not, they are usually agreeable if you make a civil request.
Since the ban went into effect, I’ve been there exactly 4 times looking for some frivolity (it’s one of those places where everyone knows everyone else because it’s the only place in the tri-town area that serves alcoholic beverages). Each time was a disappointment. No fun whatsoever.
During the first visit, there were 2 or 3 people outside smoking, engaged in lively conversation with each other. It looked hopeful. I went in and ordered a short drink. Of the dozen or so people there, no one was smiling, let alone talking. No chatter, no jukebox, no collective laughter. I drank while staring at the line of bottles behind the bar, attempted to converse with the legally dead, then left. Bummer. I thought maybe it was just one of those evenings, but 3 subsequent visits proved to be the same.
I haven’t been back. It’s just no fun. I used to patronize the place a couple of times a week, stay there for a few hours, have a few drinks, maybe some food, buy drinks for friends, tip generously, walk home. I still have a couple of bar-issued iou tokens left over from visits when others purchased drinks for me that I couldn’t consume at the time.
Every once in a while i order a “guilt” take-out pizza from them, but I’m not fond of pizza. On the plus side, I have more money in my pocket. There’s some satisfaction in thinking there’s more money for me and less money going to sales taxes.
I think the yuppie venues and the chains, particularly where there’s a high population rate, will suffer no ill effects. For the rest, it may be a 50-50 chance. Some small bars have let employees go, particularly those bordering states that still allow smoking in bars. I guess we won’t know what the fallout is until the state’s end of year statistics on sales tax revenue and business failures are published.
For me, I’ll stay home for now until finding a fun, loose, easy ambience somewhere. If i want a drink I can buy a bottle of liquor or six pack of beer, both of which will probably last at least a month. Hey, why pay to be bored to tears when you can stay at home and be bored to tears inexpensively?
Still, I do miss running into my old hangout pals.
One last thought (if you can stand it): The situation reminds me of something Andy Rooney said on 60 Minutes many years ago. To paraphrase – “I’m against abortion, but I like the pro-choice people more than I like the pro-life people”.
Cheers!
Sky:
Have patience. The smoking ban in CA has been in effect for about 5 yrs, and the bars are as busy as ever. But, it’s a statewide ban, so if you have just a city ban in NY, perhaps the fun folks have gone elsewhere. In most of CA, that’s not an option.
Same in Delaware. One year after the ban, the bars & clubs that I step into all seem to be filled to capacity.
Those things are regulated, just as smoking sometimes is. If I’m not mistaken, you cannot open a strip club without a license, and you can’t have Aerosmith play next door to the public library without some sort of permit. In fact, things tend to be regulated only to the extent that they AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE. You can play loud music all you want so long as it doesn’t bother anyone. And you can smoke all you want at home. These types of regulations are situational; they tend to come into play when one interacts with other people. There is NO STATE in the U.S. where smoking is illegal; there are lots of places where you CAN smoke, and a few where you can’t. FWIW, I already said somewhere around page 1 that I wouldn’t be opposed to a licensing system wherein a finite number of smoking licenses are granted to establishments. But I don’t think it’s in the public good to have EVERY establishment allow smoking. Nonsmokers are the majority; I don’t see any reason why we shouldn’t be allowed to breathe clean air when we go out to eat and drink.
?
I’m not seeing as how it’s a different animal at all.
The analogy between cigarette smoke and odors gets made a lot, but I find it lacking. Smoke is not an odor, it is particulate matter in the air. It’s tantamount to saying that my spraying pepper spray in your eyes is the same as showing you a disagreeable picture.
Yes, it’s about the effect on other people. I don’t believe the government should be in the business of saving people from themselves by force if they have destructive habits. But I do appreciate the help if I am being affected by other people’s destructive habits.
Again, you may have missed my earlier post, but I said I wouldn’t be opposed to a system that allows some places for smoking, but still leaves the option there for non-smokers. What I said was that I’m against simply leaving it up to the business owners if it’s not going to get the job done. I haven’t heard a lot of proposals from the other side for such a system; what I’m hearing most of the time is that smokers don’t want there to be any regulations AT ALL.
I don’t know about other states, but in California, you are correct. The purpose of the ban is to protect employees.
Conversely, why should the desire of smokers trump the desire of nonsmokers? We have 2 groups, one that wishes to fill the air with smoke, and one that wishes not to have the air filled with smoke. How is your belief that the former group should prevail any less arbitrary than believing that the latter group should?
Skyfire, I haven’t noticed that smokers are more “fun” or “agreeable” at all. I really don’t think you can generalize like that; people are individuals. I’m sure many smokers are perfectly nice people, but I have also run into many downright disagreeable smokers. Just a few anecdotes:
I was filling my car at a gas station, when I looked over to see a man filling his car with a LIT CIGARETTE IN HIS MOUTH. I asked him to please put out the cigarette, as it was extremely dangerous. He refused, offering only the sarcastic retort, “I guess we’re pretty lucky, then.”
I applied for an office job from a newspaper ad which made no mention of it being a smoking office. In the middle of the interview, the woman lit up a cigarette, then carefully eyed me to see my reaction. She then said, “Does that bother you? We smoke in this office.” Rather than screen out those who are bothered by smoke, she preferred to “test” them when they came in for the interview.
A tenant who shared a building with others, after numerous complaints from other tenants about his smoking inside the office, punched a hole in the outer brick wall and attempted to continue smoking though the hole in the wall. Of course it didn’t work, and the other tenants were still bothered by his smoke - so after refusing to stop smoking and damaging the building, he had to be evicted.
And I agree with the others that the exact same doom and gloom predictions, that nobody would go out to bars anymore and they would all close down, were made in California. The predictions turned out dead wrong.
Hi ya, John.
In NY the ban is statewide, but originally installed in NYC several months before going statewide.
And, yes, it falls under the guise of “employee safety”.
I don’t know every detail of the CA ban, but here private clubs are exempt. I went to a birthday dinner given at a sportsmen’s club and they had a separate bar with smoking welcomed, as it seems many of their members smoke. This is legal as long as the “employees” do not receive wages.
Also, any business which derives a certain percentage (i forget the number) of its profits from the sale of tobacco products is exempt from the ban. There are a few such places in NYC and a business in Syracuse, called The Smokehouse (cute), which is also a bar and restaurant. I hear that place is rocking with business, while others are floundering.
Although I know there are many microclimates in CA, most of the population centers are in areas that do not receive those harsh winters. With the onset of more inclement weather here, people are staying away in droves.
Here, businesses are allowed to apply for waivers from the health department if the ban has caused a financial hardship. The problem is that the legislation has not created guidelines for doing so. The waivers are applied for at the county level. Some county health departments have issued waivers, while other counties are dazed and confused about the guidelines for doing so. Some waivers have been issued, more are in waiting in the wings.
Btw, this legislation was rigged together quickly and passed with little press last March when everyone was primarily focused on the war in Iraq. Prior to this, establishments were forced to spend large sums of money on equipment to meet air quality standards. After they went through the time, expense, and inconvenience to meet those standards, our illustrious collection of bozos made it irrelevent. I’m beginning to wonder which of the politicians had stock in companies that manufacture and install such equipment.
I would guess that, in many cases, the restaurant and tavern owners are as bitter about how the legislature went about doing things as they are with the ban in general.
There is more talk about other nanny-state activities involving obesity and perhaps removing some forms of food from public places. And, no, not just schools. I just hate the entire mentality.
Ok, I have turkey duties to perform, so I put this together quickly. Maybe too quickly.
I don’t think rules regarding obesity are in the same category as rules regarding smoking. Quite obviously, the former would be an example of government trying to prevent people from harming THEMSELVES, while the latter is trying to prevent people from harming OTHER PEOPLE. It’s disingenuous to say you hate the “entire mentality”, when you are in fact referring to two very different “mentalities”. The use of the term “nanny state” is inappropriate in the case of public smoking legislation. You also seem to be engaging in the fallacious “slippery slope” reasoning that regulations on smoking surely leads to these unrelated “nanny” type laws.
On the other hand, if you just hate the “entire mentality” of having laws at all, that would make you an anarchist.
Well, this brings us back to the OP. The deciding factor should be who owns the business and what policies do they want. If I have 2 customers in my bar and 1 wants to fart excessivley while the other finds this very offensive, I should be able to refuse service to either one. You see, the principle is private ownership of property. We don’t debate publicly every little detail of how businesses should be run. Not because private ownership is more efficient (even though it is). But because private ownership is an extension of the concept of liberty in the first place.
Well, this seems to be a misstatement of the smoker’s position. I have not heard anyone advocate repeal of the regulations against young smokers for instance. The objections have to do with outright bans of smoking in certain venues. Primarily bars, but restaraunts as well.
While we are here, what job exactlly is not “getting done”? Do you mean providing you with a smoke free restaraunt? Or perhaps you mean providing you with a smoke free bar to work in? It brings us back to the begining. If you want these things, why don’t you open up such a business?
How about this as a proposal. Require any business which allows smoking to conspicously post that they do so. Make them include a statement about smoking being dangerous (even SHS if you want). Perhaps even require them to warn customers (again conspicously) that SHS may be dangerous to your health. We could revive the warnings on cigeratte packages for the purpose. This would not require any licenses or bans. It would allow patrons to choose only restaraunts which ban smoking if they want. We could even require smoking establishment to include a line about it in any help wanted ads so that prospective employees could make an informed choice. I’m not sure, but this seems to enact everything the smoking ban wants except requiring all businesses to ban smoking.
OK, but this seems to fly in the face of the principles we talked about earlier. What, principally, is the difference between the smoking ban and a law which requires bars or restaruants to provide smoking approved areas? You want the government to protect you from smokers. I agree with that. As long as you are asking to be protected without invading their property. That is, if a smoker comes into your home and smokes without your permision (and against your wishes) then he should be subject to a penalty. But if you go to a smokers home you should not be able to penalize him. I don’t at all understand how a business is any different, principally that is.
No, there are clear parrallels. Smells are a result of molecular receptors in you nose detecting specific molecules. Unless you mean something else by “particulate”, an amount of gas released into the air is the same thing as an amount of smoke released (with the exception that the particular particulates may differ). Meanwhile spraying pepper into someones eyes and showing a picture are only similar in that the sensations are in the eyes. A more accurate analogy to smell vs smoke might be smoke versus a punch in the nose. An analogy I did not make BTW.
Yes, but not the people in the establishment. The things which are regulated are designed to protect people who do not choose to participate in any activities of the establishment from being effected by them. So, I can’t build a concert venue next to a church and have Sunday morning hard rock concerts. But no one says that I should be prevented from having loud rock concerts because my emplyees might damage their ears. Certainly noone claims I should be prevented because many people like classical music.
Above is at least part of the difference. Smoking bans are designed to protect other people besides those simply in proximity to the business in question. They are meant to prevent certain types of activities even amongst consenting adults. Even when (and actually especially when) the activity takes place in semi private environments.
Sorry if you already posted one, but can you provide a cite for this? The only ones I seem to find are contradictory. I found studies claiming that patronage is up, but that applications for bar licenses is down significantly. Do you have information which is more complete?
I disagree. I think we already effectively debunked the notion that property owners have carte blanche to do whatever they want.
A place open to the public is a public place; doesn’t matter if it’s privately owned. It doesn’t have to be owned by the government to be a public place.
I don’t think it’s a misstatement. In fact, you yourself just got through complaining about the NY law because even though smoking establishments are still allowed, there aren’t enough of them for your liking. It seems the only option you are willing to consider is no regulation at all.
That’s the best argument you can come up with? “Why don’t you open your own business?”
Your proposal is basically to have no regulations at all, and “if you don’t like it go somewhere else”, which is exactly what I was saying is the position I keep hearing from the pro-smoking camp.
Hmmm…but that’s not what you proposed; you proposed merely having to put signs up saying it’s a smoking venue. I don’t see how that’s going to do anything. I wouldn’t be opposed to seperate areas for smokers, IF the smoke doesn’t get into the nonsmoking area (something which has never been successfully done in the past). In California, the smoking section is the outdoor patio. In places with cold winters, you’d obviously need another solution.
I don’t know what to say. We’ve gone over why it’s different ad nauseum.
It’s not the same thing. Again, I don’t know what else to say.
Actually, I’m a classical musician, and many musicians have demanded sound sheilds to protect their hearing. I have no doubt that one could make a viable case for the necessity of occupational safety in that regard. And in fact, airport employees are provided with noise-reducing ear coverings for the same reason. An airport employee who went deaf due to his employers’ negligence would have a legitimate cause of action.
Again, a public place can be privately-owned; it doesn’t make it private nor semi-private. It’s still public. And it’s not among “consenting adults”. I, and many others, do NOT consent.
Amazingly you missed the point of every one of those quotes. But I’ll concentrate on one since it seems to be the central issue of our disagreement and the OP.
First of all, the idea that anyone has “carte blanche to do whatever they want” is a strawman that you keep using. Can you point to a single post from an opponent of smoking bans which says this? If not stop engaging in this sort of hyperbole. I have agreed that property owners have responsibilities as well as rights.
Secondly, even if we accept that owners do not have “carte blanche to do whatever they want”, this in no way indicates that the state has carte blanche to make any regulation it wants. Nor does it support the creation of any particular regulation.
So, not only is it a false assertion of other’s position, it does not even support your position. I don’t know what you mean by debunked, but you most certainly have not “debunked the notion that property owners [strawman]”. You cannot debunk a notion that no one but its opponents hold.
Thirdly, a retail business may be, in some sense, a public place. It is not, however, a public place in every sense. Ten Commandment plaques are not forbidden in bars for instance. They can be forbidden in parks or government buildings. There is more than one kind of “public place”. Some are completely conrolled by the public.
Other types of “public places” are really private property on which a retail business is operated. Amongst these places some are regulated in one way or another. None of these “public places” is universally subject to any whim the public may want to foist on it. There are such things as property rights even for a business. They may have been eroded over the years, but they are not gone. Yet.
Finally, I’m intensely curious as to what principle applies to owners of businesses which does not apply to other owners of property. I understand that there is a difference between a private home and a retail business open to the public. I do not understand how allowing the public onto a property cedes the right of the owner to allow activities some of his patrons may like to indulge in.
If you are not a statist then you must admit to some limitations on the state’s power to regulate the use of private property. Or is there no such limit when it comes to retail businesses?
OK, I lied. I’d like to address one other issue.
My proposal was for venues which permit smoking to be forced to disclose this before any patron or prospective employee could be exposed to SHS. I even suggested that the disclosure could include information regarding the hazards of SHS. The point being to allow customers and employees to make informed choices. So anyone who enjoys or doesn’t care about smoking nearby can indulge in that. Anyone who is offended by it could avoid such places. It seems that such an arangement accomplishes all of the stated goals of smoking bans.
That you “don’t see how that’s going to do anything” is telling, however.
What are your goals exactly? Are you saying the government should protect people against smoking risks regardless of whether or not they want to assume those risks? Or are you saying that business owners should be forced to provide you with the kinds of venues you like whether or not they want to? Is the “anything” you are talking about the establishment of nonsmoking venues?
Or, are your goals really about social engineering? Is it more accurate to suggest that the goals of the anti smoking lobbies are about banning smoking?
<brief rant>
Why not force new business permit applicants to start non smoking restaraunts or bars? Every 3rd application would have to open such a business regardless of what he originally planned. Why not force businesses to have no smoking days? Maybe 4 days a week could be no smoking nights. They could rotate so that smokers and non smokers would have access to the “public places” during all days of the week at one time or another.
</brief rant>
I should have been more clear that I was speaking from personal experience. I don’t have a cite. Actually, I’m going to go and do some research into this precise issue (bar patronage) right now!
No problem, John.
The actual law can be found here: http://www.senate.state.ny.us/
Then you have to look up Bill Number S3292
Warning: You might want to have a drink while reading because (A) it will make more sense that way, with all the additions and revisions that turn it into a visual nightmare, and (B) it’s a boring read.
Now, back to food preparation.
Pull up a chair. It’s been a hectic day.
**
If that’s true then you might object to the new fanatics who would beg to differ with that opinion (citations below).
**
Actually the irritating thing is how we selectively act on some public safety threats while whimsically ignoring or excusing others.
Hmmm. You and I are probably well aware that the most immediate risk we take every day is to climb in our vehicles and drive from one point to another. At approximately 50,000 fatalities per year, in the USA alone, you would think that those numbers would generate indignant outrage as well. But, we love and need our vehicles, so the loss is considered an unfortunate side effect, and beyond drastic remedy.
I didn’t parse out how many of the motor vehicle fatalities consisted of those OTHER PEOPLE (i.e. passengers, pedestrians) that we’re so concerned about, but would be willing to speculate that it’s a considerable percentage.
http://webapp.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe
The single leading cause of death before the age of 40 is accidents/unintentional injuries. Using 1998 as an example, roughly 45,000 accidental deaths occured in the 1-44 age group. Depending on the age group, traffic accidents accounted for a range of 50-74% of those deaths. The exception being the 1-4 age group at 32.4% accidental deaths caused by motor vehicles, and the 35-44 age group where mv deaths account for 44.8%.
Of course it would be impractical, if not economically suicidal, to ban the use of motor vehicles. Yet, given the figures, the argument can be made that motor vehicles are a serious public health threat, equally worthy of restriction. Remember that we’re just talking about fatalities, and not disabilities and/or permanent injuries that result from this source of carnage. Also, they emit toxic fumes and house toxic substances to keep them running. And all those California people know about the health problems caused by the smog that vehicles produce.
Although automobiles are not currently on the hot list of catastrophes du jour, they meet most of the criteria discussed here to ban public health threats.
So what are the trade-offs we’re willing to make for the sake of protecting other people from “THEM” commuters? Really, that’s what it comes down to. What are the acceptable trade-offs? When does one sell out?
Or do we just let the government come in and tell us when and how? C’mon, would you have us believe that politicians are sagacious, benevolent oracles? Government intervention should be the last resort, not a substitute for negotiation, investigation, and remediation.
**
I understand how some people see this as two separate mentalities. I think it’s the same mentality with two different sets of clothing.
**
Would urls help?
http://www.commercialalert.org/NYCYasskyIntro316.pdf
http://www.applesforhealth.com/PersonallyYours/junfooobet5.html
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2002-11-14/cover.asp
Not sure how credible this group of newspapers is, but scarey excerpt:
"Right now, some of the very groups who targeted the tobacco companies are gearing up to go into combat once again–this time against junk food. Instead of Big Tobacco, this fight will be waged against Big Food. Individuals representing nonprofit and government agencies in Sacramento are gathering information with which to arm the grassroots activists in the struggle.
The early battles, they say, will be fought in the schools because of the serious dangers to kids’ health and because that’s where the government has some control."
And this one was pretty telling:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/06/18/hln.game.tax/
Wow. Assigned to a state of disingenuousness, accused of fallacious slippery slope arguments, and, finally, graduated to anarchist potential. And we’ve only just met! I’m blushing.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to insinuate that you were in favor of the law, and from reading your posts, neither was I under the impression that you were in favor of the ban.
Just adding my $.02 to your observation.