Tobacco interests blow smoke, voters see through it

Congratulations to the voters of Ohio and Arizona, who have passed bans on smoking in most public places. At the same time, they saw through and defeated competing proposals backed by Big Tobacco (and some bar and restaurant owners) that would have instituted weak limitations on public smoking AND overturned existing antismoking laws on the local level.

It made for confusing ballots (which is what the prosmoking forces were hoping for), but voters were smart enough to figure things out.

In Ohio, spokesmen for the tobacco/bar interests were quoted as saying they would now work to “cushion the effects of the ban” and help bar and restaurant owners “deal” with the new law. Hopefully this won’t translate to “advise businessmen on ways around the law” or “start devising new legislation to weaken the bans”.

But today’s a day to celebrate.

I’m disappointed. Like it or not tobacco is a legal substance and a restraunt owner has private property rights.

Oh well.

I see the tobacco legislation as being similar to seat belt laws. There’s a hue and cry beforehand about how the government is taking away your rights, and you should be allowed to do what you want with your health and welfare. After the fact, it becomes just a regular part of your routine, people adjust their lives a little bit, and we all move on, a little bit safer or healthier than we were before, without a single peep regarding repealing the law.

I think there’s more than enough evidence that anti-smoking laws don’t really hurt bars and restaurants as a whole. I’m surprised they pull out that old saw every time a law is proposed.

Actually I don’t see it as that at all, smoking (in public) is a right to infringe on the rights of others, while mostly seatbelts are to save your own @$$, though a case can be made that seatbelts will keep you as becoming a projectile which could injure or kill other passengers, and if you are driving, will tend to keep you in a spot where you may still be able to control the car/suv a bit.

Our voters did not see through Big Tobacco’s interests. It just so happens that smug, militant anti-smoking voters are the majority out here. Our other non-smoking proposition was fair to non-smokers without completely snubbing smokers, but that’s never good enough for those people.

In other news, our “Protect Marriage” (Keep Out Teh Gay!11!1) Act has just under half of our voter’s support, so it’s not like I expected much in the way of fairness and respecting others from this bunch.

Missouri’s amendment to raise taxes on cigarettes also failed. Bummer.

I’m glad that Arizona and Ohio passed smoking bans. Next step, Texas!

I only meant similar in people’s reactions, not in who and who isn’t affected.

Thanks for the clarification

A local anti-smoking law was passed here in Springfield, IL and went into effect on September 17th. (Passed by the city council, not the voters). Two months later, the bar owners are still seeing red.

What crap. If a business owner wants to allow smoking in his/her business, then that’s the right of the business owner. It’s not “smoking in public,” it’s smoking in a place owned by another person. No one is forced to go into bars/restaurants that allow smoking. No one is forced to breathe this air.

Or, alternatively, people adjust their lives a little bit, and we all move on, a little less free than we were before.

Oh but you forgot that they know far more than we do about how we should live our lives, and the poor little innocent employees who are forced to work in the icky smelly bar and cannot protect themselves, who’s going to think of them? :rolleyes:

You know, I thought the same as many of you in this thread about the rights of private business owners, etc., and I actually voted against the Columbus smoking ban a couple of years ago. It passed anyway. And then I discovered that, wow, it is really nice to be able to go to restaurants and not have to smell cigarette smoke constantly. It is really nice to not have to stand in line waiting for a nonsmoking table when there are three empty tables in the smoking section available.

And most of all, it is really, really nice to be able to take my asthmatic son out to bowling alleys, restaurants, and other public places without worrying that he’s going to start wheezing. We could have, and did, avoid smoky places before the ban passed, but our lives are a lot easier now. There were no non-smoking bowling alleys before the ban, so we didn’t really have the option to just pick a non-smoking place to go bowling. We just didn’t go, period.

So yes, I voted for the Ohio ban yesterday, and I’m glad it passed. I would have voted for a ballot measure that banned smoking everywhere except bars, but that wasn’t an option.

As a nonsmoker, I know what you are saying. I found it much nicer to go out in New York and L.A. and not smell like smoke. So what? Just because something is more pleasant for me does not mean that the law should stop businessmen from operating a bar and restaurant however he or she may like.

And I sympathize, but, again, your desire to go bowling as a family is not a right. You should not be able to force someone to operate his or her business just to suit your desires.

And that’s the real unfortunate part of it. I’m against smoking bans, but I wouldn’t bitch too much if they were reasonable. You know, ban smoking in most restaurants, most areas of bowling alleys, that kind of stuff. But leave bars alone. People like to drink and smoke. People enjoy that sort of indulgence. If the militant ant-smokers just let the bars alone, they would be much more reasonable. Of course, this is much more about enforcing the political correct orthodoxy that no one should smoke (or eat fatty food, drink alcohol, enjoy life, etc.) than about public health.

Amen! preach it brother.

My mom is one to say all sorts of things like “I can’t stand going to a restaurant and come home smelling of smoke” , I then remind her that the last time she went to a bar was 1975 and that her house and clothes reek of dog and cat. She at least appreciates the irony.

I can’t really argue with any of the points you make, Renob, and yet the ability to take my kid safely out in public – and really, it’s not just bowling alleys, it’s malls, restaurants, you name it – just outweighs the other considerations for me. Maybe that’s wrong of me. I am with you that allowing smoking in bars is a no-brainer.

Many of us can, and have refuted them in multiple previous Dope threads.

It’s never been about persecuting the poor smokers. The central issue is public health - indoor environments that are safe for nonsmokers, who then are not obliged to bear a higher risk of cancer, heart disease, SIDS and other conditions linked to secondhand smoke. This includes the matter of workplace safety, which historically in this country also trumps business owners’ rights.

Answer: the people who advocate and vote for public smoking bans. And they’re having a positive effect on worker health.

We’ve heard all these pro-public smoking arguments ad nauseam - business owners should be able to do anything they want, workers can just run right out and find other jobs, I-just-don’t-wanna-believe-that-secondhand smoke-is-dangerous, etc. etc.

The lack of success of these arguments has been demonstrated at the polls.

The non-smoking majority is being heard (the tobacco and bar industry-sponsored amendment in Ohio was defeated by something like 65% of the voters) and will continue to make law on this subject, whether or not the shrinking smoking minority wishes to accept the changes gracefully.

One, no one is ever forced to be around second-hand smoke except children who live in the families of people who smoke. If secon-hand smoke bothers you, don’t work in industries where people smoke or frequent places where there is smoking.

True, it does to a certain extent. Except second-hand smoke is not all that dangerous. Plus, a lot of workers in bars/restaurants do not support these bans because they know it will cost them money as people leave the bar/restaurant to smoke instead of staying and drinking/eating. I know that those who support the bans paternalistically think that they know better than these servers and that they should not be able to choose to work in such an environment, but I don’t buy such a condescending attitude.

Even if I bought this line of reasoning (and I don’t), it’s up to the workers to choose whether or not the health benefits are a proper trade-off.

Ah, the minority be damned. Such naked contempt for the rights of others is the hallmark of the paternalistic liberalism that is steadily gaining the upper hand in this country. I prefer freedom, but I know my views are in the minority.

So, America is just a little less free today, Who cares about an unpopular segment of society… What’s next? Something you like to do? :dubious:

Same here, buddy. I’m actually surprised that the cig-tax-hike didn’t pass here; I thought that would be a lock here. Apparently not.

And while we’re on the subject of Missouri, congrats on the stem cell research funding! Unless you didn’t vote to support it, in which case: “Ha Ha!” :slight_smile: