The Right To Smoke? (Michael Demmons)
Michael Demmons
I'm a (half-hearted) smoker. It's just something that I do, on occasion. And it is, I think, is the stupidest decision I ever made. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Not only that, but I'd be willing to bet that almost every smoker out there feels the same.
That said, I continue to be astonished with the subject of smoking bans. I understand that hospitals would ban smoking on their premises. And I don't even mind when it's been banned in government buildings. But a statewide or country-wide ban on a perfectly legal activity doesn't make a lick of sense to me - none whatsoever.
Now, it's Italy.
Italy's 14 million smokers prepared for a new way of life with new legislation banning smoking in all public places such as bars, restaurants, discotheques and offices. Plainclothes police will patrol the country's 240,000 eating and drinking places on the lookout for miscreants, press reports said. Customers face fines of 275 euros (360 dollars) and offending landlords up to 2,200 euros.
I've always believed that one of the greatest freedoms we have is the freedom of association. That means that owners of bars, restaurants, discotheques, and offices get to choose who they'd like to have (and keep) as clients. Additionally, you get to choose which of these establishments you'd like to patronize.
If a bar allows smoking, for example, you're perfectly able to choose NOT to walk in. If a lawyer allows smoking in her office, you're free to ask to meet her somewhere else or to choose another lawyer. In Italy, as in many states and countries around the world, the government has stepped in and taken away that choice. Yes. Smoking is unhealthy. But it is legal, and people know that the bar they're walking into allows it. Sorry, but there's a bar down the street that's smoke free. Use it.
The purpose of this post is to bring up two points:
1. If a bar owner has been ordered by the government to disallow smoking, a perfectly legal activity, in his establishment, 20-30% of his partons may decide they no longer wish to frequent the bar.
2. Conversely, if the government did not order the bar owner to ban smoking, smokers could still frequent his bar, and non-smokers would have the choice to either come in for a drink, find a non-smoking bar, or drink at home.
By banning smoking in private establishments, whose right is the government protecting? Before you answer, remember one thing: you do not have the "right" to go into this person's bar. It is a privilege. It is a private establishment and the bar owner is under no constitutional obligation to allow you inside. He can set rules. He can ban smoking. He can mandate that ripped clothing is not allowed.
Sure, smoking stinks and it's tremendously unhealthy. And non-smokers who walk into bars and restaurants know that and they do it anyway. The smarter non-smokers stay away or choose other bars and restaurants. They're bright enough to not need the government to coddle them, and the free market lives on.
My position is this: if the government can ban smoking in bars and restaurants, they can use the same logic to ban it in your home. What do you think?
That being said, I agree with you entirely. I argue this point with one of my friends repeatedly, and he seems to think that he has some sort of right not to have to put up with it, and that bars are public places. I assume his definition of "public places" is a bit different from the legal definition. Of course, I argue that they're private establishments, and he has no "right" to go to a bar at all. Anyone who doesn't believe this, feel free to test my theory by being insulting or rude to the bartender, and see how long they let you stick around.
Another position of his is that bars are already highly regulated, so what's one more regulation?
Anyway, arguing with him is as frustrating as it is futile. Regardless of his arguments, he sees it as inevitable that smoking will be outlawed in bars, at least in metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, he might be right about that, at least.
See why we need the second amendment?
As Bill Hicks said, nonsmokers die every day.
For the record, I don't much like going into a smoky bar either. And frankly, if there was no smoking in bars, that would probably help me quit for good (I only smoke about 5-6 cigarettes a week, and those are usually in bars.)
The bad, infringing on the bar owner's rights, far outweighs the good, in my opinion.
They MAY decide that, but in general they DON'T. Studies in areas that have banned smoking haven't shown appreciable dropoffs in business. [LINK]
I realize they don't generally. But does that justify the ban? The risk IS there, even if it generally doesn't occur. Of course, that's not really an argument or even the point of the post.
By the way, Dean did not write the post. I did. :-)
Living in a suburban, college town environment, I would find it highly unlikely that if smoking were banned, bars wouldn't suffer financially. People would just go to other cities, or stay home and have parties.
Also, I wonder what effect these policies have on places that specifically cater to smoking, such as cigar bars. Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Smokers will patronize establishments that allow it and those that are bothered by it will patronize those that do not allow it. Whats the problem? Next we will have ordinances that restaruants can not serve high fat, or high carb foods?
Here in Janesville, Wisconsin they cannot allow smoking unless they have a separate closed off room with separate air circulation. Let the people decide if they are at risk or annoyed, and patronize accordingly. It is time to put an end to the "Health Police."
I don't support such idiotic laws, neither do I smoke. I do not frequent establishments that are smoking only. This is my own personal choice, and I have no desire to foist it on others. I just ask that there be a seperate section for non-smoking that I may enjoy. Short of that, kill yourself with a cancer stick and I don't care. I do have a serious problem when smokers get ill and sue claiming they 'didn't know the dangers' and then expect the government to pick up the healthcare tab, but that is a different post all together.
Suffice to say, smoke if you want just don't do it in my face or the faces of my children.
Smoke-Free Environments Law Project
Restaurants, in my opinion, are an entirely different subject. You can't very well choose to stop eating. Sure, you can skip a meal or two, but that's about it. And as a non-smoker all my life, I have to disagree pretty strongly about smokers having the right to light up anywhere they please.
The difference, to me, has everything to do with the golden rule. As a basic small l libertarian, my view on social rights comes down to, "you have the right to do anything you like as long as it doesn't interfere with somebody else's rights." Most smokers like to interperet that as supporting their right to smoke, and it does - to a degree.
If we're in a public place and you light up, you're infringing upon my rights. No matter how much I might want to at that point (and I would - I'm very sensitive to cigarette smoke) I can't stop breathing. I simply don't have an option there.
You want the right to smoke in your home? Fine. In your car? No problem. Outside? It mostly doesn't bother me, as long as I don't have to stand anywhere near you (please be considerate, though, and don't do it right in front of the door - that really pisses me off). At a bar? You're absolutely right, that law is ludicrous.
But I'm extremely grateful for a smoke free workplace, and I will go to the mattresses for my right to eat a meal without getting sick in the restaurant. I think the distinction is an important one.
There are these things called grocery stores, you don't have to go to restaraunts. Tried cooking your own food? Isn't that a crazy concept? If it really bothers you ask them to give you your food to go. A restaraunt in a building owned by an individual is not public - it is a private facility that you were given permission to enter. I assure you that if I owned one I would ban anyone who helped propose a smoking ban from eating there.
I suffer from migraines that can be brought on by strong perfume. Many stupid people don't understand that just because they like the smell of a particular cologne that there is no reason to marinate in it. I have often had to move seats because of the floral stench of another patron.
Should we ban perfume too? What about people who's bathing habits are not up to par?
I have the right to go to a restaurant whose air quality I agree with. Many chains voluntarily went non-smoking because of business reasons. There's no reason for the government to step in and change it.
Sure, you can skip eating out, but if I have the right to a smoke-free workplace, shouldn't my waitress? Not to mention that I sincerely doubt most people can easily skip going to work. Now before you point out that there are other jobs, let me remind you that jobs are hard to come by and that a number of folks employed in the food industry are not well qualified for other fields, which doesn't make them any less deserving of a healthy work environment.
There ARE other jobs, and the restaurant owner should not be penalized because the waitress can't find one.
If secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard then employees of resteraunts, bars, etc are working in a hazardous environment and, it is argued, they should be protected from that.
Again, I said that this was an unconvincing argument to me, mainly because I don't agree that the employees need to be protected from any danger from their employeer. To correct that problem, I would not propose to ban smoking, but rather have regulations enforcing safety measures (proper ventilation, etc.) for establishments that allow smoking.
Smoking is legal. The employee made the decision to work there and can just as easily make the decision to not work there. What's the problem?
"We have a duty to protect people in law, if nothing else to give them a safe workplace"
In May 2004, 96% surveyed said their workp[lace was not smoky and the number of reported smoky pubs fell from 52% to 2 %.
In Septemebr 2004, the sales of Guiness was down 6%. Pub attendance was the same for smokers and up 2% for non-smokers.
Curiously, "psychiatric hospitals, hotel bedrooms, prison cells and nursing homes are exempt from the ban, but all workplaces in the Republic of Ireland - including company cars, film sets and cafes - are now smoke-free."
It is also reported that: "Anyone caught smoking illegally by health inspectors enforcing the ban can be fined up to 3,000 euros. (US $ 3500).
The new law is considerd a success with no major impact on commercial businesses.
It appears that Italy is following Ireland's leadership in promoting non-smoking in the workplace.
Even Governator Arnold has to go outside to smoke his Cigars.
Here's the flaw in the business studies. They don't have a control. That means that what you are missing is that the ones that didn't "do worse" were surrounded by areas that were doing better, and the ones that did better did so at a slower rate than the ones around them that didn't have bans. In other words, the ban DID hold them back, but it didn't "hurt too much". Dallas managed to get in at the end of that boom (notice that those studies will be overwhelmingly from the late 90s) in 2001, and now we have shown pretty unequivocally that it has hurt Dallas' dining and tourism (convention) business.
The whole smoking debate is rife with statistical fraud. The argument about worker safety is just as bogus, because the only study that "found" a link between non-smoker cancer rates and smoking environments was the EPA study that came up with an increase that was within the margin of error of the study. That study was later thrown out by a federal judge as having been "conducted with the end result set from the start".
This ban has absolutely nothing to do with safety. It is about one thing: revenue for the state. The rate of smokers is no longer increasing, so the state has to find new ways of squeezing revenue out of those who do, so they are thinking up new "fees" (fines) to assess to smokers. It is no accident that the fines were a major portion of the story.
No bars have closed because bars are exempt from the ban. Guess they weren't concerned about the health of those who work in bars. [/sarcasm]
And speaking of making statistics lie, our city is touting a big increase in its motel/restaurant special tax collections as evidence that the smoking ban didn't hurt businesses. What they don't mention is the new program they started last year in which the city sends a letter to any business that is delinquent on this tax stating that their city utilities (water &sewer) will be shut off in X number of days if the tax isn't paid. That kinda skews their numbers, don't you think?
"...you can just go to a non-smoking bar down the street..."
Really? Where are these fabled non-smoking establishments?
Sure, everywhere after the bans. But absolutely no where beforehand.
Maybe now we could get rid of the bans and enough businesses would remain non-smoking that we'd have true choice for patronage and employment. But that wasn't the case in the 70s and early 80s...and on into the 90s in most places.
So don't bring up the "you can always go somewhere else" strawman, becuase without the bans, you couldn't.
Now, I would fully support the idea of allowing individual/chains of bars/restaurants applying for exemptions. Why not?
In Atlanta, there are several non-smoking bars and restaurants. And if there was a market for them where you live, there would be as well.
Failing that, start your own. An owner of a private establishment is under no obligation whatsoever to provide you with a smoke-free "getting drunk" experience.
As I said in the comments section of my own blog:
"If all your friends smoked, you would have a choice to either socialize with them at your place, or hang out with them at their place and smell like an ashtray when you get home. You wouldn’t want the government to force them to stop smoking in their own house would you?"
But I say people have the right to smoke on their own property, and property owners have the right to allow, or not allow, smoking on their own property. It's their property, not the government's. Government has no right to tell property owners what to do with their own property. If a bar owner wants to allow only homosexuals, or only heterosexuals, I say that's his right. I don't have to patronize that establishment if I don't want to.
These ban-mongers think Americans are passive, obedient sheep like the rest of the Europeans have become. Has everybody forgotten Prohibition -- when Americans started drinking on principle, precisely because it was forbidden? Similarly, the primary reason why marijuana became so popular among my generation was because the authorities forbade it. Many people today are willing to consider all kinds of laws and Constitutional amendments just because they don't like federal judges telling them what to do. Prostitution fluorishes. People defied "sodomy" laws. People will defy gun bans. And the more anti-smoking is associated with busybodies and kill-joys, the more other people are going to see smoking as glamorous. Which is a tragedy. Never underestimate the American spirit.
They even had signs on the streetcars back in Detroit that said, "No spitting out the windows".
I smoked cigarettes for fifteen years, then quit for the last 30. Didn't become an evangelista though and refused to join---GASP---the wacko group against smokers pollution.
Are. As in after the trend of non-smoking ordnances.
Not, and most defintely not, were.
You could not find non-smoking restaurants anywhere in the United States at all in the 70s.
You could not find non-smoking bars anywhere in the United States in the 80s. I assume that continued into the 90s, but I don't know because the prevalence of smoke and the lack of any alternative drove me out of the bar scene completely.
...so much for market forces.
I can easily understand that it is gone too far. I can easily support a partial roll-back.
But "Rights" will always compete. Competing rights will always clash. In this case, smokers wish to have the right to smoke immediately after eating in a restaurant, without having to stand up and go outside first. Non-smokers wish to have a complete meal in a restaurant without having their appetite ruined with cigarette smoke. How do you determine whose is the greater right?
Here's a little bit of anecdotal evidence for you. It's not science, but they are points that need to be addressed.
1) When you go out to eat, you are paying for the enjoyment of the meal. One lit cigarette absolutely ruins the enjoyment of dozens of non-smokers. But a ban on smoking merely reduces the enjoyment of a smoker who likes a cigarette after a nice meal.
2) Even smokers think smoking is a nasty habit: One thing impressed upon me as a waiter is you never let the ashtray have more than 2 cigarettes, because even smokers thought it was nasty to have a loaded ashtray of smelly cigarette butts.
3) Even smokers think smoking is a nasty habit, part 2: one thing I've seen time and time again is in all sorts of weather, smokers hang their cigarette out the window. Why? Because cigarette smoke is nasty? Well, duh.
4) Even smokers think smoking is a nasty habit, part 3: another thing I've seen time and time again is smokers throwing their cigarette out of a moving car, often without stubbing it out first (causing who knows how many forest fires with who knows how much damage and how many dead). Why? Because having stale butts inside your car smells gross? Well, duh.
5) Even with anti-smoking ordnances, smokers still light up in non-smoking restaurants. Even before anti-smoking ordnances, smokers still lit up in non-smoking sections. And you could never ask them to put it out without getting a huge overreaction from the smoker whose rights were infringed.
6) Before smoking was banned on domestic flights, I got to sit in the non-smoking section of one flight...one row ahead of the smoking section. The smoker directly behind me blew his smoke between the fuselage wall and the seat (I could see the smoke eddies). I spent the whole 3-hour flight totally sick to my stomach.
Based on all these points, I see no compelling reason to return to the previous status quo.
As sad as it sounds, the minority really should assimilate.
I suppose smokers could do that. But then, I suppose non-smokers could wear filtration masks.
The point is not whether smoking is good or bad. Clearly, it isn't. The point is not whether or not the world would be a better place if non-smokers could enjoy smoke free environments. Clearly, it would be.
The point is: Does the government have the right to force a private individual to ban a perfectly legal activity in a private establishment?
People on this thread are arguing that others have a right not to enter a smoky establishment. I'm arguing that the government shouldn't be able to force me to be that non-smoking establishment.
Few have responded to my original statement:I don't think an argument can be made that a private bar or restaurant is a public place. Both are private properties.
Point 2: Similarly, you have no right to smoke after a meal in a restaurant. Try it in a non-smoking restaurant.
Point 3: Atlanta does not have a no smoking ordinance for bars and restaurants.
Again, you have not answered my argument. All you've done is tell me the way you'd like things to be. Trust me. I would too! But to infringe on the rights of a few to satisfy the majority is an argument I've been up against as a gay person all my life. It doesn't hold much water for me.
"There are these things called grocery stores, you don't have to go to restaraunts. Tried cooking your own food? Isn't that a crazy concept? If it really bothers you ask them to give you your food to go. A restaraunt in a building owned by an individual is not public - it is a private facility that you were given permission to enter. I assure you that if I owned one I would ban anyone who helped propose a smoking ban from eating there."
Michael Demmons:
"And if there was a market for them where you live, there would be as well."
Yes, there are grocery stores - and the vast majority of my meals come from them. But there are times when grocery stores simply aren't an option, and people for whom it simply isn't an option.
Also, as big a fan as I am of markets, I don't believe that this is a case that markets themselves will solve. Ever been to Europe? When I was there (about ten years ago), it was damn near impossible in certain countries to find an establishment where you could even get a non-smoking section, much less a smoke free restaurant. This is also largely the reason non-smoking sections are required across the US. The market simply wasn't solving this problem on its own, so government stepped in to do it.
I'm a big believer in your right to do whatever damn fool thing you want to do. But your right to that stops, and STOPS HARD, when it drags the person next to you into that foolish act. Why is it illegal for you to drive drunk? Because it's not just you that's getting hurt, it's other people on the road. The harm being done here may be much smaller (I will acknowledge that there is credible debate about the actual dangers of secondhand smoke), but there is harm being done to the people around you, which I can verify myself base off of how physically ill I get around secondhand smoke.
Smoking is an active event. Non-smoking is an passive event. Because of the nature of this, if you choose to "actively" exercies your right to smoke, you have the responsibility to do so in a manner that doesn't infringe upon your neighbor's right to not-smoke.
Furthermore, the very fact that such an act can pass in a representative democracy is proof positive that people want smoke free environments. If they didn't want it, such a ban would either a) not pass or b) quickly be repealed (anybody ever bothered to read about prohibition?). Nevertheless, there's no reason to pass such a ban in a place where the demand is being met.
Atlanta may be overflowing with nonsmoking bars, but Huntsville, Alabama isn't. I don't know of a single place in town where I could go to enjoy a game of pool without bathing in smoke - this despite the fact that it's a city with very low smoking rates. And they're not pool halls overflowing with smokers, either. It's three or four guys chain-smoking and filling the place up.
I also happen to have been to Atlanta enough times to know that they have a ban on smoking in restaurants, so saying that non-smoking restaurants exist there is kind of worthless as an example, isn't it?
Finally, the "market adjustments" that do exist for this are rife with fraud and deceit. I've had numerous experiences with hotel rooms reserved as non-smoking rooms, only to arrive and find them reeking of smoke. "Sorry, sir, we're full - we have no other rooms." Sometimes the rooms aren't even marked as non-smoking when I get to it. I can't take my business somewhere else, because a) all the other hotels do it, too, b) if you're travelling to or through a small, podunk town, there isn't another hotel to go to, and c) the "I won't spend my money here again" tactic doesn't really have much force if you were never planning on going back to or through that town again anyway.
Why do we regulate health codes in restaurants? Why do we have laws that enforce that food handlers wash their hands? Why do we enforce that they take proper care of their food? It's a private establishment. Surely I could just go somewhere else. Except that I can't, because if we didn't have those laws 90% of the other restaurants would be just as bad. And it's a matter of public health.
Why do we require all restaurants serve blacks? They're private establishments, aren't they? Can't they serve who they like? Except that before those laws were passed, blacks couldn't get service anywhere else. They didn't have another restaurant to take their service to.
As I said in my first comment, I don't at all support banning smoking in bars or clubs. If you're there for one activity that's bad for your health it's pretty stupid to whine about another one. But I'm a firm supporter of non-smoking sections in restaurants, and I don't have any problem at all with a blanket ban on smoking in restaurants.
Do what you want to do to your own body, but keep it out of mine.
"Point 3: Atlanta does not have a no smoking ordinance for bars and restaurants."
Maybe not, but Georgia does, which includes Atlanta.
I just want to point out that some Drs. will allow their psychotic and/or depressed patients to smoke because it seems to improve their mental state. Nicotine stimulates acetylcholine receptors, and may actually act as an antipsychotic or antidepressant in some patients. Of course, they could go with the nicotine patches or gum, but I'm guessing that's the reason behind the psychiatric hospital exception.
The link doesn't work, but I will take your word. And I apologize for not doing my homework on that one.
Having said that, if smoking is not allowed in restaurants in Atlanta, then it's not being enforced!
On the market - the market ain't perfect, I wouldn't make such a claim, but government ain't perfect either and it screws things up much worse in most cases. But I ask what have you done to actively affect the market? Have you organized boycotts? Have you even bothered doing something as simple as writing letters to business owners asking them for non-smoking? Sometimes you just need to give a little extra effort into affecting the market instead of just purchasing.
On freedom - there are costs to having a free society, mainly having to deal with other people exerting their freedoms. While this can sometimes be a nuisance, it is better than the alternative. Also when exerting freedom, you must use some foresight - you enter a restaraunt that clearly allows smoking, then you complain about the smoking. It might just be me, but that's a wee bit hypocritical. Like I said before, just order your food to go if it bothers you that much.
Excuse me, I meant it did not go through the House of Representatives.
That's all. I'd be perfectly happy to see all places of business voluntarily go smoke-free. I think that would be a good thing. The issue is that the government is using its police power to do it.
Because if they can do that, they can come into your home and do the same thing. It is a private property issue.
You have no right to eat at a particular restaurant.
You have no right, if you're from a small town, to demand that all the regular clientelle at a bar find somewhere else to go on a Saturday night because their smoke offends you and it's the only bar in town. You chose to live in a small town - and with that, comes limited options.
The government has no right to force a bar or restaurant to ban smoking. But, since they're the ones with the guns...
"I don't think an argument can be made that a private bar or restaurant is a public place. Both are private properties."
It's irrelevent. What matters is that smoking is active and nonsmoking is passive.
Look at it like this: I have the right to own firearms and, presumably, the right to shoot them. But I don't have the right to shoot one at you, even on private property (barring mitigating circumstances such as self defense). Why? Because your right to life is a passive right. You're not going out of your way to do anything, you're not taking any actions. You simply are. My right to shoot, however, is an active right. I have to consciously take an action in order to do it. I have to willfully choose to do it, and then motivate myself to actually do it.
Your "choice" to live can never "infringe" my right to shoot you because I have to take a conscious action to take that away from you, whereas you're not really doing anything at all.
Your right to be gay is very similar. It's a passive right. Your sexuality may somehow infringe on my right to live in a gay-free zone. But even so, I still don't have the right to shoot you because you aren't really doing anything, whereas I would still be taking a conscious action to shoot you for it.
It's an extreme example, but I think the point is valid. And whether it's ever made explicit or not, I think it's a principle that underlies quite a bit of the laws and customs of our culture.
Please note, before I finish this, that I have absolutely no quarrel with your sexuality, and fully support your right to it. I chose to relate smoking to homsexuality solely to counter your own argument relating the two, which I believe to be very flawed.
The laws of OSHA in USA involve the protection of employees in the workplace i.e. any workplace.
So I believe there is a difference between these two concepts of public vs. private. And I'm unclear on the idea that there is an actual legal "right" to smoke cigarettes.
Similiarly, airlines are not public corporations, yet they bar smoking in flight. Does that infringe on someone's rights ? If so, how is it no ACLU type lawsuits against the airline industry ?
Exactly!
It never really has been enforced 100% of the time. I can't count the number of times I've been happily enjoying my meal in a non-smoking restaurant and had someone light up. By then, it's too late to save my stomach, isn't it?
Mr. Newquist makes much the same arguments I would if I were equally as eloquent.
However, let me add: a business is a private establishment, as your home is. However, they are entirely different sorts of private establishment.
A restaurant is licensed by various different agencies to be able to serve the public, and there are very specific anti-discrimination laws regulating who is and who isn't a considered a rightful member of the public that can enter freely.
So while I understand the slippery slope argument you are attempting to establish, it doesn't really apply. You might as easily argue that forcing private golf clubs to admit women means the government is going to force blacks to admit Klansmen into their homes.
It ain't gonna happen.
Search and seizure laws are different. Confiscation of property rules are different. Taxation regulations are different. Fire codes, health codes, etc, etc, etc, all are totally different between a home and place of business. That argument is interesting for a minute or two of debate, but not really relevant, I think.
From what I understand, your argument really boils down to: does the government have the ability regulate action on behalf of its citizens or not? And if so, how do you resolve between competing claims without establishing a "tyranny of the majority" or a "tyranny of the minority"? And even if you avoid that pitfall, how exactly do you determine between competing but equal claims? Do you do it on the basis of who gets hurt the worst?
You see, I wasn't really sidestepping your question as much as moving on to the questions I feel are far more intriguing. Especially since those questions also arise in the question of rules regarding homosexual behavior...
I don't have an answer that satisfies for even one of them, yet.
And I don't think there is a right to smoke either. If I said that, I'm sorry. However, it is a legal activity and banning it in private places - which bars and pubs are in the US, is an infringement on the rights of entrepreneurs to operate their business and cater to whom they wish to cater.
Russell: You're right. You don't have the right to shoot me. And I don't have the right to blow smoke in your face. However, if I choose to walk in front of your gun while you're shooting, then it'd be my own darn fault now wouldn't it.
Thanks all!
Nevertheless, I believe that this entirely invalidates your point about the Atlanta area having many nonsmoking bars and restaurants available. With Gwinnett county having a ban, competition has effectively been forced. Nonsmokers in Atlanta proper or Fulton county now have the choice of driving an extra 30-45 minutes and going somewhere else. It is unreasonable to state that Atlanta itself having X many non-smoking bars implies that there would have been that many without Gwinnett's ban. Maybe there would have, or maybe not.
This ban was still in effect the last time I was in Gwinnett County, which was Saturday, November 13, 2004.
PS: Your residency in Georgia does lend weight to claims you make of the state, but it does not make you infalliable. I will continue arguing any and all points where I believe you or anybody else to be wrong, as I always have - esepcially when I have data to support my claims.
PPS: If this link doesn't work, search Google for "georgia smoking ban" and click on the link entitled "Georgia county adopts smoking ban".
First, there was a MD county (Montgomery, IIRC) that did contemplate banning smoking in private homes briefly. I think the ridicule from the remainder of the country made them reconsider.
Second, I remember an article by some reasonably-prominent conservative pundit not too long ago observing that under the letter of the law in his state, he could not smoke in the small outbuilding/shed/whatever where he did his writing, even though he was the only one who ever went in there, because it was a "workplace." (For a moment I thought it was Jonah Goldberg, but then I thought I might have been confusing it with another piece he wrote years ago making the same point jocularly about OSHA regulations — pointing out that there were power cords in his apartment that weren't taped down, hazardous substances in the fridge, &c. I don't think Jonah has a shed, so it was someone else.)
And third, I was in Edinburgh last June, and read an article about (I kid you not) "smoking tourism" there: It seems that there are Irish who will actually travel to Scotland for the purpose of finding a pub where smoking is allowed. How the Italians will manage I don't know.
"Russell: You're right. You don't have the right to shoot me. And I don't have the right to blow smoke in your face. However, if I choose to walk in front of your gun while you're shooting, then it'd be my own darn fault now wouldn't it."
Maybe. What if I were recklessly shooting wherever I pleased in the middle of a crowded restaurant? Is it your own darn fault for walking into the middle of it? What if you're in the restaurant first and I walk in later. Sure, you have the right to leave - but is that going to save you from getting hit by a stray bullet on your way out?
In point of fact, my right to own and use a firearm comes with the responsibility to do so in a safe and controlled manner, and to reasonably bear in mind public safety while doing so. In these terms, the difference between gunfire and cigarette smoke is one of degree, not of kind.
And hey, guess what? We have legal firing ranges that are expressly set aside for people to go shoot their guns in a safe place, and for those who don't want to be around it to avoid them. But you can't just go shooting them in a restaurant whenever you wish. My stand on smoking bans is entirely consistent with this.
In the case of the smoking bar, you know you're entering a "reckless shooting range" before you ever open the door.
Exactly. Thanks for making my point. If you don't want to be around the smoke, stay away from the range. But don't tell the owner of the range he can no longer shoot because you might walk into the line of fire.
"In the case of the smoking bar, you know you're entering a "reckless shooting range" before you ever open the door. "
Exactly - that's why my stated position is that banning it in bars is ridiculous. Restaurants are an entirely different manner. I haven't proven your point, I've proven mine - you've just associated my point of view with other commenters here.
I still don't think this would be entirely fair to the business owners, but it may be a reasonable compromise rather than forcing a ban altogether.
There is a very simple and fundamental distinction. Shooting ranges and bars are places where you go for specialized activities that many other informed adults want no part of, for all kinds of reasons. Restaurants are where you go to conduct a normal part of daily life: eating.
In the case of both bars and shooting ranges, there are even establishments that combine them with eateries. But in both cases, they have to face the same regulation (or some applicable subset thereof - bars included in restaurants generally do have slightly relaxed rules) they would if they were just a bar or just a shooting range, or at least the part of them that operates that way does.
My point of view already is a compromise, if you've bothered to read enough of my posts to get my point of view. I think I've made it abundantly clear, but I concede that it may have been missed among the 50+ comments on this thread, so I'll spell it out here:
1) In an industry that would not self regulate and do it on its own, requiring non-smoking sections in restaurants was not only within the governments rights, but within its responsibilities (along the same lines as public health codes).
2) If there's strong enough public support for it, I see no problem whatsoever with the government banning smoking in restaurants and general purpose public buildings altogether.
3) Banning smoking in bars and night clubs - facilities that people go to for the purpose of unhealthful activities anyway - is patently absurd.
Think of it in the firearms analogy again. Banning gunfire (smoking) in restaurants is sensible public policy. Banning it in shooting ranges (bars) is absurd.
I understood "Michael's point" all along. I think he's dead wrong, which is what I've been arguing.
PS: please Michael - and everybody else - I hope that none of this conversation has come across as offensive. It has definitely been a very spirited conversation, but while I highly disagree with many arguments presented here, I don't believe that anybody is stupid for making them. I hope that in the midst of all of this none of what I've said comes across as anything personal, because that's the last thing I want.
I guess this issue just hits home with me because I know far too many people who think things they don't like should be banned whether it's guns, smoking, motorcycle riding, SUV's, etc. And the worst part is, the same people who think smoking should be banned always and everywhere will vigorously defend their "right" to drive an SUV.
Some people would like this scenario, but I don't think you can argue convincingly that the human race as a whole would be better off this way. I don't think you can even argue that more than a handful of people would be better off this way, while the vast majority would be far worse off.
Regardless of whether it's better or worse, civilization, at its core, is basically a pact between large groups of us who have decided that we don't want to live that way - so we give up some of our individual freedoms and liberties to preserve others.
The real question is, how and why do we decide which ones to give up and which to preserve? If we don't have good guidelines for this, then it's just arbitrary, and majority rule is as good as anything else. But I don't think this is a good way to go about it.
I won't claim to have all of the answers to that, but I do believe that one of them is the "active vs. passive" rights idea that I laid out above. It provides one good guideline, but it's obviously not applicable in all situations. Reasonable people may differ with this approach, but nobody here has yet tried to argue with it.
I've found nothing offensive in what you have to say. I don't agree with you, but finding offense would be silly. I knew it was an emotional issue when I posted it. And I knew there would be agruments against me. I wouldn't bother blogging at all if I was easily offended! :-)
Even though I disagree with you, you've been polite - as has everyone here. What more can you ask from people with whom you disagree?
Thanks again for a great conversation.
Unlike many, I like it when people argue strongly with me. If there are problems in my reasoning, I like to find them, and arguments (not fights, but arguments) are really about the best way to do that.
Russell,
Of course I agree with this, but I think we've gone in the direction of having too many restrictions rather than too few. Hell, if someone told me 10-15 years ago that we would be arguing about banning smoking in bars, of all places, I would have thought they were nuts. You might as well talk about banning swimming in pools.
And to answer Michael's original question: I think a more compelling case could be made for banning smoking in homes than could be for banning it in bars or other private establishments, simply because of children. Those at a bar are generally adults there at their own will. Children in a home with an adult who smokes have little or no option to leave.
Most people seem to be focused on what customers want. Non-smokers want a smoke free environment and smokers want to enjoy smoking in many places that non-smokers frequent.
To me that is purely an issue that should be determined by the market and the government should stay out of it. I say that as a non-smoker who frequently has my enjoyment of resturants greatly reduced by smoke. Still, I eat out less often because of it, I go to resteraunts that have better filteration systems, etc. In short, my money goes to those who serve my needs better and that is all that I think is needed.
One area that the government can get involved in, and what I believe is often the main justification for bans (at least legally, if not in motiviation) is workplace safety and environment. Employeers are limited in what they can subject employees to. Some would argue that smoke is not a hazard and not enough of an annoyance that it should be regulated or limited. They have a point. Others would argue that it is and they also have a point.
That argument, however, is what keeps this from merely about private property. The government cannot regulate smoking in your home because your home is not an employee environment (there are limited exceptions, but they are not typically treated as a workplace by the law, as far as I know).
Some people argue that people know what they are getting into when they accept the job and that they should just work somewhere else if they find it unacceptable. I don't think that is a completly fair attitude. Consider that attitude used for coal miners. If there were no regulations than many more coal miners would die every year, would that be right just because they knew the risks?
I do not mean to imply that smoking creates any hazards like coal mining does. I am pointing out, however, that most people want the government to interfere to improve work conditions. That's why we have OSHA, and laws limiting hours, providing breaks, enforcing wages, etc.
I see smoking is in that category. A ban is certainly an overreaction, but ignoring the problem is also, I think, a mistake.
Well, there ya go! Your original question was already answered.
This is true for smokers, too. So why is it an issue?
If smoking bans were not supported by a majority of the population, they would be overturned and the politicians thrown out of office.
Now, imagine if there were a nationwide ban on smoking in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants. People would be screaming that this was a State's Rights issue, and couldn't we just leave it to the individual states to decide?!??!?!
Well, that's where it's at now, except that in some places it's at a level even lower than the state, and we've still got people insisting that it shouldn't be the right of a state, county, or locality to decide, but the individual business owner.
Why?
What's wrong with a democratic decision to ban smoking? Some may call it a tyranny of the majority, but wouldn't be even more of a tyranny if 30% of the population forced 70% to eat their smoke?
This is one of the things that keeps me from being able to take even the first step toward libertarianism: if people were actually able to live together peacefully under a libertarian government, we wouldn't have needed government in the first place. While some rules are unnecessary and govt occasionally oversteps its bounds, for the most part, rules are there for a reason. Including the ones banning smoking in restaurants and bars...
[/empassioned] (grin)
And I repeat that this is going to be really weird in Italy, where smoking is a lot commoner than here.
Michael, A very minor point. The airlines have had
a large number of heart attack, asthma victims and emphysema passengers on their airliners. The safety issue may well be the health of its passengers---
particular a heart attack victim who dies while on board amongst a sea of cigarette smoke--whose relatives then sue the airlines for not providing a proper environment. That is not entirely unrealistic since the airports and all major airplanes now have the attach'em electro-shock paddles to revive heart victims. We still live in a litigious society.
It's more complicated too. Let's say in your family outing, or outing iwth a group of friends, only one or two smokes. They will urge you to go to a restaurant where they can smoke. So even if only 2 or 3 out of 10 want to smoke, they bring the other, non-smokers, with them.
I thus sympathize with restaurants who say they lose too much if they have a ban. If all restaurants have to face the same ban then they're happier.
Honestly I don't like these laws but I understand the mathematics.
Bars are another issue and I think banning smoking in bars is rediculous. Beer and smoking go hand in hand with gambling and smoking.
I think in the end the government should have no rights in privately owned businesses unless something is against the law. It is the business owners risk to decide the issue.
That said, I found a rather funny law in Maryland. I was in construction for quite a few years and their no smoking in the workplace law includes construction jobsites. So here you have a structure with no walls where smoking is illegal....even on the roof outdoors.
If 25% of a restaurant's business is smokers, those restaurants are not going to want to give up 25% of their business.
But if the remaining 75% want to be free from smoke as much as the 25% want to be able to smoke, it'd be a no-brainer. The problem is that smokers hate being forbidden to smoke more than most non-smokers hate secondhand smoke. (Also, I think, a restaurant that advertised itself explicitly as "smoke-free" in a place where lots of people smoke would look hostile, "elitist," what have you.)
It's more complicated too. Let's say in your family outing, or outing with a group of friends, only one or two smokes. They will urge you to go to a restaurant where they can smoke. So even if only 2 or 3 out of 10 want to smoke, they bring the other, non-smokers, with them.
I really don't see that as a problem, unless the large group you're talking about is incredibly spineless, apart from the smokers. You might just as well imagine a group with a majority of smokers pulled to a non-smoking establishment just because the minority can't bear the smell of tobacco. One's not intrinsically more likely than the other.
Plus if there's a family outing and momma wants to smoke, my experience is that momma gets to smoke. :-)
BTW, I'm now getting a Google ad about asthma and cigarette addiction that is preventing me from seeing what I type. Brilliant. Yo, Google, I'm not a smoker, but t and this ad iis seriously pissing me off with no benefit whatsoever to yourselves.
I am publishing this as is behind the Google ad (I saw the typos I just typed, but they'll have to stand as the best a perfectly honest person can do making a pefectly honest argument without clicking on advertisements.
Anyway, I still agree with Michael Demmons on property rights.
(Now, if only smokers could be trained to use ashtrays outside instead of tossing smoldering bits of smelly paper covered in saliva all over the sidewalks. Pigeons make less of a mess.)
If ever you or anyone else wants to post a picture and have nowhere to post it, try:
http://www.picsplace.to/
They will give you the URL as a direct link as well as 'forum' and 'html' code. File size is 1.5 megabyt limit, but no limit on amout of files. I use it for all my blogging pictures and they do not expire.
As far as groups of smokers and non-smokers I think it is always settled quickly with a discussion and either or is selected. If no concensus is reached they break into two groups. The latter happening far less often.