Local Smoking Ban

[Tormac]

The big city outside Blackswamp (Toledo, OH) has enacted a local smoking ban on public restaurants and bars over a particular size.

I do not smoke, and actively encourage friends to quit, but this smoking ban seems ill conceived and intrusive. A "goody goody ism" the part of local government IMHO, that is a slip down that hypothetical slope. I've been ranting about this, but have had some good counter arguments presented to me from friends who are in favor of it.

I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.

2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves. I do not think local government has the right to limit the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.

3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies. Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people. The consumption of unhealthy foods leads to an increased economic burden on society with increase health care costs.

Others around me have pointed out
1) Parents of small children do not feel comfortable bringing them into restaurants that allow smoking.

2) Workers and owners will not have to be in a potentially hazardous smoke filled environment.

3) People who do not appreciate tobacco smoke will not be unconvinced by it.

My gut is sure that I'm right, and my friends that are for the ban are crazy do gooders on this issue, but I have been proved wrong before. I was curious what others here thought of the idea of a local smoking ban in general, and a critique of arguments for or against such a ban. Is it a means of protecting the public's health? Is it a case of intrusive government? Is it a case of the majority (non smokers) abusing the rights of a minority (non smokers)?

[Tony]

It's a case of intrusive government.

[c0rbin]

Tony, I think your record has a scratch in it :p








(I agree, despite my barbing)

[Ipecac]

We have a county smoking ban and it's fantastic. Don't have to worry about being seated near the smoking section. No smoke wafting through the restaurant. Greatly improves the entire eating out experience.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tormac

I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.


And people from outside who do not smoke will come to Toledo to get away from the smokers. Toledo will do fine.


2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves.


These sort of smoking bans are generally an attempt to protect non-smokers. Second-hand smoke is bad for your health. These regulations ensure that non-smokers will not be exposed to it when they go to public gathering places. It's not an attempt to protect you from yourself, it's an attempt to protect non-smokers from smokers.


3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies.


I don't think it's a slippery slope at all, because as I said above, the rational is not protecting you from yourself, it's protecting other people from you. California has had a smoking ban in restraunts for a long time now, and it's working well. And we're not becoming more oppressive - we passed marijuana legalization laws well after the ban on smoking in restraunts.


Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people.


You can drink without posing a threat to others, but you cannot smoke in a public area without threatening others. And there are already specific laws covering people who drink and become a threat, foremost among those alcohol limits for driving.


My gut is sure that I'm right, and my friends that are for the ban are crazy do gooders on this issue, but I have been proved wrong before. I was curious what others here thought of the idea of a local smoking ban in general, and a critique of arguments for or against such a ban. Is it a means of protecting the public's health? Is it a case of intrusive government? Is it a case of the majority (non smokers) abusing the rights of a minority (non smokers)?

I think it's great. I've been living with California's ban for a long time, and I think it works wonderfully. It also hasn't lead to any sort of puritanical crackdown on vices in general, so I don't think you need to worry about that. I hate the smell of cigarettes, and love that I never have to deal with that here. And whenever I travel to a state without such a ban and go to a restraunt, I really miss it.

[HarryKeogh]

i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

too bad you say? then can i light some incense next to you the next time you try to eat some bacon and eggs? the smell and smoke is bothering you? too bad.

[Agammamon]

Here's another good one on smoking bans.

Get this;

1 Its a bar for recovering alcoholics. They want to allow these guys the same sort of socializing you get in bars but without the constant temptation of alcohol.

2 In Edmonton smoking is only allowed in bars.

3 You can only be a bar if you serve alcohol.

4 The liquor board won't sell these guys a license because they aren't planning on selling alcohol.

Edmonton Journal (http://canada.com/edmonton/story.asp?id=6F346273-53B6-447D-A93D-46E75DE52D7A)

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Tormac
Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, ...

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You can drink without posing a threat to others, but you cannot smoke in a public area without threatening others.

Please show one single peer-reviewed scientific study that shows this! That second-hand smoke is harmful is the biggest urban myth going these days. This all dates back to a 1993 EPA study that cherry-picked data to reach it's own foregone conclusions. Penn & Teller even did a "Bullsh%t" episode on this. (http://www.sho.com/ptbs/topics.cfm?topic=shs).

Here's the most massive study to date (118,094 participants!), which concludes that there is no relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and any smoking-related diseases. (PDF viewer required). (http://193.78.190.200/43/1057.pdf)

See also:
http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html

http://healthfactsandfears.com/high_priorities/smoked/2003/ets060903.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract

Edited to fix link.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

too bad you say? then can i light some incense next to you the next time you try to eat some bacon and eggs? the smell and smoke is bothering you? too bad.
I have no problem if they're basing the smoking bans for this reason, but instead they're relying on a bunch of junk science to ram these bans through on the basis of health effects.

[Luceiia]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

Good thing, since no risks seem to exist. (Not meant as a dig, but as a preface, of sorts, to my next comment)

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

too bad you say? then can i light some incense next to you the next time you try to eat some bacon and eggs? the smell and smoke is bothering you? too bad.

Light your incense, please. If it bothers me but doesn't bother you and the owner/manager, then it's my burden to go elsewhere...to another seat, another section, outside, or ask for a to-go container and go home. I'm perfectly fine with that. I fully support your right to do what you want as long as management/ownership doesn't forbid it in their establishment and it doesn't harm anyone.


Luceiia

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat

Please show one single peer-reviewed scientific study that shows this!


First, something's screwy about the way you posted your second link - you've got several web addresses rammed together, requiring hand editing to get the actual addresses.

Second, the study you cite claims that second-hand smoke does not contribute significantly to increased mortality rates in adults. But it tells us nothing about other risks. You imply that the study shows no harmful effects at all from second hand smoke. But I consider reactions such as asthma attacks and allergic reactions to be harmful effects. The study says absolutely nothing about these risks.

Here's a non-PDF link to the article for those without acrobat reader:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

This study also suffers a fundamental flaw: it splits the study population of non-smokers according to whether they are married to smokers. This ignores whether or not they recieve exposure to second-hand smoke from other sources, such as work, social settings, public transit, etc. This will seriously underestimate the impact of second-hand smoke. Note particularly at the bottom some of the rapid responses to this article, which outline this and other serious problems with the article.

The study you cite also cites a number of papers which did find positive correlations between second hand smoke and heart disease, etc., so I'm not sure why you're challenging me to find a single peer-reviewed study that shows this. There are more than one, and you provided several. It's a separate question of which study you think is more accurate, but don't even try to pretend that there are no studies showing an effect. If you want a specific example, here's just one:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/340/12/920?ijkey=193c4e7e9d26302b751150258772cd48cb633f79&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Second-hand smoke risks are not an urban legend. I've seen their Bullsh%t show once and enjoyed it, but Penn and Teller are pushing a libertarian agenda, they're not actually contributing any real information to the debate.

Here's an interesting peer-reviewed article about tobacco industry efforts to downplay second hand smoke risks:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/4/375

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Greatly improves the entire eating out experience. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
First, something's screwy about the way you posted your second link - you've got several web addresses rammed together, requiring hand editing to get the actual addresses.
It's been fixed. :p

Originally posted by Ziggurat

Second, the study you cite claims that second-hand smoke does not contribute significantly to increased mortality rates in adults. But it tells us nothing about other risks. You imply that the study shows no harmful effects at all from second hand smoke. But I consider reactions such as asthma attacks and allergic reactions to be harmful effects. The study says absolutely nothing about these risks.
I didn't imply it, I said it outright! And what you believe about asthma and allergic reactions is irrelevant to this topic.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Here's a non-PDF link to the article for those without acrobat reader:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
This is a heavily edited summary of the study, not the actual study itself.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
This study also suffers a fundamental flaw: it splits the study population of non-smokers according to whether they are married to smokers. This ignores whether or not they recieve exposure to second-hand smoke from other sources, such as work, social settings, public transit, etc. This will seriously underestimate the impact of second-hand smoke. Note particularly at the bottom some of the rapid responses to this article, which outline this and other serious problems with the article.
Many of those responding are anti-smoking activists who just don't want to see any evidence that conflicts w/ their own biased opinions. Why would it not be logical to assume that the spouse of a smoker is more exposed to ETS than the spouse of a non-smoker? The sheer number of participants in the study would seem to rule out a bias in this regard.
And none of the respondents refer to studies that support their point of view.


Originally posted by Ziggurat
The study you cite also cites a number of papers which did find positive correlations between second hand smoke and heart disease, etc., so I'm not sure why you're challenging me to find a single peer-reviewed study that shows this. There are more than one, and you provided several. It's a separate question of which study you think is more accurate, but don't even try to pretend that there are no studies showing an effect. If you want a specific example, here's just one:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
The papers are cited in the Introduction to the study, this is merely to show the reasons for doing this study. It makes no mention of the veracity of said studies.
The link you posted is a meta study. This merely reviews previous studies without actually doing any research of their own. I have no idea what studies they reviewed or the accuracy of said studies. You need a subscription to access this information.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Here's an interesting peer-reviewed article about tobacco industry efforts to downplay second hand smoke risks:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/4/375
That's not even a study! It only details the tobacco industry's response to the 1993 EPA study which has been thoroughly discredited!
And it's also the web site of an anti-tobacco group! These people hold to their beliefs like a fundy christian holds to his, no amount of evidence will convince them.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat
Many of those responding are anti-smoking activists who just don't want to see any evidence that conflicts w/ their own biased opinions.


In other words you have no response to the criticism of the fundamental flaws in the study other than sliming the critic. You have no way of showing that they were actually measuring effects of second hand smoke exposure, because they performed no measurements, surveys, or control over exposure to second-hand smoke outside the home.


Why would it not be logical to assume that the spouse of a smoker is more exposed to ETS than the spouse of a non-smoker? The sheer number of participants in the study would seem to rule out a bias in this regard.


You completely misunderstand the criticism, either willfully or out of ignorance. The point is that because of possible exposure outside the home, you're not really surveying populations with and without second-hand smoke exposure. You're measuring two groups, one of which you can expect to have higher exposure, but you really have no information on how much higher, and what the spreads are. In terms of the amount of second-hand exposure, the two groups may overlap to some unknown extent, and that overlap can mask the effects. The fact that they can't find a statistically significant risk factor doesn't mean that it isn't there, because they did not control for exposure outside of the home. Basically, all it means is if you are exposed outside the home (as most Californians were throughout the study period) to second hand smoke, exposure inside the home does not significantly FURTHER increase risk. The fundamental conclusion they arrive at, that exposure in general poses no significant risk, is actually unsupported by their data.

[Tony]

This is a prime example of the nanny police state policies, brought to you by the anti-freedom left.

Why cant we just let the owner of the restaurant or bar, decide whether or not he/she will allow smoking in his/her establishment?

[BobK]

For those of you that read the nejm.org link and are interested in the significance of a relative risk of 1.5 here's a quote from this link. (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm)

RR is relative risk.

For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2. Likewise, for a putative beneficial effect, they never accept an RR of greater than 0.5. Sometimes epidemiologists choose to dismiss such caution as an invention of destructive sceptics, but this is not the case. For example:

In epidemiologic research, [increases in risk of less than 100 percent] are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident .[Source: National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994.]

This being the case.
I didn't see any RR figures greater than 2 in the article so the study has questionable significance. They apparently did a data dredge of 18 other studies of various types to arrive their figures. Sounds like they might have cherry picked the studies they included. They say they used some kind of parameters for selecting the studies but they don't say what those parameters are.
Doesn't seem to me that the study has much merit.

I personally have never seen a 2nd hand smoke study that has a RR value of greater than 2. I'd be interested in seeing one if anyone can find one.

I've never studied statistics in school, but I found that this site
Number Watch (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/number%20watch.htm) has been very helpful in understanding polls and studies. The FAQ's can aid you in understanding of how to assess the worth of various polls and studies. I personally enjoy his whole site.

The site operator John Brignell seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a good sense of humor.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.:)

Edit to add...
JREF maintains a link to this site, someplace under "Learning Resources."

[corplinx]

Yes, the government should impose smoking bans to protect you. Makes me wonder why all these smoking ban supports don't support the Patriot act. Its there to protect you also.

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx
Yes, the government should impose smoking bans to protect you. Makes me wonder why all these smoking ban supports don't support the Patriot act. Its there to protect you also.

Didnt you know, its only correct to support police state policies if they come from the left.

[schplurg]

Tony:
---------------------------
Why cant we just let the owner of the restaurant or bar, decide whether or not he/she will allow smoking in his/her establishment?
---------------------------

I agree. Patrons can go elsewhere, so can the employees. I personally hate the smell of cigarettes but I think this law is wrong.

I loved the commercials out here in California when it came time to vote on this. They portrayed waitresses as suffering from second-hand smoke and pleading with the voting public to outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars. Funny thing is, I have 2 friends who own restaurants. I know every waitress at both places and every one of them is a smoker! No exaggeration. They're always hanging outside the restaurant hackin their lungs out during breaks.

Anyways just a little anecdote for ya.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

In other words you have no response to the criticism of the fundamental flaws in the study other than sliming the critic. You have no way of showing that they were actually measuring effects of second hand smoke exposure, because they performed no measurements, surveys, or control over exposure to second-hand smoke outside the home.
Because the main theme I saw in the critics comments was along the lines of "how dare you publish a study that didn't conclude that ETS is harmful". Note that they couldn't cite a contradictory study, this omission speaks volumes of the tenuousness of their positions.

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You completely misunderstand the criticism, either willfully or out of ignorance. The point is that because of possible exposure outside the home, you're not really surveying populations with and without second-hand smoke exposure. You're measuring two groups, one of which you can expect to have higher exposure, but you really have no information on how much higher, and what the spreads are. In terms of the amount of second-hand exposure, the two groups may overlap to some unknown extent, and that overlap can mask the effects. The fact that they can't find a statistically significant risk factor doesn't mean that it isn't there, because they did not control for exposure outside of the home. Basically, all it means is if you are exposed outside the home (as most Californians were throughout the study period) to second hand smoke, exposure inside the home does not significantly FURTHER increase risk. The fundamental conclusion they arrive at, that exposure in general poses no significant risk, is actually unsupported by their data.
I understood the critisism quite well, but surely you realize that there is no way to accurately measure the ETS encountered outside of the home? If there really are harmful effects of ETS, this would surely show up clearly using the methodology described. Especially when the enormous number (118,094) of participants are taken into account.

And you have completely ignored the studies of bartenders I linked to (http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html) (who, I'm sure you'd agree, encounter much higher levels of ETS than most people) which found no health effect of ETS. Oh yeah, that link was to the very Libertarian institution known as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. :rolleyes:

Are you still looking for that rock-solid study showing the deleterious health effects of ETS?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat

I didn't imply it, I said it outright! And what you believe about asthma and allergic reactions is irrelevant to this topic.


Nothing you posted indicates asthma and allergies are not agravated by exposure to second hand smoke. If you want some sources for second-hand smoke and asthma, I can provide.

Adults with asthma:
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/1/170

Children with asthma:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/23/1665

You have given no evidence that asthma is not exacerbated by second hand smoking, so I'm not sure why you attacked me about this rather than just requesting evidence.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat

And you have completely ignored the studies of bartenders I linked to (http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html) (who, I'm sure you'd agree, encounter much higher levels of ETS than most people) which found no health effect of ETS.


I read the link. Interesting study. But you either didn't read it yourself or chose to jump to conclusions about it. What the link says is that exposure levels are lower than previous studies indicate. It says absolutely nothing about the health EFFECTS of that exposure. RSP levels were below recommended levels, but since that's not the only factor involved in second-hand smoke health effects (cigarette smoke is not the same as dust), it's hard to conclude anything from that. I didn't respond about this link previously because it doesn't make the argument that second-hand smoking has no health effect. If there's health effect information in the full article that this link is based upon, feel free to follow that up with a new link.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]Nothing you posted indicates asthma and allergies are not agravated by exposure to second hand smoke. If you want some sources for second-hand smoke and asthma, I can provide. [B]


I never attacked you! If my tone offended you I apologize. I really don't try to be mean to anyone on this forum. :rub:

I simply stated this wasn't about asthma. Lots of things aggravate asthma besudes tobacco smoke - ozone, car exhaust, charcoal grills, etc. I haven't seen asthma cited as the main reason for the smoking bans being enacted, they always mention lung cancer, heart disease, etc. People w/ asthma know to stay away from bars, just as those w/ severe peanut allergies know to stay away from the ballpark.

I've seen some anti-smoking sites while googling for this thread that claim (w/o evidence) that second-hand smoke was a leading cause of death among children. The hysteria this issue brings out is mind-boggling.

I'll respond more to this thread tomorrow if it's still alive, I'm going out to see one of the best bands I've come across this year - Those Legendary Shack Shakers. (http://www.cockadoodledont.com/main.html)

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by WildCat
I simply stated this wasn't about asthma. Lots of things aggravate asthma besudes tobacco smoke - ozone, car exhaust, charcoal grills, etc. I haven't seen asthma cited as the main reason for the smoking bans being enacted, they always mention lung cancer, heart disease, etc. People w/ asthma know to stay away from bars, just as those w/ severe peanut allergies know to stay away from the ballpark.


It hasn't been largely portrayed as being about asthma, but as someone with asthma, I can tell you that it really is a good reason, and it's the primary reason I support the ban in California. So maybe it should be about asthma. I'm sure there's plenty of hyperbole about second hand smoke, but don't let that stop you from paying attention to the real arguments. Ann Coulter doesn't nullify all conservative arguments just because she's an absolute nutjob, for example.

Staying away from bars is easy for me, but if I go to a restraunt outside of California, I never know what the exposure will be like. My asthma and alergies are relatively mild now (I don't get serious attacks), but it used to be pretty bad when I was a kid.

Cheers, and enjoy your concert.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
And people from outside who do not smoke will come to Toledo to get away from the smokers.

Are you saying that absolutely no restaurants surrounding Toledo have instituted a no smoking policy or at least a no smoking area?

These sort of smoking bans are generally an attempt to protect non-smokers. Second-hand smoke is bad for your health.

And, non-smokers don't know this when going into a restaurant that doesn't have a restricted smoking policy?

These regulations ensure that non-smokers will not be exposed to it when they go to public gathering places.

They aren't public gathering places—they're private businesses!

You can drink without posing a threat to others,

You wouldn't know it to see the self-righters (my word for do-gooder conservatives) in this area. Ever since we passed the alcohol referenda, whenever someone wants to open a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol they're right there at the County Commissioners meeting urging them to rezone the land so they can't open.

[shanek]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

So don't patronize restaurants that don't impose restrictions on smoking. Vote with your dollars.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek
Are you saying that absolutely no restaurants surrounding Toledo have instituted a no smoking policy or at least a no smoking area?


I'm saying that predictions of a loss of business from smoking bans are premature and unfounded. I'm also saying that for people who really mind cigarette smoke, non-smoking sections don't compare to smoking-free restraunts. Toledo's restraunts and bars will do fine.


Ever since we passed the alcohol referenda, whenever someone wants to open a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol they're right there at the County Commissioners meeting urging them to rezone the land so they can't open.


That's unfortunate. Zoning laws can only make sense as part of long-term urban planning, using them to accomplish short-term goals like this is almost certain to cause more problems than it solves. Of course, I don't really think they're solving a real problem anyways...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I'm also saying that for people who really mind cigarette smoke, non-smoking sections don't compare to smoking-free restraunts.

I didn't say no smoking areas. There are restaurants that have resitrcted smoking anywhere in the building. Are you saying there are none of these around Toledo?

Answer the question this time.

Of course, I don't really think they're solving a real problem anyways...

Then why do you think smoking bans are solving anything?

[KelvinG]

I'm very happy with the no smoking rules we have up here. The notion of polluting a public establishment with toxic fumes is just plain stupid.
No smoking rules just make sense, plain and simple.

[shanek]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I'm very happy with the no smoking rules we have up here. The notion of polluting a public establishment with toxic fumes is just plain stupid.

But again, we're talking about a private business, not a public establishment!

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by shanek


But again, we're talking about a private business, not a public establishment!

Sorry, this was argued extensively in another thread a few months back and I never the bought the private enterprise nonsense back then and I don't now.

I know what your thoughts are on this one shanek, I just don't agree.

So, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you can agree to that.:)

[Bjorn]

Shane,

I suggest you and I open a bar in Toledo, called 'Smokers Only'.

We make it clear to possible employees that it doesn't matter if they smoke or not, but they have to accept that they will be inhaling (first hand or second hand) cigarette smoke if they are to be employed in our private enterprise.

We make a very visible sign outside telling possible customers that this is a place where smoking, although not a must, is certainly allowed, and that the place is established to cater for those who like to smoke and drink at the same time.

You ban-smoking-in-restaurants people here, give us some good reasons why we shouldn't be allowed to open such a place?

Not that it is any of your business, but I don't smoke myself.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I suggest you and I open a bar in Toledo, called 'Smokers Only'.

Actually, around here there's a chain of convenience stores called "Smoker Friendly." I wonder if people think we should ban smoking in there?

Not that it is any of your business, but I don't smoke myself.

Nor do I.

[Attrayant]

Originally posted by shanek

But again, we're talking about a private business, not a public establishment!

Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors. Child labor laws, food preparation and storage guidelines, requiring fire exits, overtime pay, handicapped access guidelines, fire codes (maximum occupancy), the list goes on.

It would be wonderful if businesses that were openly racist/sexist/homophobic would be driven out of business by a disgusted public, but that's just not going to happen. Thus we have brought into existance certain non-discrimination laws. You could suggest to blacks/women/gays that they find friendly establishments for their patronage, but one or two establishments are not going to be the first to make such a change, lest they lose business from their racist/sexist/homophobic customers to other businesses that opted not to become black/woman/gay friendly. Enacting an ordinance that requires all businesses to abide by certain guidelines insures that all businesses are treated with the same rules. So with a blanket ban, no business looses customers, and new customers will come out to enjoy smoke-free eating & entertainment.

Smoking was banned in Los Angeles some years ago, and businesses are doing just fine. In fact, it seems like there are lots of potential patrons who previously stayed away from bars & clubs because of the smoke.

I am not asthmatic nor do I have any other respiratory conditions, as far as I know. But for some reason a single puff of smoke inhaled by me from, say, a guy walking down the street in front of me who just happens to be exhaling while I am inhaling causes me to get nauseated and take evasive action in order to find some non-polluted air to breath. To me, this is almost an assault. Granted it's unintentional but never the less my body reacts as if it's being assaulted by toxic gasses.

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Attrayant
It would be wonderful if businesses that were openly racist/sexist/homophobic would be driven out of business by a disgusted public, but that's just not going to happen. Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses have one thing in common: They want to lock some people out.

The 'Smokers Only Bar' will welcome all patrons, as long as they accept that the owners have allowed smoking inside. Much like a gay bar that allows straights: If you get nauseated by seeing men kiss each other, the easy solution is to stay outside.

But for some reason a single puff of smoke inhaled by me from, say, a guy walking down the street in front of me who just happens to be exhaling while I am inhaling causes me to get nauseated and take evasive action in order to find some non-polluted air to breath. To me, this is almost an assault. Granted it's unintentional but never the less my body reacts as if it's being assaulted by toxic gasses.And this, of course, gives you a very good point if you want to prohibit smoking on sidewalks, or in bus stations, or in the ballpark, or anywhere else where others cannot chose another place to stay (there is only one superbowl, and "If you don't like it here, go see it somewhere else" doesn't work well).

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Yep. But keep your nose out of my bar if you can't take the smoke: That way, your nose is safely out of the way. It's our bar you know. :p

[Attrayant]

Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses have one thing in common: They want to lock some people out.

This is not quite an accurate representation of the real world. Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses don't want to be labeled as such, and will claim that all are welcome. But clearly the general atmosphere will be unfriendly and unacommodating if you are not the preferred type of customer. Same goes for smokey bars. All customers are welcome, but it's a hostile environment for many non-smoking people who don't have a choice to go elsewhere.

A "smokers only/friendly" bar is a good idea. I believe they would be in the extreme minority if they were to start opening up. Of course we won't know this until they have some reason to start opening up. The way things are now, all bars are smoker friendly unless there is legi

And this, of course, gives you a very good point if you want to prohibit smoking on sidewalks, or in bus stations, or in the ballpark, or...

I said that I was able to find clean air to breathe by taking evasive manuvers. This is easy to do walking down the street, but next to impossible to do in a smoke-filled nightclub.

But keep your nose out of my bar if you can't take the smoke: That way, your nose is safely out of the way. It's our bar you know.

By that reasoning, I need to keep my stomach out of your restaurant if I don't want to eat e-coli tainted meat or hair in my salads. That way we won't need legislation requiring proper food handling proceedures and hairnets.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Bjorn
The 'Smokers Only Bar' will welcome all patrons, as long as they accept that the owners have allowed smoking inside. Much like a gay bar that allows straights: If you get nauseated by seeing men kiss each other, the easy solution is to stay outside.


The reason this argument doesn't work on a legal level is because of employees. Yes, you're right, customers are completely free to patronize whatever establishments cater to their desires. But workers looking for employment don't have so much liberty, and the courts (at least in California) have recognized this. As a prospective employee, being asthetically disgusted by men kissing isn't comparable to being physically nauseated by second hand smoke. Strong libertarians may not agree with these sort of equal-opportunity employment laws, but that's still the way things stand in much of the US.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Attrayant
Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors.

If it's a legal activity, it does. And smoking is a legal activity.

[massively fallacious argument excised]

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Even if I'm in a boxing ring with you?

[Tony]

Im still trying to figure out why some people support a smoking ban, but oppose the Patriot act.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony
Im still trying to figure out why some people support a smoking ban, but oppose the Patriot act.

No you're not. You're not trying to figure that out at all. You're trying to see if you can trap an opponent by trying to force them into a contradiction, hoping to make supporters of popular smoking bans look like supporters of the much-less popular Patriot act because you don't like smoking bans. But there is no contradiction other than in your own mind. You're not actually trying to understand at all.

Smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right, and nothing in the constitution protects your ability to smoke. The Patriot act can be used to deprive citizens of constitutional rights. The two situations are fundamentally different, and no amount of posturing on your part is going to change that.

[DavidJames]

[brief hijack]
"Im still trying to figure out why some people support a smoking ban, but oppose the Patriot act. "

I'm still trying to figure out why you have repeatedly ignored the questions gnome and I have asked in this tread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870063597#post1870063597

[/brief hijack]

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


The Patriot act can be used to deprive citizens of constitutional rights.

Like what?

Are you saying that government invasion of privacy (which the smoking ban is) is constitutional? I thought that was the main beef with the Patriot Act.

And I disagree; the two are fundamentally the same. Both are prime examples of the government trampling our rights for our "safety".

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right, and nothing in the constitution protects your ability to smoke.

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to restrict smoking, so they just plain can't do it.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Tormac
The big city outside Blackswamp (Toledo, OH) has enacted a local smoking ban on public restaurants and bars over a particular size.

I do not smoke, and actively encourage friends to quit, but this smoking ban seems ill conceived and intrusive. A "goody goody ism" the part of local government IMHO, that is a slip down that hypothetical slope. I've been ranting about this, but have had some good counter arguments presented to me from friends who are in favor of it.

I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.

2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves. I do not think local government has the right to limit the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.

3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies. Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people. The consumption of unhealthy foods leads to an increased economic burden on society with increase health care costs.

Others around me have pointed out
1) Parents of small children do not feel comfortable bringing them into restaurants that allow smoking.

2) Workers and owners will not have to be in a potentially hazardous smoke filled environment.

3) People who do not appreciate tobacco smoke will not be unconvinced by it.

My gut is sure that I'm right, and my friends that are for the ban are crazy do gooders on this issue, but I have been proved wrong before. I was curious what others here thought of the idea of a local smoking ban in general, and a critique of arguments for or against such a ban. Is it a means of protecting the public's health? Is it a case of intrusive government? Is it a case of the majority (non smokers) abusing the rights of a minority (non smokers)?

You should see California, where smokers barely have the right to smoke outside or in their own homes. Restaurants never ask, "Smoking or Nonsmoking?"

As a nonsmoker, I find this pretty enjoyable, and don't even consider what possible difficulties smokers have.

Whenever I leave the state, I get a shock when I walk into a restaurant and get the smoking question. And when I'm in such an establishment, I can always detect the odor of smoke, even from the nonsmoking section.

I know it's selfish of me to be happy in other's misfortune - but I can't help this. I'm very allergic to cigarette smoke - so California is the place to be.

Except for smog, crime, and the occasional earth quake or three.

[Zep]

Originally posted by shanek
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to restrict smoking, so they just plain can't do it. Then they also can't force you to get a driving license, or drive on the right side of the road, or give way at Stop signs, or drive sober, or... Need I go on?

There are various "rules" that society chooses to live by, over and above those freedoms and limitations granted by the constitution of the state. These are basically to allow people to get along with and live with each other in the expectation that they can indeed pursue life, liberty and happiness at a personal level. That these rules vary from one part of society to another is of concern to them, but not necessarily the state as a whole. So trying to pass the buck for local "smoking bans" onto some nebulous "they in the government" (plus nasty advectives) isn't supporting your arguments rationally at all.

Like I'm sure there are a bunch of federal public servants in Washington who said, "Let's piss off the right-wingers in California and bring in a smoking ban there, but we'll leave Toldeo until later." :rolleyes:

Counter example to the main argument: Who would permit smoking in hospitals? Explain your reasons for your answer.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Attrayant


This is not quite an accurate representation of the real world. Racist/sexist/homophobic businesses don't want to be labeled as such, and will claim that all are welcome. But clearly the general atmosphere will be unfriendly and unacommodating if you are not the preferred type of customer. Same goes for smokey bars. All customers are welcome, but it's a hostile environment for many non-smoking people who don't have a choice to go elsewhere.But they do!

A "smokers only/friendly" bar is a good idea. I believe they would be in the extreme minority if they were to start opening up. Of course we won't know this until they have some reason to start opening up. The way things are now, all bars are smoker friendly unless there is legiGiven the choice, allowing smoking (in general or in certain areas) is preferred by a great majoriy of the bar-owners (or you wouldn't have anything to complain about in the first place).

If and when the new laws are a fact, I would have a million ($) reasons to start a smoking-friendly bar. The problem is that the laws prevent me from doing so - if I start a bar, it has to be smoke-free, whatever smokey name I give it.

It is, I believe, no law preventing me from opening a private, open-to-the-public library that allows readers to smoke ... but the moment I offer them a brandy, it is.

I said that I was able to find clean air to breathe by taking evasive manuvers. This is easy to do walking down the street, but next to impossible to do in a smoke-filled nightclub.And I was in fact going to support the smoking-ban on the street - for the reason that you can't (in general) decide if you want to walk the street or not, but you can decide if you want to go to my bar.

By that reasoning, I need to keep my stomach out of your restaurant if I don't want to eat e-coli tainted meat or hair in my salads. That way we won't need legislation requiring proper food handling proceedures and hairnets. And guess what? If somebody started a e-coli friendly restaurant ("Eat and Run" would be an appropriate name, I think) and advertised it as such, you couldn't complain if you still went there and got sick.

But if anyone wants to go there - let them. :p

On a side note - there is a strong correlation between being a smoker and being a drinker. The reasons seem to be in the way our brains cells react to the two drugs - one who likes one of them tends to like the other and they enhance each other. (and there might be something in the phrase 'addictive personalities').

Ask AA or similar about the percentage of smokers there compared to the standard population.

If I had money and it was legal, I would open a smoker-friendly bar here in SD right now and laugh all the way to the bank.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


The reason this argument doesn't work on a legal level is because of employees. Yes, you're right, customers are completely free to patronize whatever establishments cater to their desires. But workers looking for employment don't have so much liberty, and the courts (at least in California) have recognized this. As a prospective employee, being asthetically disgusted by men kissing isn't comparable to being physically nauseated by second hand smoke. Strong libertarians may not agree with these sort of equal-opportunity employment laws, but that's still the way things stand in much of the US. But I covered that already:

We make it clear to possible employees that it doesn't matter if they smoke or not, but they have to accept that they will be inhaling (first hand or second hand) cigarette smoke if they are to be employed in our private enterprise Much like working on a farm, where you have to accept the smell of a few nasty things, maybe even being physically nauseated by it - or don't apply for the job in the first place? :p

[Attrayant]

Private ownership does not mean you get to control everything that goes on behind your doors.

If it's a legal activity, it does

No it does not. As I have already said, otherwise legal activities are either forbidden or tightly regulated when it comes to business and public safety. How do you feel about the smoking ban in airplanes? Elevators?

Please identify the "massively fallacious argument". Your argument seems to be that free market principles should be allowed to decide that smoking establishments should be run out of business (because patrons would flock to clean air establishments our of preference). I submit that that is the fallacious argument. Smokers are the minority. If free market theory works like it should, there should be smoke-free bars/clubs/restaurants sprouting up like mushrooms all over the place. They should be the rule and not the exception. Why do you suppose this is not the case? Because free market theory does not work in this case. No bar or club owner wants to be the first to go smoke free. They'd lose smokers and probably not pick up enough non-smokers to break even. That's why a blanket ban makes better sense. It puts all businesses at the same "disadvantage", which (as they have discovered in LA and other places) turns out not to be a disadvantage at all.

Picture it the other way around. Every bar, club & restaurant is smoke-free. Now imagine some smokers want a bar or club where they can legally light up inside. Free market theory tell us that a bar owner can decide to allow smoking in his establishment and let the public decide whether or not it's a good thing. But, as I have said, a business owner would be cutting his throat by doing such a thing. He would surely lose business as most of his patrons flocked to the other smoke-free bars. What would be the fair thing to do? Enact legislation requiring all businesses to permit smoking (or set up smoking areas) so that no single business owner has to take the risk of being the first to take a hit in the pocket book.

Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Even if I'm in a boxing ring with you?

Talk about massively fallacious arguments.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to restrict smoking, so they just plain can't do it.

They can. Whether or not they should is a separate question, but it's got nothing to do with the government's ability to do so. Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever. And the right to outlaw these has held up in court quite well. That's not a question of how things should be, it's a simple statement of how they are. Any attempt to argue otherwise in an exercise in self-delusion.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tony

Like what?

Are you saying that government invasion of privacy (which the smoking ban is) is constitutional?


Smoking bans are fundamentally no different than outlawing drugs like cocaine. And those have held up quite well. The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution, and courts have leeway in determining how far that right should extend. Since it doesn't extend to smoking marijuana, for example, there are no constitutional grounds for why it must be extended to tobacco. As I said to Shanek, this is a simple statement of how things are.


I thought that was the main beef with the Patriot Act.


Many people find that objectionable, but no, that's not really the main objection. Bigger problems come from things like unconstitutional search and seizure, being able to detain suspects without giving them access to attorneys or speedy trials, etc.


And I disagree; the two are fundamentally the same. Both are prime examples of the government trampling our rights for our "safety".


On a fundamental level, this objection is not held up by society at large. Much of government consists of limits on your rights to protect society. Speed limits are equivalent on this level. Society as a whole is in favor of restricting freedoms for safety, the only question is where exactly to strike tha balance. You may not like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Zep
Then they also can't force you to get a driving license, or drive on the right side of the road, or give way at Stop signs, or drive sober,

No, they can't. And you can do all of these things on private roads if you want to. Those things you mentioned are conditions of using government-owned roads.

But we aren't talking about government-owned bars and restaurants. We're talking privately owned businesses here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever.

And those restrictions are unconstitutional as well.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Attrayant
Picture it the other way around. Every bar, club & restaurant is smoke-free. Now imagine some smokers want a bar or club where they can legally light up inside. Free market theory tell us that a bar owner can decide to allow smoking in his establishment and let the public decide whether or not it's a good thing. But, as I have said, a business owner would be cutting his throat by doing such a thing. He would surely lose business as most of his patrons flocked to the other smoke-free bars. What would be the fair thing to do? Enact legislation requiring all businesses to permit smoking (or set up smoking areas) so that no single business owner has to take the risk of being the first to take a hit in the pocket book.Here in San Diego, smoking is prohibited in all bars and restaurants, just as in your example. How come, then, that it is prohibited to open such a smoker-friendly bar? My money, my risk ... :(

[Tormac]

Unfortunately (IMHO) I've yet to hear of any meaningful legal challenge to these types of smoking bans, so they are here to stay. Local governments seem to be able to get away with it.

While I am not a smoker personally, and would prefer to have smoke free bars and restaurants, I defiantly do not think that any local government should be able to limit the use of a legal product in its traditional setting. If a bar owner wants to have a no smoking policy, then that is fine. No smoking plus a good Rob Roy, and that bar would have my business. But the notion that the local government is going to make the decision makes me uneasy. The fact that smoke free bars just plain do not exist (at least to my knowledge in the general Toledo area) makes me suspect that they are not economically viable.

I am seriously worried when ever a government tried to implement these kind of good intensions. I know that there is still some controversy over second hand smoke being dangerous. I am sure it is not good for me, and am willing to say it is most likely dangerous.

Even if second hand smoke is rather dangerous, does that give a government the right to drastically prohibit its use? I've not seen any solid studies that compare the number of fatalities of non drinkers that are attributable to alcohol (i.e. drunk driving accidents, or drunken fights) but I seriously suspect that it is much easier to link death and injury to non users of alcohol [to the use of alcohol], than it is to non tobacco users via second hand smoke. Does it not follow then that the consumption of alcohol in public places should also be banned? Then there would be no more drunks driving home from the bar, not more violent drunken bar brawls. It seems like a logical continuation of the smoking bans to ban alcohol in public places next.

edited since one sentence did nto make much sense.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever. And the right to outlaw these has held up in court quite well. Smoking marijuana is illegal in the US, like it or not.

Smoking cigarettes is legal. But someone prohibits me from having a bar where smoking people can smoke and drink at the same time.

It must be the only activity that is specifically prohibited in a bar and not many other privately owned places (yep, I know about the non-smoking airplanes and support the rules, but they are not there by law but because the airlines introduced them on their own. I can still start my 'Smoke is in the Air' airline if I want to). :p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ziggurat

As I said to Shanek, this is a simple statement of how things are.



Originally posted by Ziggurat

You may not like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

Thanks for the reasoned response, and I know thats how things are, which is why I have zero respect for the law and those who enforce it.

But im arguing for how the way things should be, ya know, a liberal society in which individual rights and freedom are respected.

[Tormac]

Ziggurat suggested that
Smoking bans are fundamentally no different than outlawing drugs like cocaine. And those have held up quite well. The right to privacy is not explicit in the constitution, and courts have leeway in determining how far that right should extend. Since it doesn't extend to smoking marijuana, for example, there are no constitutional grounds for why it must be extended to tobacco. As I said to Shanek, this is a simple statement of how things are.

Well others have pointed out that tobacco is legal, while Mary-Jane is not. I agree with you Ziggurat, that this is the ways things seem to be here in the states. I would suggest though that it is not how things should be. Maybe I am longing for an idealized sense of freedom <shrugs>.

I can see how it is a matter of degree between tobacco and marijuana, and a matter of degree between marijuana and coke. But if one takes that degree another step, the use of bratwurst, chocolate, cheeseburgers, and sandwich cookies are also not protected. Does the extra pollution generated by an SUV compared to a smaller car justify banning the SUV? The only reason that any right is "protected" is because enough people are willing to put up a fuss over its loss. That a government "can" do something is guaranteed to the point were it has the man-power and fire-power to impose its will over the populace. As you pointed out earlier Ziggurat, the question between what a government can do and what it should do are two very different things. How ever, quite often, even in western style democracies, governments have shown them selves willing to do what they “can” do, and use lies and manipulation to cover up the question about what it should do.

The whole smoking ban in Toledo may be a little thing, not worth getting too worked up over. However letting a local government get away with little abuses of power will only encourage greater abuses and abuses of power at higher levels of government.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Tormac
Even if second hand smoke is rather dangerous, does that give a government the right to drastically prohibit its use? I've not seen any solid studies that compare the number of fatalities of non drinkers that are attributable to alcohol (i.e. drunk driving accidents, or drunken fights) but I seriously suspect that it is much easier to link death and injury to non users of alcohol [to the use of alcohol], than it is to non tobacco users via second hand smoke. Does it not follow then that the consumption of alcohol in public places should also be banned? Then there would be no more drunks driving home from the bar, not more violent drunken bar brawls. It seems like a logical continuation of the smoking bans to ban alcohol in public places next.

The comparison with alcohol is, in my opinion, false. Can you give one example of how someone consuming alcohol causes damage to another person, and here is the important bit, without that person breaking the law? The examples you give above of damage (drunks driving and bar brawls) would both involve illegal acts and therefore the law exists (whether it is effective or not) to protect you.

If you accept that second hand smoke damages your health (which is a separate argument), then the difference is that your health can be affected by someone else without having any protection as they are not doing anything illegal.

[Attrayant]

How come, then, that it is prohibited to open such a smoker-friendly bar?

If there is such a prohibition, I strongly disagree with it.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Attrayant
If there is such a prohibition, I strongly disagree with it. Thank you.

However, such is the situation here in California. I cannot cater to the smokers' need for a place to smoke and drink. :(

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tormac

The fact that smoke free bars just plain do not exist (at least to my knowledge in the general Toledo area) makes me suspect that they are not economically viable.


Bars seem to have done fine in California with the smoking ban in place. I don't think Toledo needs to worry much about that. I can understand that people would be apprehensive about such a major change, but this isn't some untested experiment that they're embarking on, they're joining a lot of other regions that have instituted smoking bans which have worked out fine.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Bars seem to have done fine in California with the smoking ban in place. I don't think Toledo needs to worry much about that. I can understand that people would be apprehensive about such a major change, but this isn't some untested experiment that they're embarking on, they're joining a lot of other regions that have instituted smoking bans which have worked out fine.

I have found up here in Vancouver that even most smokers don't have a problem with the ban on smoking.
Some have even said that the smoking areas outside the bar, or in a specially designated (and ventilated) smoking rooms within the bar, become whole new social areas of the bar where persons with a common interest (smoking) can congregate.

And believe it or not, most folks I've talked with (smokers and non) see a smoking ban as upholding rights of the individual, as opposed to oppressing them.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

"Smoking cigarettes is fundamentally no different than smoking marijuana, or crack cocaine, or whatever."

And those restrictions are unconstitutional as well.

Hey, maybe you can bring that before the supreme court, I'm sure they'd love to find out they're all wrong about their interpretation. Maybe you could even start a campaign to try to get yourself nominated to the bench. Oh what a glorious country we'd have if only some supreme court judge was brave enough to rule that almost all government is unconstitutional! "Shanek for supreme court" shall be the rallying cry of oppressed libertarians everywhere!

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Bars seem to have done fine in California with the smoking ban in place. I don't think Toledo needs to worry much about that. I can understand that people would be apprehensive about such a major change, but this isn't some untested experiment that they're embarking on, they're joining a lot of other regions that have instituted smoking bans which have worked out fine.

There is a difference though. If the smoking ban is state wide, how far on average, does a smoker have to travel to find a smoking bar? In Toledo, it is a trip to the suburb of Maumee. I can understand smokers not bothering to drive an extra hour to find a smoking bar, but from what I have observed about the habits of smokers, most would drive an extra 15 minutes.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Hey, maybe you can bring that before the supreme court, I'm sure they'd love to find out they're all wrong about their interpretation.

When has the Supreme Court ever been presented with a Constitutional argument against smoking bans?

[Tormac]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet (reguarding my post comparing a smoking ban with a drinking ban)


The comparison with alcohol is, in my opinion, false. Can you give one example of how someone consuming alcohol causes damage to another person, and here is the important bit, without that person breaking the law? The examples you give above of damage (drunks driving and bar brawls) would both involve illegal acts and therefore the law exists (whether it is effective or not) to protect you.

If you accept that second hand smoke damages your health (which is a separate argument), then the difference is that your health can be affected by someone else without having any protection as they are not doing anything illegal. [/QUOTE]

That both are illegal has certainly not eliminated either. It is illegal to use a handgun to rob someone, but the fact that people still use weapons to commit crimes have lead many to propose a total ban on handguns.

The "protection" that the law offers against drunk driving, or drunken violence, is certainly not absolute, and many would claim is rather minimal at best. Just as some one may claim that all the gun laws seem useless, since it is so easy for criminals to obtain handguns. I've heard that a total ban is the only thing that will actually offer any means of protection against gun violence.

I will have to do some looking to see if I can find some numbers on people who are injured or killed in situations directly attributable to alcohol vs estimates of death or injury is attributable to second hand smoke. As I said before though, while I am sure second hand smoke is not good for me, I think it will be difficult to prove with certainty that x cases of lung cancer are directly attributable to second hand smoke, while it is easier to show that x traffic fatalities were directly attributable to alcohol consumption. The fact that drunk driving, or assault, is already illegal offers little comfort to those who are victims of such crimes.

While I am not for the prohibition of either alcohol or tobacco products in establishments open to the public, the reasoning behind the smoking ban still seems to be easily applicable to alcohol consumption, at least in my opinion. But maybe I’m missing a subtle point of logic concerning the illegality of these things.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shanek
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to restrict smoking, so they just plain can't do it. You missed a very important word here, Shanek: Federal. Nothing in the Federal Constitution gives the Federal government the power to restrict smoking (arguably). In this case, however, we're not talking about Federal activity, but state activity.

It may very well be unconstitutional for the Federal government to ban smoking in restaurants. These bans are completely consistant with the general police power possessed and excercised by sovereign states, however. Unless the ban violates the state constitution, it isn't unconstutional.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You missed a very important word here, Shanek: Federal. Nothing in the Federal Constitution gives the Federal government the power to restrict smoking (arguably). In this case, however, we're not talking about Federal activity, but state activity.

But Ziggurat specifically mentioned the Constitution as justification for it, when it just ain't there.

Unless the ban violates the state constitution, it isn't unconstutional.

That is correct, but irrelevant to the point Ziggurat was making. He wanted to know where the right to smoke was in the Constitution. I answered him.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by shanek


When has the Supreme Court ever been presented with a Constitutional argument against smoking bans?

Well, I think that's why Ziggurat is suggesting that you take it to the Supreme Court!!

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shanek
He wanted to know where the right to smoke was in the Constitution. I answered him. The right to smoke is not in the Constitution. The 9th and 10th Amendments do not protect a right to smoke. There isn't a right to smoke. States can restrict smoking all they want, provided the restrictions are rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and their own constitutions do not protect smoking. The argument for unenumerated rights doesn't apply here, because we're talking about state action.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Bjorn

Much like working on a farm, where you have to accept the smell of a few nasty things, maybe even being physically nauseated by it - or don't apply for the job in the first place? :p

That doesn't work, and you totally missed the point. The state does not permit employers to disregard safe working conditions by just warning employees that it's not safe. The employer-employee relationship is not one of equals, and the state does not treat it as such. And if working on a farm presents a hazard, you can bet your ass that the state can require employees to wear protective gear. And that's a central part of the issue too, to be effective the state must REQUIRE that workers wear protective gear, not just recommend it or require it to be available, otherwise some employers WILL abuse the situation and coerce employees to not request it. But requiring employees to wear protective gear (such as gas masks) is not an acceptable solution in restraunts and bars. Your complaints about smoking regulations amount to complaints about worker safety regulations in general, and those complaints are not supported by the courts.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The right to smoke is not in the Constitution.

It does not have to be in the Constitution to be a right of the people. The 9th Amendment makes that plain.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Attrayant


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at it in this light, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. (Attrayant)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if I'm in a boxing ring with you? (ShaneK)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about massively fallacious arguments. (Attrayant)



Actually, this is a rather neat analogy:

ShaneK is saying that by entering the ring, you have agreed to accept being struck in the nose. While in normal circumstances you would have a right to complain about being struck in the nose, your voluntary action of entering the ring waived that right for the duration of your fight.

Similarly, if you go into a restaurant after being informed that smoking is allowed, you are voluntarily allowing the metaphorical punch in the nose. You have chosen to place yourself in an area where smoking is allowed; you therefore have waived or at least lessened your right to complain.

It was a nice turn of phrase and a legitimate argument from his perspective.

NA

[Attrayant]

Yes I saw the attempted analogy, but it fails when looked at from a slightly different perspective. The whole point of getting into a boxing ring is to see who can punch the other guy in the nose first (and the most times, with the greatest force, etc.). Therefore I, should I step into a ring, should expect that this might happen. People do not go into public establishments with the express purpose of filling other people's lungs with smoke. Therefore, should I go into a restaurant, I should not expect to have my lungs filled with toxic smoke.

By passing this legislation via their legislatures, the people are asking for a boxing ring that they can step into where they can be sure that nobody is throwing punches. The analogy might have some validity if there were a huge chunk of the public crying out for boxing matches where no punches are being thrown.

[hgc]

I won't address the entire opening post, since it has been thoroughly covered already. Just one minor point...... the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.I always thought that restaurants and bars were designed for eating and drinking. If they had been designed for smoking, perhaps they would have been called smokatoriums, or something like that.

In NYC, we've had non-smoking in restaurants for a few years, and in bars for a few months, and boy is it ever nice to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. Way to go, Toledo.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Attrayant
Yes I saw the attempted analogy, but it fails when looked at from a slightly different perspective. The whole point of getting into a boxing ring is to see who can punch the other guy in the nose first (and the most times, with the greatest force, etc.). Therefore I, should I step into a ring, should expect that this might happen.

I don't see that as a serious flaw in the analogy -- as ShaneK is concentrating on the voluntary assumption of the risk in either case. I see your point, but I don't think any analogy will ever be 1 to 1.

NA

[shanek]

All I know is, here in NC, where you're unlikely to find any anti-smoking legislation (especially in rural areas), I have no trouble at all locating restaurants that at least have a non-smoking area or even ban smoking outright, no government needed.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek
All I know is, here in NC, where you're unlikely to find any anti-smoking legislation (especially in rural areas), I have no trouble at all locating restaurants that at least have a non-smoking area or even ban smoking outright, no government needed.

Good for you. Here's a harder question: suppose you were a waiter. Would you have "no trouble at all" finding a job at a restraunt that banned smoking? If your employer switched from banning smokers to allowing smokers, how easy would it really be to just drop your job and find a new one? Remember: non-smoking areas are often no sufficient for those with high sensitivities and/or conditions like asthma. These bans aren't just about consumers, they're also about employees. I'm not saying NC should necessarily ban smoking, but California chose to, with good reason, and it's been quite effective in making life generally more pleasant.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Good for you. Here's a harder question: suppose you were a waiter. Would you have "no trouble at all" finding a job at a restraunt that banned smoking?

Nope. They're all over the place. Some of them have it as a policy, others lease restaurant space from owners who have it as a policy. It's a market decision. Those who ban smoking in their buildings have a greater pool of potential hirees to choose from.

[Silicon]

I live in LA, and I was GLAD they banned smoking in bars and restaurants, and really all workplaces.

BTW, there are cigar-smoking clubs where it's legal to puff away. The owner of the club is allowed to staff the smoking room himself, or any member.

But now I can go to any bar and not smell like an ashtray. I can eat in any restaurant and smell the food. Smokers sit outdoors or on the patio, if they want to smoke and eat at the same time. They don't starve.

I do hate that I can't sit outside and eat without breathing someone else's smoke, but it's a small price to pay.

Oh, before the ban? There weren't ANY NS Restaurants or bars. Never saw one in 20 years.

Smokers are the minority in LA. This minority shouldn't be able to ruin the air for the majority. I look at this as a personal rights issue.

My right to breathe tobacco-smoke free air, supercedes your right to blow it in my face. Sure, you have a right to smoke, but not to make me breathe smoke.

The incense analogy isn't complete. Sure, it would be a pain if someone lit up incense at the next table. That illustrates the person-to-person infringement.

But smoking isn't like that. Smoking is like millions of incense addicts, lighting up in every public space. Dozens of incense tables in every restaurant, and twice as many in every bar, all getting their fix.

And no restaurant owner or bar owner has the balls to make them stop, because they imagine an empty bar if they do.

Oh, and all the bars and restaurant owners whined and balled about how they'd be run out of business. Yeah right. Don't believe it. That was a cry of Wolf. We have more bars and restaurants now than we ever did. And you can smell the food, and enjoy the atmosphere. I started going to bars again.

Libertarians can bite me, or invent a smoke-free cigarette. I'm sick of "Radar-detector Libertarians" who think they should have rights but no responsibility. This isn't about personal choice, chew a pack of nicarette a day, I don't care.

But don't shove it down my throat at a restaurant.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by shanek
It does not have to be in the Constitution to be a right of the people. The 9th Amendment makes that plain. Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant. The 9th Amendment creates no rights, it just protects rights that do exist. No court has ever recognized a right to smoke. The Constitution therefore does not prevent the state from regulating smoking.

[Bjorn]

Silicon,

Since the laws are the same, imagine I lived in LA.

I am a non-smoker, but I see the business potential and I want to open my Smoker's Bar. I would be the only one working there - it is a small bar and I don't cook. No employees rights to a non-smoking environment are threatened.

There is a sign outside, warning people that this is a rather smoke-filled environment, come in only if you like it.

I have no intentions of blowing smoke in your face - you have thousands of non-smoking joints to visit for your drinks. But not my place.

Now you keep the law, as it is, for restaurants in general. But should I be prohibited from opening my little get-away? Why?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek

It's a market decision. Those who ban smoking in their buildings have a greater pool of potential hirees to choose from.

HA!!!! Oh that's rich.

Waiting and being a bus-boy isn't exactly skilled labor that's hard to recruit!

In case you haven't noticed, it's not exactly a worker's market in jobs right now!

The market will decide?!!? MAN!

Restaurant owner: "GEE, I really want to recruit the best and the brightest table-washers for my restaurant. I think that a lot of the marginally-literate are worried about lung cancer, though. Waitasecond, I have an idea! I can ban smoking! Then the best dish-stackers and napkin-folders in the nation would come to work here! Then I can offer free health-care and a bonus plan and stock options!"


(Apologies to folks in the restaurant industry, whom I've undoubtedly offended greatly. I promise I'll tip better from now on.)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Bjorn
Silicon,

...
Now you keep the law, as it is, for restaurants in general. But should I be prohibited from opening my little get-away? Why?


Under LA ordinance, I think you are perfectly allowed to run your bar. As long as you don't have employees.

That's the way the cigar clubs work, AFAIK.

I'm actually for clubs or getaways like this.

As it was, I had no choice in the matter. If I went to any bar, there'd be smoke. Any restaurant, there'd be smoke.

Sure, it'd START from the Smoking section. ;-)

[Bjorn]

Someone just informed me of this part of the New York smoking regulations:

The new smoking law allows “separate smoking rooms” only for patients of residential health care facilities and facilities providing day treatment programs, and for bars.

These separate smoking rooms must be enclosed rooms for the exclusive purpose of smoking, in which no business transactions (including vending machines or other food service) is conducted. They are subject to specific restrictions regarding their construction, size and ventilation and must comply with all applicable fire and building code requirements. Separate smoking rooms will not be permitted in bars after January 2,2006. In other words, from January 2006 health care facilities can continue to provide smoking rooms but bars can not. :p

Note also how they cleverly prohibited vending machines in the smoking rooms - if they want to smoke, they don't deserve a Coke! :(

[Tormac]

Originally posted by hgc
I won't address the entire opening post, since it has been thoroughly covered already. Just one minor point...I always thought that restaurants and bars were designed for eating and drinking. If they had been designed for smoking, perhaps they would have been called smokatoriums, or something like that.

In NYC, we've had non-smoking in restaurants for a few years, and in bars for a few months, and boy is it ever nice to eat and drink in a smoke-free environment. Way to go, Toledo.

Well this is I think were I disagree hgc. When I think of a bar, one of the common activities that immediately come to my mind is smoking. Heck, I even learned how to smoke just so I could use it as an excuse to strike up a conversation with women in said bars, by trying to bum a cigarette or light from her. I am still not convinced that it is the business of government to limit a legal activity in its traditional setting. People have smoked in bars and restaurants for as long as I can remember. It is a traditional activity in this setting.

I can sympathize with the notion that a non-smoking bar would be preferable. In my opinion it would be. That being said, I do not see why government should limit this. If people want to have a bar that allows smoking, I still feel they should. I have several favorite bars that I know are full of smoke. if I want to go to Rusty's to listen to the live jazz, I am prepared to come out smelling like smoke. That’s life. If cigarettes are not enough of a public health hazard to warrant making them illegal, I do not see that the gradualism of making it impossible to smoke in a private business open to the public is warranted.

I do not allow people to smoke inside my car, even though it is a convertible. I do not see why privately owned bars can not make the same decision. Again I hold that it should be the decision of the owner of a private establishment as to what kind of client they want to cater to.

I know that there are a lot of non smokers that see this as a progressive law that makes life cleaner. But I have to ask, if non-smoking bars and restaurants are so much nicer, why are they not popular without the law?

What if there was some kind of compromise position, say a "cigarette license" similar to a local liquor license? What if only a limited number of bars could obtain this license, and had to pay a hefty fee to get it, thus ensuring that most restaurants and bars were smoke free, but some were not. Would this be an acceptable compromise for those who see local smoking bans as a good thing?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant.

Tell that to Ziggurat. He's the one that brought it up.

No one is saying anything about the Constitution prohibiting the states from anything. But Ziggurat tried to support his assertion with the fact that there was no right to smoke in the Constitution, which is a red herring at best, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Under LA ordinance, I think you are perfectly allowed to run your bar. As long as you don't have employees.

So, if he decides he needs help, even if he finds someone who doesn't mind at all working around smokers and may even smoke himself, he shouldn't be allowed to do it? Why not?

As it was, I had no choice in the matter.

Stop whining; you did so. Take some farking responsibility for your actions. YOU went in there of your OWN FREE WILL.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Of course that's true. It's also irrelevant. The 9th Amendment creates no rights, it just protects rights that do exist.


Tell that to the anti-gun nazis.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tormac

I do not allow people to smoke inside my car, even though it is a convertible. I do not see why privately owned bars can not make the same decision. Again I hold that it should be the decision of the owner of a private establishment as to what kind of client they want to cater to.


As I KEEP saying, it's not simply a matter of what kind of client you wish to cater to, it's also a matter of what kind of employee you wish to cater to. Like it or not, the government has decided that employers don't have arbitrary say in that matter, and the courts have backed them up.


What if there was some kind of compromise position, say a "cigarette license" similar to a local liquor license? What if only a limited number of bars could obtain this license, and had to pay a hefty fee to get it, thus ensuring that most restaurants and bars were smoke free, but some were not. Would this be an acceptable compromise for those who see local smoking bans as a good thing?

It doesn't get you out of the problem of what to do with employees who want to work in a smoke-free environment.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

No one is saying anything about the Constitution prohibiting the states from anything. But Ziggurat tried to support his assertion with the fact that there was no right to smoke in the Constitution, which is a red herring at best, and based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution.

The supreme court obviously disagrees with you. And it's their opinion, not yours, which dictates the law of the land. Until you get a seat on that bench (or any judicial bench), I suggest you start realizing that your opinion on constitutionality really doesn't matter.

Welcome to reality, Shanek. You should hang out here more often.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


So, if he decides he needs help, even if he finds someone who doesn't mind at all working around smokers and may even smoke himself, he shouldn't be allowed to do it? Why not?


Because it would make taking up smoking a condition of employment.

Or it would at least make taking up second-hand-smoking a condition of employment.

Again, there are tons of things that are against the employment laws, even though both parties may agree to them. We don't let anyone agree to pay for work, for example. Pissed off the actors who were kicking back money to casting directors for access to "casting classes". Really pissed off the casting directors who were taking the money! But it was ruled illegal, as is paying anyone to give you a job.


The State of California has ruled Secondhand Cigarette Smoke a carcinogen, so they regulate it as such.


Stop whining; you did so. Take some farking responsibility for your actions. YOU went in there of your OWN FREE WILL.


If this was about personal responsibility, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Smokers would have taken responsibility for second-hand smoke, and wouldn't smoke indoors in public places.

No law would be required.

They know the smoke is deadly, and they continue to smoke. But they argue that it can't possibly be deadly to blow it at other people.

For me to have free will in going to a smoking restaurant, there had to be a choice. There WERE no non-smoking restaurants. Not in LA 10 years ago. (maybe 1 hippy tofu restaurant on the west side. But none that I remember).

No choice, so no way the "marketplace" could decide. Plus, all the bars got MAJOR kickbacks from the Tobacco industry. Free cigarettes they could sell at a premium, etc... All in the name of "free-choice" and "individual rights". How can the "Marketplace" compete with product dumping and kickbacks? Pockets lined by the tobacco industry allied with the bars against this law.

If it was about personal responsibility, the Smokers should have taken it. It's been too long. The majority will excercize it's power now. We take back the air from the minority who hold it hostage.

Smokers, we've have had it with your individual "freedoms" that make us smell like your cigarette butts.

If you have a right to smoke around me, then I have a right to splash you with something that makes you smell just as bad. I have baby diapers, and I'm not afraid to use them!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tony
Tell that to the anti-gun nazis.

I have.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The supreme court obviously disagrees with you.

Give one reference to the US Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of smoking bans. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Because it would make taking up smoking a condition of employment.

Or it would at least make taking up second-hand-smoking a condition of employment.

But he doesn't mind that! So how is it justified?

Again, there are tons of things that are against the employment laws, even though both parties may agree to them. We don't let anyone agree to pay for work, for example. Pissed off the actors who were kicking back money to casting directors for access to "casting classes". Really pissed off the casting directors who were taking the money! But it was ruled illegal, as is paying anyone to give you a job.

Irrelevant. Why do you people constantly think it makes sense to justify the illegality of something by the mere fact that it's illegal? And that other, similar things are illegal? Can these laws not stand up under scrutiny on their own?

If this was about personal responsibility, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Smokers would have taken responsibility for second-hand smoke, and wouldn't smoke indoors in public places.

That's just completely bogus! If the nonsmokers had taken responsibility for the fact that they VOLUNTARILY went into a place where people were smoking, then we wouldn't be having this conversation!

This is really about YOU forcing others because YOU don't want to be responsible!

For me to have free will in going to a smoking restaurant, there had to be a choice.

There was. As with any private establishment, you can either abide by the rules the property owner wishes to impose, or you can decide not to patronize his business. If he requires shirt and shoes, you gotta wear shirt and shoes. If he requires a tie, you gotta wear a tie. And if he allows smoking, you don't have any right to force him to do otherwise.

There WERE no non-smoking restaurants. Not in LA 10 years ago.

Support this. Somehow, I find this very hard to believe. Not ONE restaurant restricted smoking? When here, in the HEART OF TOBACCO LAND, most of them were? Come on!

Plus, all the bars got MAJOR kickbacks from the Tobacco industry.

Ah. Conspiracy theories again. Amazing how they didn't do that here in tobacco country either...

If it was about personal responsibility, the Smokers should have taken it.

Why do many non-smokers feel their exempt from their personal responsibility? Why do YOU feel that YOU get to tell others how to run their businesses and their lives?

It's been too long. The majority will excercize it's power now.

Yeah, like the majority did when the majority imposed slavery...

Smokers, we've have had it with your individual "freedoms" that make us smell like your cigarette butts.

NO ONE is making you smell anything! YOU take responsibility for YOUR actions, you hypocrite!

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Silicon

They know the smoke is deadly, and they continue to smoke. But they argue that it can't possibly be deadly to blow it at other people.

No they (we) don't. The argument is simply PROVE the harmful effects. Without fudging the numbers. Just once. Surely that's not too much to ask on this forum.


Smokers, we've have had it with your individual "freedoms" that make us smell like your cigarette butts.

If you have a right to smoke around me, then I have a right to splash you with something that makes you smell just as bad. I have baby diapers, and I'm not afraid to use them!

And this is, of course, what the whole debate is about. Non-smokers find smoke annoying. Well you know what? There are all kinds of things I find annoying in bars, restaurants, and other public places.

Such as:
Certain music genres
Karaoke
Obnoxiously loud people
Excessive body odor

But just because I find these things annoying doesn't mean they ought to be banned (well, except maybe for Karaoke).

The anti-smoking laws are just inneffective legislatures who want to feel like they're doing something. This one is pretty popular and comes with little political risk.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Give one reference to the US Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of smoking bans. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

Blah Blah Blah. Give me one reference to the supreme court upholding your right to smoke. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

Banning tobacco is fundamentally no different than banning illegal drugs. You haven't made any argument to suggest otherwise, or to indicate that the supreme court thinks the illegality of drugs is unconstitutional. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by VicDaring


No they (we) don't. The argument is simply PROVE the harmful effects. Without fudging the numbers. Just once. Surely that's not too much to ask on this forum.


If it is accepted that smoke contains a number of carcinogens and is responsible for causing cancer, which I think it generally is, then is it unreasonable to ban employers from exposing employees to it in the workplace? How is this different from banning exposure to, say, radiation or asbestos?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by VicDaring
No they (we) don't. The argument is simply PROVE the harmful effects. Without fudging the numbers. Just once. Surely that's not too much to ask on this forum.


It is not too much to ask, but I already did this. I provided links to peer-reviewed studies that show that second-hand smoke exposure aggravates asthma in adults and children. Maybe you should pay closer attention to the thread next time. To save you the trouble of looking back through the posts, I'll put them up again:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/158/1/170

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/23/1665

Agravated asthma is not simply an annoyance, it is a harm.

[Silicon]

Oh COME ON ZIGGURAT. You can't trust the New England Journal of Medicine!!! What kind of socialist, pinko, big-government fringe organization is THAT!??!

:wink:


When presented with evidence, these folks ignore the evidence.

Or they argue that the Gubmint doesn't have any right to make THEM do what the law requires.


I hope you'll all take up my new catchphrase "Radar-Detector Libertarians". It's all about protecting their "freedom" to endanger your life.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


As I KEEP saying, it's not simply a matter of what kind of client you wish to cater to, it's also a matter of what kind of employee you wish to cater to. Like it or not, the government has decided that employers don't have arbitrary say in that matter, and the courts have backed them up.



It doesn't get you out of the problem of what to do with employees who want to work in a smoke-free environment.

Well Ziggurat, this is the only argument for the smoking ban that does make much sense to me. But I have to ask why anyone who does not want to work in a smoking environment get a job in a bar anyways? If I did not want to listen to deafening music, I would not get a job as a roadie. If I did not want to be around toxic waste, I would not get a job in hazardous waste removal. I've quit jobs over poor working conditions. If one does not like working around second hand smoke, then why get a job that traditionally involves smoky conditions?

As I have said before, I agree that the government has the right to enact a smoking ban. "Rights" are just constructs. The government has the right to do whatever it claims it does. What I claiming though is the government has no business doing so.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


NO ONE is making you smell anything! YOU take responsibility for YOUR actions, you hypocrite!

Bogus argument.

You turn the whole thing on its head.

If it was about individual responsibility, I'd never have breathed cigarette smoke indoors, outdoors, anywhere. I'd never have had to put up with this carcinogen.

MY arguments were about why the law was overdue in coming to protect the rights of non-smokers. Not about the legal standing of the legislation.




But you seem determined to draw me into an argument on that one.



All the laws in CA hinge on the hundreds of studies that show that Second-hand smoke causes illness.

And the fact that the laws in California have EVERY right to restrict what health hazards employers require of employees.

That's been court tested over and over again.


If you seriously want to argue that State Governments have no right to pass workplace health laws, that really cries out for another thread!


And I can send you info on dozens of studies on the effects of second-hand smoke. You deniers can take your shots, but WE know why you deny them all.

It's the freaky "Radar-Detector Libertarian" streak running in you. All about your rights (even your right to expose your workers to carcinogens), never about your responsibilities.



Here's a great study, that proves California's point exactly, about the health risks of people working in cigarette smoke:


"... Eisner et al.(1998) studied the association between ETS exposure and respiratory symptoms in a cohort of 53 bartenders before and after California's prohibition
on smoking in all bars and taverns. 74% of the bartenders initially reported respiratory symptoms; of those symptomatic at baseline, 59% no longer had symptoms at follow-up. 77% initially reported sensory irritation symptoms; at
follow-up, 78% of these had symptom resolution. "

Eisner MD, Smith AK, Blanc PD. Bartenders' respiratory health after establishment of smoke-free bars and taverns. JAMA 280:1909-1914 (1998).



From a summary of the studies at:

http://repace.com/fact_cardio.html


Here's some highlights, in small print, because it's just so many, and so overwhelming. But not to "Radar Detector Libertarians" who want to preserve their "right" to endanger the lives of others.




Law et al. (1997) review the evidence from 19 published studies of passive smoking and heart disease; they report that the average excess risk of ischemic heart disease from passive smoking epidemiological studies is 23% (95%
CI:14% to 33%), and conclude that platelet aggregation provides a plausible explanation for the mechanism and magnitude of the effect.

Kawachi, et al. (1997) in a prospective study of coronary heart disease (CHD) in 32,000 female U.S. nurses aged 31 to 61 yr., for nonsmoking women exposed only at work, observed a dose-response gradient for passive smoking and
CHD. Adjusted relative risks of CHD were 1.00 [for no exposure], 1.58 (95% CI, 0.93-2.68) [occasional exposure], and 1.91 (95% CI, 1.11-3.28) [regular exposure]. Thus, regular exposure to SHS at work caused a 91% increase in CHD.

1.No safe threshold has been established for cigarette smoking and risk of cardiovascular disease. Even smoking as few as 1-4 cigarettes per day is associated with a doubling in risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) ( Kawachi et
al., 1994).
2.Many cardiotoxic compounds are more concentrated in sidestream smoke than in mainstream smoke. For example, carbon monoxide (which is known to aggravate angina symptoms) is 8-11 times more concentrated in sidestream
smoke than mainstream smoke.(U.S. EPA, 1992)
3.At least seventeen epidemiological studies have been published on the relationship of passive smoking and risk of CHD. A meta-analysis of 19 studies (including three unpublished reports) found a summary relative risk of CHD
from exposure to spousal ETS of 1.30 (95% CI: 1.22 to 1.38, P < 0.001). (Law et al, 1997)
4.A meta-analysis of eight epidemiological studies of workplace ETS exposure and CHD found a summary relative risk of 1.18 (95% CI: 1.04 to 1.34).( Glantz and Parmley, 1991; 1995; Wells, 1998)
5.Several plausible mechanisms exist by which ETS exposure can increase the risk of CHD (Kawachi, 1998), including carboxyhemoglobinemia, increased platelet aggregability, increased fibrinogen levels, reduction in
HDL-cholesterol, and direct toxic effects of compounds such as 1,3 butadiene (a vapor phase constituent of ETS which has been shown to accelerate atherosclerosis in animal models (Penn and Snyder, 1996).
6.ETS exposure has also been linked to progression of atherosclerosis as measured by B-mode ultrasound of the carotid wall (Howard et al., 1994; Diez-Roux et al., 1995; Howard et al., 1998), as well as to early arterial damage as
assessed by endothelium-dependent brachial artery dilatation (Celermajer et al., 1996).
7.The death toll attributable to passive smoking from CHD is estimated to be 10 to 20 times as large as deaths from lung cancer (Wells, 1988, 1994; Glantz and Parmley, 1991; 1994; Steenland, 1992)

The most recent report on SHS from the UK, the SCOTH Report (1998), also concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and childhood respiratory disease, and that passive smoking is a cause of ischaemic heart disease
and cot death (SIDS), middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children. The SCOTH report concludes that restrictions on smoking in public places and work places are necessary to protect non smokers (SCOTH, 1998).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Blah Blah Blah. Give me one reference to the supreme court upholding your right to smoke. If you can't, then stop shooting off your mouth about things you can't support.

Nice farkin' try, troll. But YOU made the claim, and YOU are the one wanting to force YOUR lifestyle choice on others. It is up to YOU to supply the proof.

Thank you for admitting that you can't do that.

Banning tobacco is fundamentally no different than banning illegal drugs.

No, it isn't; and banning drugs has proven to be one of the most harmful things this country has ever done to itself.

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

There's that age-old whine again. YOU made the claim; YOU back it up. If you can't your argument is invalid. Simple as that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
If it is accepted that smoke contains a number of carcinogens and is responsible for causing cancer, which I think it generally is, then is it unreasonable to ban employers from exposing employees to it in the workplace? How is this different from banning exposure to, say, radiation or asbestos?

Because second-hand smoke has NEVER been shown to be carcingenic; only direct inhalation of cigarette smoke.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tormac
As I have said before, I agree that the government has the right to enact a smoking ban.

No, you believe the government has the power to enact a smoking ban. Governments do not have rights, they have powers; and powers are different than rights.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tormac

Well Ziggurat, this is the only argument for the smoking ban that does make much sense to me. But I have to ask why anyone who does not want to work in a smoking environment get a job in a bar anyways?


Because often times people have a hard time finding jobs, and will take whatever job they can get. And some employers will inevitably abuse that unequal relationship if workers are not protected.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tormac

If one does not like working around second hand smoke, then why get a job that traditionally involves smoky conditions?



The deal is, yes, on an individual basis, sure, someone could get a different job.

But other people would rush to take that job, regardless of the health risks. Because people NEED jobs to live.

If labor laws don't worked the way you propose, we wouldn't have ANY labor laws. Because you'd always say: nobody's forcing them to work there.

Exposure to radiation, Cancer risk, fire-hazard buildings, exposure to toxic chemicals, long hours without overtime, sexual harrasment... Any of those cases, you could say "just work somewhere else".

But see, everyone's forced to work SOMEWHERE. And if any of them can get away with any of that, then they ALL can get away with it.

"Just get a job somewhere else" assumes that there is no unemployement in America, and there's at least one more available job than there are workers to take it.

For a guy who wipes tables for a living, you can't tell me that's true.


Or is what you're really saying: "low-skilled people don't have a right to a healthy workplace"?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

"Banning tobacco is fundamentally no different than banning illegal drugs."

No, it isn't;


Is this argument by fiat? Do you not have any actual logic or facts to back up this ridiculous assertion?


and banning drugs has proven to be one of the most harmful things this country has ever done to itself.


Whether something is a good idea is a different question from whether it is constitutional. You were addressing the later, answers to the former do nothing to back up your assertion of a constitutional right to smoke.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Bogus argument.

You turn the whole thing on its head.

No, the anti-smokers have done that. I'm just putting it the right way up. NO ONE forced them to be around the cigarette smoke. They've had KNOWLEDGE of the smoke and OPPORTUNITY to avoid it. They're just whining because they're so selfish they want others to cater to their needs, and so they use this made-up "right" to FORCE others to conform to their wants.

That's what it's really all about. Nothing more, nothing less.

And I can send you info on dozens of studies on the effects of second-hand smoke.

That haven't been thoroughly debunked? You have studies that show conclusively that second-hand smoke causes cancer?

Bring 'em on!

It's the freaky "Radar-Detector Libertarian" streak running in you. All about your rights (even your right to expose your workers to carcinogens), never about your responsibilities.

That sentence just shows how pigheaded you are. Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other. And if you'd actually bother to learn the first thing about libertarianism you'd know that that's a commonly held viewpoint among libertarians.

If there is a place where people are smoking, they want to smoke, and the owner of the property doesn't mind them smoking, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to tell them that they should behave differently just to accomodate you. If YOU make the choice to go there, then YOU accept the responsibility for YOUR actions.

This isn't about making smokers behave responsibly; this is about anti-smokers trying to avoid THEIR responsibility because it's too much trouble for them.

[Starrman]

And people from outside who do not smoke will come to Toledo to get away from the smokers. Toledo will do fine.

From my local paper today (the Akron Beacon Journal ):

A few anecdotes that show this might not be the case - so far, anyway. (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/6619421.htm)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Because often times people have a hard time finding jobs, and will take whatever job they can get. And some employers will inevitably abuse that unequal relationship if workers are not protected.

Haven't you gotten tired enough of being proven wrong on this in the Minimum Wage thread?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
But see, everyone's forced to work SOMEWHERE.

They are? Strange; I haven't worked anywhere in over a year and I'm doing fine...

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Because second-hand smoke has NEVER been shown to be carcingenic; only direct inhalation of cigarette smoke.


Dance dance dance around the truth.


It HAS been shown to cause Coronary Heart Disease, asthma, and other harms.


But since you seem to think that Cancer is the only harm (regardless that asthma kills more children), here's some Cancer at ya!

Here's a group that looked at "all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer, both active and involuntarily" worldwide.

This is a working group that analyzed the multitude of studies out there, and evaluated the weight of the findings of each of them, to determine, not based on ONE study, but based on the weight of ALL the collected data, for and against.


The International Agency for Research on Cancer found in 2002 that:

"There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans.


Nonsmokers are exposed to the same carcinogens as active smokers. Even the typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among never smokers. Second-hand tobacco smoke IS carcinogenic to
humans."

(emphasis theirs)

http://www.iarc.fr/pageroot/PRELEASES/pr141a.html

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by shanek


Because second-hand smoke has NEVER been shown to be carcingenic; only direct inhalation of cigarette smoke.

Is there any evidence that shows that second hand smoke differs in any significant way from directly inhaled smoke? If not then the argument appears to be that if you are smoking the cigarette, it is dangerous, but if someone is standing next to you inhaling the smoke from the same cigarette, it is safe. What is it in the 12 inches of air that the smoke passes through that changes it from carcinogenic to safe?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


They are? Strange; I haven't worked anywhere in over a year and I'm doing fine...

That's just nonsensical.

You're a terrible arguer.

Is that REALLY your point? Because YOU haven't worked in a year (not surprising, actually) then NOBODY needs to work ANYWHERE?

SMOKE AWAY HUMAN CHIMNEYS! Shanek says we don't have to work!!!!!

WOOOHOOOOO!!!!!!

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


Nice farkin' try, troll. But YOU made the claim, and YOU are the one wanting to force YOUR lifestyle choice on others. It is up to YOU to supply the proof.

Thank you for admitting that you can't do that.
Dude, if you are going to go on and on about this, at least be honest in what he stated in the beginning. He was just comparing it to the Patriot Act, and pointing out that the Patriot Act can violate rights that are actually in the constitution (for example, the right against unreasonable search and seizure). Ths is what he said (bottom of page 1):

Smoking is not a fundamental constitutional right, and nothing in the constitution protects your ability to smoke. The Patriot act can be used to deprive citizens of constitutional rights. The two situations are fundamentally different, and no amount of posturing on your part is going to change that.

It is you who claimed that it is somehow protected by the Constitution. It has been pointed out to you that the law is State, not federal, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

If you want to say the smoking ban is unconstitutional, back it up. Otherwise, this is a very pointless argument.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


If there is a place where people are smoking, they want to smoke, and the owner of the property doesn't mind them smoking, you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to tell them that they should behave differently just to accomodate you.

That's correct, if it's not a workplace.

If it IS a workplace, the government has the responsibility to protect workers.

The citizenry has entrusted government with that responsibility.


What's next, Shanek? Another go-round on the data that shows all the health risks of second-hand smoke, while you stick your fingers in your ears and go "na-na-na-not-listening!"?

Debunked that New England Journal of Medicine study yet?


Here you go, studies on environmental tobacco smoke. Theres 107 of them in the National Library of Medicine. Start refuting them.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed


When they've all been refuted, as you say they all have, we'll talk again, I'm sure.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

That haven't been thoroughly debunked? You have studies that show conclusively that second-hand smoke causes cancer?

Bring 'em on!


Yet more blah blah blah. We went over this before at the start of the thread. There are problems with both the studies that show cancer and heart disease affects from second hand smoke, as well as those that claim to see no effect. But the links I posted showing agravation of asthma are conclusive, and nobody on this board has posted ANYTHING that contradicts them, in either the form of contradictory studies or even criticisms of the studies themselves. So instead you choose to ignore them. Blah blah blah.

[Silicon]

How to argue like Shanek:


"You can't ban smoking, government has no right to do that"


Well, yes, legally they can.


"There's nothing that proves environmental tobacco smoke causes heath problems"


Well, yes there are. Hundreds of studies. It causes cancer, asthma...


"You can't ban smoking, government has no right to do that"


Ummm... we showed that they CAN.


"There's nothing that proves environmental tobacco smoke causes heath problems"


Well, it causes asthma, coronary heart disease, stroke....

"There's nothing that proves environmental tobacco smoke causes CANCER"


Actually, didn't we already post stuff that shows it causes cancer?


"You can't ban smoking, government has no right to do that!!!!"



More lessons from the master to follow, I'm sure.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by shanek


No, you believe the government has the power to enact a smoking ban. Governments do not have rights, they have powers; and powers are different than rights.

You are correct shanek, thankyou for correcting me on a mistatment. I did mean to say that I accept that the government has the power to enact this ban, not that the government has ANY bussiness (or "right") limiting the use of a legal substance in its traditional setting.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tormac

I did mean to say that I accept that the government has the power to enact this ban, not that the government has ANY bussiness (or "right") limiting the use of a legal substance in its traditional setting.


WOOOOHOOOOO!!! Time to throw out the liquor laws!!


HEY... time to throw out the laws enforcing safety at the gasoline pump! That IS the traditional setting of this legal substance, right?!!? Who cares if gas station attendents might get blowed up?!!? They should work somewhere else, and let the market decide!

[Michael Redman]

Maybe this would work better (although I doubt it) if we separated the question of:

1) whether local government can ban smoking in these establishments, consistent with our Constitution and other laws; from,

2) whether local government should ban smoking in these cases, consistent with how we want our society run.

As for the first point, the answer is clearly “Yes!” And the veracity of studies proving the harmful effect of smoke do not matter one bit. Local government can ban smoking altogether because they believe smoking is harmful, because they think it hurts public morals, because it detracts from the community esthetic, or a variety of other conceivable reasons. Local governments can also enact any restrictions on otherwise legal smoking that rationally relate to a legitimate governmental purpose, provided that they do not violate controlling law in doing so. (For example, banning smoking by Asians would violate the Equal Protection Clause.)

As for the second point, Shanek has a point about the right of people assembled in private to do pretty much whatever they want, but, on the other hand, we have decided as a society that places like bars and restaurants that open their doors to the general public also have to submit to restrictions designed to protect that public.

People who want to smoke while they eat and drink can always do so in a truly private context, such as at home, or in a private club not open to the public. The argument that patrons can leave if they don’t want to be exposed to smoke works both ways: Smokers can leave if they want to smoke.

I don't know where I come down on this matter myself. However, I see no individual right that outweights the right of the majority to make this decision, and I wouldn't have a problem with such a ban in my community, if the majority of the people really wanted it.

[Jagger]

I always thought the smoking ban was just another appeal to that puritan streak that runs down most Americans back.

There is nothing like the majority sacrificing the rights of the minority when you are doing it for the minorities own good. Of course, if there was a real sacrifice involved by the majority, the ban probably wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Smokers make up about 20-30 percent of the population dependent on locality. If you allowed businesses to follow the dollar, you would probably end up with a 70-30 split between those allowing smoking and non-smoking instead of the do-gooder 100 percent ban.

And I still can't understand the ban in bars. Drinking alcohol should naturally be associated with the equally healty habit of smoking.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
That's just nonsensical.

No, it's not. People are NOT forced to work ANYWHERE. It is a VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is you who claimed that it is somehow protected by the Constitution.

No, I didn't! I said that he can't use the fact that smoking isn't listed as a right in the Constitution as justification for the law. Moreover, I've clarified that TWICE already!

And people wonder why I tend to fly off the handle here...

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
That's correct, if it's not a workplace.

If it IS a workplace, the government has the responsibility to protect workers.

Why? What is it magically about a workplace that all of a sudden makes it all right for the federal government to intrude into?

And don't give me this "safety of the workers" crap, because you already invalidated that when you responded to my above example.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
But the links I posted showing agravation of asthma are conclusive,

That's fine, but that wasn't the claim I was responding to.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it's not. People are NOT forced to work ANYWHERE. It is a VOLUNTARY ARRANGEMENT.

(Let's see if I can rile him)

Yes, working is completely voluntary. Why, thanks to the perfect welfare state you must therefore endorse, none need ever worry about becoming homeless because of unemployment! Just think, Shanek has finally solved the ultimate libertarian paradox, and provided freedom to NOT work through the welfare state that libertarians once viewed as anathema. You're brilliant, Shanek! For an encore, would you like to get into a hitchhiker's-guide argument with a zebra?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Why? What is it magically about a workplace that all of a sudden makes it all right for the federal government to intrude into?


Why don't you bring that question up with the government? They're really the ones you seem to have a beaf with. Here's a hint, though: workplaces involve commerce.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by shanek


Why? What is it magically about a workplace that all of a sudden makes it all right for the federal government to intrude into?


Okay, for the umpteenth time, this isn't the FEDERAL government we're talking about.

And it's not magical.

Government can pass worker protection laws.

Government SHOULD pass worker protection laws.

Government should enforce worker protection laws.


And don't give me this "safety of the workers" crap, because you already invalidated that when you responded to my above example.

Safety of the workers.

If you are the owner of a cigar bar, and the only worker in the cigar smoking area, you can do whatever you like. Hire a worker, and the government requires you provide certain safety for that person.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek


No, I didn't! I said that he can't use the fact that smoking isn't listed as a right in the Constitution as justification for the law. Moreover, I've clarified that TWICE already!

And people wonder why I tend to fly off the handle here...
What you said was:Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to restrict smoking, so they just plain can't do it.
1. These have nothing to do with State enacted smoking bans.

2. He was not using the fact that smoking isn't listed as a right to justify the law; he was using that fact to distinguish it from the Patriot Act, which another post tried to posit as analogous to the smoking ban.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Silicon (in reaction to my post about smoking being a legal substance and bars being a traditional setting for smoking)



WOOOOHOOOOO!!! Time to throw out the liquor laws!!


HEY... time to throw out the laws enforcing safety at the gasoline pump! That IS the traditional setting of this legal substance, right?!!? Who cares if gas station attendents might get blowed up?!!? They should work somewhere else, and let the market decide!

Well I think that is an over reaction to what I said. I am not ready to get rid of all laws regulating the use of tobacco, nor alcohol. I do feel that a ban on smoking in privately owned businesses that are open to the public is unreasonable though.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

If it is accepted that smoke contains a number of carcinogens and is responsible for causing cancer, which I think it generally is, then is it unreasonable to ban employers from exposing employees to it in the workplace? How is this different from banning exposure to, say, radiation or asbestos?

What's accepted, Jaggy, is that direct inhallation causes heart disease, cancer, etc.

What's not been proven is that the wisp of dissapated smoke from the end of my cigarette is harmful in any meaningful way.

Now, I want to be clear here. I'm completely open to the idea that it might actually prove to be harmful. It's smoke! But rather than prove it honestly, the anti-smoking crowd creates hysteria and then tells private business owners that their customers are not allowed to engage in a legal activity. That's a problem.

Show me the honest proof that I'm killin' cocktail waitresses, and I may change my tune. Although even then, their oughtta be some way to set up a smoking-allowed establishment and keep everyone happy (like one smoking liquor license for every five non-smoking license or something).

[Silicon]

Originally posted by VicDaring
But rather than prove it honestly, the anti-smoking crowd creates hysteria and then tells private business owners that their customers are not allowed to engage in a legal activity. That's a problem.

So, the New England Journal of Medicine study is dishonestly creating hysteria?


By "not harmful in any meaningful way", haven't you been reading the conclusions of the studies we've been posting? Hundreds of studies spanning the past 20 years. Cancer, asthma, asthma-related pulminary failure... all that sounds pretty meaningful to me.



Why do you ignore our posts with the medical data?

Can you find a conclusion written by any respected medical organization that says there is no evidence for any health detriment to environmental tobacco smoke in non-smokers?

You'll point to one or two studies that proved inconclusive. Put those aside.

Find me a respected body of medical professionals that look at ALL the evidence of all the studies, and say there is no evidence for ETS health risks.

Can you find ONE?!?

(Like, one not by the Phillip Morris Center on Medicine.)

Because I can (and HAVE) posted the converse. And I can post plenty more. Like The American Medical Association, The American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, The World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society... shall I go on?

If there really is controversy over the existence of any health problems attributable to ETS, there surely would be medical groups coming out saying no threat has been proven.


If it REALLY is a controversy, where's the reputable opposition?

What medical organization (not pro-tobacco advocacy group) says the jury's still out on this one?

[Silicon]

Wait,

I'll even go you one better.


Name ONE reputable medical organization (again, not a pro-tobacco advocacy group) who has NOT come out against second-hand smoke.

If the jury's still out, some group must still be sitting on the fence on this one!

[nightwind]

Well, pretty much a no brainer here. Smoking and second hand smoke have been proven to be extremely harmful. And it is very difficult to control smoke once you have put it into the air.

It has certainly, in our town at least, made dining out a much more pleasant experience, although the last time I ate out, I listened to my friend whine and whine and whine because he could not smoke. Sheesh.

If this was not a health issue, then I would certainly think it was intrusive on others rights to not to be able to smoke, and this still bothers me a some. I can certainly also see this side of it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by VicDaring


What's accepted, Jaggy, is that direct inhallation causes heart disease, cancer, etc.

What's not been proven is that the wisp of dissapated smoke from the end of my cigarette is harmful in any meaningful way.

Now, I want to be clear here. I'm completely open to the idea that it might actually prove to be harmful. It's smoke! But rather than prove it honestly, the anti-smoking crowd creates hysteria and then tells private business owners that their customers are not allowed to engage in a legal activity. That's a problem.

Show me the honest proof that I'm killin' cocktail waitresses, and I may change my tune. Although even then, their oughtta be some way to set up a smoking-allowed establishment and keep everyone happy (like one smoking liquor license for every five non-smoking license or something).

We have a known carcinogenic substance (smoke). It is known to have adverse health consequences if inhaled. Why is it unreasonable to require employers to protect their employees from inhaling it at their place of work?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
We have a known carcinogenic substance (smoke). It is known to have adverse health consequences if inhaled. Why is it unreasonable to require employers to protect their employees from inhaling it at their place of work?

Ever heard of a little thing called "freedom"?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by shanek


Ever heard of a little thing called "freedom"?

I assume then you would have no objection to employees working in premises with nuclear waste/asbestos etc without any protective equipment? After all, the employee must be "free" to do so.

[VicDaring]

From Silicon
Find me a respected body of medical professionals that look at ALL the evidence of all the studies, and say there is no evidence for ETS health risks.

Okay, how about This one (http://193.78.190.200/43/1057.pdf) *warning...pdf document*

From a UCLA professor and SUNY prof., published in the British Medical Journal in May. Using data from the American Cancer Society.

The study's conclusoin: The results do not support a causal relationship between ETS and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between the exposure to ETS and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Even Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, noted anti-smoking crusader, has publicly acknowleged the validity of the study.
NY Post Article (http://193.78.190.200/10e1/ets_study_nyp.htm)

As far the studies you posted are concerned:

Well, one was a study on children. Since children don't belong in bars...

The other was a study of people with asthma. Those people should know enough to avoid situations that might cause them harm. That's their responsibility. Not mine.

from Jaggy
Why is it unreasonable to require employers to protect their employees from inhaling it at their place of work?

As long as the emlpoyer is up front with any potential hires, and tells them that they will be working around ETS, then the worker can make their own decision whether or not to work there.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As long as the emlpoyer is up front with any potential hires, and tells them that they will be working around ETS, then the worker can make their own decision whether or not to work there. [/B]

Does this apply to all workplace hazards? And what do you mean by "up front"? Would it be enough to tell a nuclear plant worker that "they will be working around radiation"? Does that negate any requirement to avoid exposure to radioactive material?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by VicDaring

The other was a study of people with asthma. Those people should know enough to avoid situations that might cause them harm. That's their responsibility. Not mine.

(snip)

As long as the emlpoyer is up front with any potential hires, and tells them that they will be working around ETS, then the worker can make their own decision whether or not to work there.

So if you have asthma, you should never go to a restraunt you're not familiar with? That's what your argument amounts to. If you've never been to a given restraunt before, you can't know what the ventilation inside is like, you can't know how much smoke from the smoking section will drift into your area.

And I'm sorry, but your conception of worker's rights just doesn't square up with the law or the courts. Could an employer with dangerous machinery, for example, decide not to put safety measures in place and just warn his employees that it's dangerous? Apparently it's not just anti-smoking laws you have a problem with, it's worker safety in general.

[Tormac]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

If it is accepted that smoke contains a number of carcinogens and is responsible for causing cancer, which I think it generally is, then is it unreasonable to ban employers from exposing employees to it in the workplace? How is this different from banning exposure to, say, radiation or asbestos?

The vapor of gasoline contains carcinogens. I am not ready to close all gas stations, as it seems to me the risk is a reasonable trade off for the gains of the eternal combustion engine.

I can understand not wanting to work in a smoke filled bar. I am sure it is not healthy. Even though I think it will be difficult to attribute many cases of illness directly to second hand smoke, I am willing to say that second hand smoke may have contributed to illness.

But I do not think that justifies a ban. The consumption of Alcohol in bars can easily be directly linked injury and death for people who do not use the product.

I work in the IT department of a University. I sit in front of a CRT for most of the day. Computers have been linked to many aliments ranging from the common carpal tunnel syndrome to increased risk of miscarriage. Why not ban computers? My brother cleans hazardous waste for a living. His job is most likely going to kill him if he does it long enough. But he is young, single, and makes a lot of money doing it. He is the safety inspector (with a BS in hazardous waste removal) and it is not uncommon for me to see him with acid burns, weird rashes, or general complaints about how crappy his job is. But he chooses to still do it because of the money he makes.

If an employer is mandated to remove all potential hazards from a job, it would be impossible to do almost anything. At this point I do not think that there is enough evidence to show that health risks involved with second hand smoke warrant its ban from private establishments that are open to the public. It the risks are that high, why is the tobacco itself not banned?

What I do think is that smokers are a minority who use a product that the majority generally considers a smelly, unpalatable, bother. It is an easy target. It is going. I still have not seen an argument against second hand smoke that could not be applied to alcohol. The dangers of alcohol’s consumption to non-users are much easier to make. But alcohol is a not an easy target. There is not as much popular sentiment against it. There would be outrage in Toledo if the city council tried to ban the consumption of alcohol in bars or restaurants. Would it be safer to work in a bar if alcohol was not server? I seriously doubt anyone can say no with a straight face. Would fewer people die from drunk drivers if alcohol was banned? I suspect so. If the majority of people smoked, would there be initiatives to ban smoking? I suspect not.

[Tormac]

Ziggurat suggested (to VicDaring)

And I'm sorry, but your conception of worker's rights just doesn't square up with the law or the courts. Could an employer with dangerous machinery, for example, decide not to put safety measures in place and just warn his employees that it's dangerous? Apparently it's not just anti-smoking laws you have a problem with, it's worker safety in general.

Well I think a closer anology to the smoking ban in Toledo would be demanding that a factory remove all hazardus machinery period, reguardless of impact on final product, or the bottom line of the company invoved.

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


So if you have asthma, you should never go to a restraunt you're not familiar with? That's what your argument amounts to. If you've never been to a given restraunt before, you can't know what the ventilation inside is like, you can't know how much smoke from the smoking section will drift into your area.

Got a phone?

And I'm sorry, but your conception of worker's rights just doesn't square up with the law or the courts. Could an employer with dangerous machinery, for example, decide not to put safety measures in place and just warn his employees that it's dangerous? Apparently it's not just anti-smoking laws you have a problem with, it's worker safety in general.

Straw man. So is Jaggy's nuclear stuff. Neither one is what we're talking about here.

I think we're also about a post or two away from just talking this in circles as well.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

[i]Originally posted by Tormac

I still have not seen an argument against second hand smoke that could not be applied to alcohol.

If I have a drink and do not break any laws (drink driving, assault, drunk & disorderly, etc.) does this have any impact on anyone other than me? Is the same true of smoking?

Does the fact I had a glass of wine in the same room as you mean that your clothes smell? Is it likely to bring on an asthma attack in someone who suffers from asthma? Both of these are true of smoking.

The fact that there is a level of consumption of alcohol that appear to be beneficial to health, which is not true of smoking?

Three specific arguments differentiating second hand smoke and alcohol.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tormac

What I do think is that smokers are a minority who use a product that the majority generally considers a smelly, unpalatable, bother. It is an easy target. It is going. I still have not seen an argument against second hand smoke that could not be applied to alcohol. The dangers of alcohol’s consumption to non-users are much easier to make. But alcohol is a not an easy target. There is not as much popular sentiment against it. There would be outrage in Toledo if the city council tried to ban the consumption of alcohol in bars or restaurants. Would it be safer to work in a bar if alcohol was not server? I seriously doubt anyone can say no with a straight face. Would fewer people die from drunk drivers if alcohol was banned? I suspect so. If the majority of people smoked, would there be initiatives to ban smoking? I suspect not.

Well, let's think about this for a moment. People want to smoke, and other people don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke. Proposed solution: make them do it outside. Oh, the tragedy of it all! Now, will that sort of solution work with alcohol? No, of course not, that doesn't get you anything, getting drunk on the street isn't a step up from geting drunk at the bar. Outright bans on alcohol have also been tried, and been shown not to work in pretty much any sense. Outlawing smoking completely would probably also not be effective. But bans on smoking cigarettes in restraunts are in effect in many places, and they are working exactly as intended. Sorry, but I really can't feel very sorry for those poor oppressed smokers.

[Silicon]

Okay, I said:


Find me a respected body of medical professionals that look at ALL the evidence of all the studies, and say there is no evidence for ETS health risks.


Then VicDaring said:




Okay, how about This one (http://193.78.190.200/43/1057.pdf) *warning...pdf document*

From a UCLA professor and SUNY prof., published in the British Medical Journal in May. Using data from the American Cancer Society.



Okay, what part of my challenge was unclear?

Thats ONE STUDY from a "body" of professors, not doctors (if you call the two who did the study a "body"), who didn't look at all of the evidence from all of the studies, they looked at the methodology of ONE study, the American Cancer Society study.

I asked for "ONE reputable medical organization who has NOT come out against second-hand smoke."


One study isn't a medical organization. Like, for example, the British Medical Association. (Which "called the report "fundamentally flawed," and said it was based on questionable data. ")


The Fair and Balanced New York Post article is kind of comical. They don't even cite the article or the authors! That's like something out of the Weekly World News! Cite sources, you hacks!

Wow, they quoted Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, head of THE American Council of Science and Health?

That's a libertarian science advocacy group, not a medical organization. Hey, they're your go-to-quote machine when you need a grabber on this one. If ever the Heritage Foundation had a favorite environmental group, it's the ACSH!


She also seems to flip-flop on whether second-hand smoke is proven harmful or not. Read around their site, you'll find letters by her that say both. I guess there's the controversy, both sides of Dr. Whelan can't agree on this!


Why the Post quotes her, rather than the authors of the study, I can only guess. Probably out of being fair and balanced.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by VicDaring


Straw man. So is Jaggy's nuclear stuff. Neither one is what we're talking about here.

I think we're also about a post or two away from just talking this in circles as well.

Your argument was that it was sufficient for an employer to tell an employee they will be exposed to a substance that is known to cause cancer (smoke) and that no other protection was needed (smoking ban).

Could you point out the logical difference between that statement and "It is sufficient to tell an employee they will be exposed to a substance that is known to cause cancer (radiation) and that no other protection is needed (measures to reduce exposure, radiation suit etc.)."

It is not a strawman to point out the logical consequences of your argument.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by Tormac
It the risks are that high, why is the tobacco itself not banned?
[/B]

Cause the addicts would storm the gates, and the Libertarians would lend them their guns.

But you knew that.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I assume then you would have no objection to employees working in premises with nuclear waste/asbestos etc without any protective equipment? After all, the employee must be "free" to do so.

If they're fully aware of the situation and voluntarily assume all of the risks, sure. Of course, the workplace would still be responsible for any injuries or other health problems incurred by an employee while working there.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
So if you have asthma, you should never go to a restraunt you're not familiar with?

Of course. It's YOUR condition, so it's YOUR responsibility to check out if any substances you're sensitive to will be in the vicinity. It's not like it's hard; it just takes a phone call.

Should we ban the wearing of perfume and cologne in restaurants because some people have severe allergies to them?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Should we ban the wearing of perfume and cologne in restaurants because some people have severe allergies to them?

If the majority of people think we should, then yes. I'm not personally in favor of that, because I don't think that's a big enough issue. I happen to think smoking in restraunts is, and I'm far from alone. Welcome to democracy. :rolleyes:

[VicDaring]

Originally posted by Silicon

I asked for "ONE reputable medical organization who has NOT come out against second-hand smoke."


That'd be pretty tough since none can politically afford to make anything but anti-tobacco public statements. I mean, I guess I'll concede the point, but it seems kind of meaningless to me.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I wasn't real thrilled about citing the Post. They probably quoted Whalen because the study authors wouldn't return their calls.

And I'm seriously considering lobbying for that Karaoke ban.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by VicDaring


That'd be pretty tough since none can politically afford to make anything but anti-tobacco public statements. I mean, I guess I'll concede the point, but it seems kind of meaningless to me.


I'm not talking about them making any public statement. I'm just talking about finding one that HASN'T made any statement, hasn't taken a position.

You're right, it would be difficult to make a pro-ETS statement, as a health organization. I recognize that probably nobody would do that. That's why I tried to make it easier somewhat, and just request one that is still silent on the matter.

I will admit that is a harder thing to Google, and so the discussion deck is somewhat stacked in my favor on that one. I would be willing to cede that there IS in fact a controversy IF there were prominent medical organizations that were undecided.

Seeing none, I think that there isn't a controversy within the medical establishment.



Oh, and for what it's worth, I wasn't real thrilled about citing the Post. They probably quoted Whalen because the study authors wouldn't return their calls.

And I'm seriously considering lobbying for that Karaoke ban.

Gotcha. Yeah, that article wasn't the best. What the hell's with the Post anyway running articles without attribution? That article wouldn't have run in my high school paper!


And I'm with you on the Karaoke ban!

[Silicon]

Duplicate post. ignore.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
If the majority of people think we should, then yes.

So, then you favor tyranny. If a majority of people thing that black people are offensive then we should let the government ban them from restaurants, I guess...

Welcome to democracy. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: yourself. This isn't a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. The reason it's a Constitutional Republic is to try and prevent people like you from doing exactly what you're advocating.

If a majority favor restaurants that prohibit smoking, then why don't they all prohibit smoking on their own? Since you seem to be in complete denial about restaurants doing that voluntarily, perhaps you could explain this contradiction.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Well, let's think about this for a moment. People want to smoke, and other people don't want to be exposed to the second hand smoke. Proposed solution: make them do it outside. Oh, the tragedy of it all! Now, will that sort of solution work with alcohol? No, of course not, that doesn't get you anything, getting drunk on the street isn't a step up from geting drunk at the bar. Outright bans on alcohol have also been tried, and been shown not to work in pretty much any sense. Outlawing smoking completely would probably also not be effective. But bans on smoking cigarettes in restraunts are in effect in many places, and they are working exactly as intended. Sorry, but I really can't feel very sorry for those poor oppressed smokers.

Why do you feel the need to protect people who do not wish to be protected? I may not like smoking, but I don't mind going into a bar once in a while that is full of smoke. And guess what, if people truly do not wish to go to places that have smoking in them, the market will adapt and the owners of those establishments will themselves ban smoking. I saw that trend in LA before they banned it all together. But again, I could still find a place where I could enjoy a drink and a smoke, now I can't because it's illegal to do a legal activity.

[Ziggurat]

But again, I could still find a place where I could enjoy a drink and a smoke, now I can't because it's illegal to do a legal activity.


It is, by definition, never illegal to do a legal activity. That SHOULD be an obvious tautology.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


It is, by definition, never illegal to do a legal activity. That SHOULD be an obvious tautology.

Yet it's illegal to smoke in a bar while still being legal to smoke.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

So, then you favor tyranny. If a majority of people thing that black people are offensive then we should let the government ban them from restaurants, I guess...


Help! I'm bein oppress'd! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! :rolleyes:

The two are not at all comparable. This is a sham argument and you know it. The constitution establishes principles of basic freedoms that the majority cannot choose to take away from the minority under any circumstance, and I never suggested otherwise. Smoking is not one of these rights, we've already been over that (I can amost hear the "I'm not listening! I'm not listening!" refrain from Shanek as I write this). Equal protection under the law IS one of these rights, and that necessitates that one cannot discriminate based on race is a public setting. But outlawing smoking is not an equal protection issue. Smoking is, in a legal sense, a voluntary activity. There is no good legal distinction between "smokers" and "nonsmokers", there does not need to be, and in any case the same activity is forbidden regardless of which group you belong to. So you have absolutely no point. But that never stopped you before.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The two are not at all comparable.

Of course they are! There is no logical difference at all! If you can ban smoking and perfume because a majority of people find it offensive then you can do the same for blacks or whathaveyou!

Why do you refuse to face the consequences of what you're proposing?

The constitution establishes principles of basic freedoms that the majority cannot choose to take away from the minority under any circumstance, and I never suggested otherwise.

YES YOU DID!!! You did exactly that when you based your argument on the fact that a majority agrees with it!

Smoking is not one of these rights,

Fine; show where the Constitution says that. If it doesn't, it is a right, according to the 9th Amendment.

Besides, what we're talking about here is not really the right to smoke; it's property rights. I should have the right to set whatever rules I want regarding any legal activity such as smoking on my own property. If you don't like it, don't come onto my property.

we've already been over that

No, I've been over that. You've ignored it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Fine; show where the Constitution says that. If it doesn't, it is a right, according to the 9th Amendment.


Your reading of the 9th is nowhere supported by the supreme court. If EVERYTHING not mentioned by the constitution was a right, there would not have been a need for the first eight amendments. The ninth amendment, contrary to your delusions, only means that there are SOME fundamental rights not explicitly outlined, it does not say or mean that everything not mentioned is a fundamental right. The supreme court still gets to decide what counts as a fundamental right and what doesn't if it isn't explicit. And nothing they've ever said even suggests that smoking is a fundamental right.

Here's a little rundown on some of the issues:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment09/

First great quote (emphasis mine):

"Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless protected by other provisions."

Here's another choice quote, this time directly from a supreme court decision upholding the right of privacy in regards to contraception:

"Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government."

The argument used was that privacy was a sort of corrolary of other basic rights (free speach, search and seizure, due process, etc), and that the 9th amendment meant that the fact that it wasn't explicit didn't mean it wasn't still fundamental. But the reasoning involved does not give you any fundamental right to smoke tobbaco, just as it does not give you any fundamental right to smoke marijuana.



Besides, what we're talking about here is not really the right to smoke; it's property rights. I should have the right to set whatever rules I want regarding any legal activity such as smoking on my own property. If you don't like it, don't come onto my property.


It's not private property, it's a place of business. The fact that business is being conducted is what invites government interference. That's also what lets the government outlaw prostitution, even though the supreme court recently ruled that the government cannot invade the private sex lives of consenting adults. You may not like that, but that's the reality of the situation.

Every other argument you advanced in your post is predicated on smoking being a fundamental right, which it is not. I will therefore not bother to address any of those ridiculous claims any further.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The ninth amendment, contrary to your delusions, only means that there are SOME fundamental rights not explicitly outlined, it does not say or mean that everything not mentioned is a fundamental right.

That's not what it says. It says anything "retained by the people."

It's not private property, it's a place of business.

It's not private property? The government owns all of the property the bars and restaurants operate on? :rolleyes:

It's a PRIVATE BUSINESS operating on PRIVATE PROPERTY, and denying it just makes you look pigheaded.

That's also what lets the government outlaw prostitution,

You're not winning here...you keep bringing up all of these victimless crimes that the government has no business restricting, and actually just make things worse when they try.

Every other argument you advanced in your post is predicated on smoking being a fundamental right,

No, it's not! I've been arguing for the rights of business owners to make their own rules. If you can't even be bothered to understand what it is that I've been arguing, then what are you even doing here?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

That's not what it says. It says anything "retained by the people."


In other words, you've got no support from the supreme court for your reading. That's what I thought.


You're not winning here...you keep bringing up all of these victimless crimes that the government has no business restricting, and actually just make things worse when they try.


Whether the government SHOULD restrict them has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they can. They can outlaw prostitution, and they can outlaw smoking. I never said these were good ideas, but outlawing prostitution is constitutional, outlawing marijuana is constitutional (are you going to try to argue otherwise?), and outlawing smoking would be constitutional. Does the simpe distinction between "can" and "should" continue to escape you?


No, it's not! I've been arguing for the rights of business owners to make their own rules.


First you try to argue that my view would allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, then you argue that businesses can do whatever they want (which would include discriminating based on race). Which is it, Shanek?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
In other words, you've got no support from the supreme court for your reading.

So? That's just argument by authority. The Supreme Court has made a lot of kooky interpretations of the Constitution, many of which have been overturned.

I never said these were good ideas, but outlawing prostitution is constitutional, outlawing marijuana is constitutional (are you going to try to argue otherwise?),

Yes: Why did they need a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol but not marijuana?

First you try to argue that my view would allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of race,

It would. I presented the logic, and you haven't even tried to refute it.

If simply because a majority is in favor of a smoking ban means they can ban smoking, then what is there to stop them doing the same for blacks?

then you argue that businesses can do whatever they want (which would include discriminating based on race). Which is it, Shanek?

It's hardly inconsistent. The Constitution is there to restrain government, NOT the people. Every employer should have the freedom to hire whomever they want, or not. Interfering with that interferes with free market forces.

[Silicon]

Shanek,

Go to law school. I swear.


Citing Supreme Court precedent isn't argument by authority.

The Supreme Court IS the ultimate authority on what is and isn't constitutional. By definition, their rulings can't be unconstitutional.

So your reading of the 9th Amendment is the unconstitutional one.

They pull their reading out of hundreds of years of precedent and jurisprudence. You pull yours out of your hat.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
The Supreme Court IS the ultimate authority on what is and isn't constitutional. By definition, their rulings can't be unconstitutional.

Then why are prior Supreme Court rulings overturned on Constitutional grounds?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shanek

Then why are prior Supreme Court rulings overturned on Constitutional grounds?

Because they also get to change their minds about what is and isn't constitutional. Duh. :hit:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Silicon

They pull their reading out of hundreds of years of precedent and jurisprudence. You pull yours out of your hat.

I don't think it's a hat he pulls it out of :D

[Silicon]

Shanek,

You say this law isn't constitutional.

Other people point out that according to the Supreme Court's reading of the Constitution, it IS constitutional.

You refuse to accept that, preferring your own, bizarre interpretation that flies in the face of hundreds of years of legal precident. Apparantly, by your reading of the 9th Amendment, the government can't pass any law against anything! (Except treason, the one crime outlined in the Constitution.) Everything else is a right "retained by the people"??? Bizarro!


So if the Supreme Court doesn't decide what's constitutional, and you get to conveniently throw out all precident...

I think your main beef is with Marbury V. Madison.

I suggest starting a new topic for that one, it's a little bigger than a local smoking ban!

[Tormac]

Well If as Silicon said The Supreme Court IS the ultimate authority on what is and isn't constitutional. By definition, their rulings can't be unconstitutional.

And then as Ziggurat explained that supream court rulings have been over turned because Because they also get to change their minds about what is and isn't constitutional. Duh.

Then I have a feeling that argument that the government has the right to do this (instead of just the power) is not very convincing. I do think that the groups in the discusion are talking past each other on this one, as one side is saying that the government has the right (i.e. power) to enact a smoking ban, while the other is arguing that the government is not right to do so.

Why does the government not decided that since gasoline fumes contain carcinogens, for the safety of gas attendants, refinery workers, and the public at large gasoline could not be sold to public? I do not see any difference in the reasoning. Desiel fumes, automobile exhaust, they are definatly not good for ones health.

To some the smoking ban is symbolic of a government that seems increasingly willing to limit the freedom of private citizens. Rather like the patriot act, or seat belt laws.

The argument that it is necessary to protect the health of restaurant and bars works is not a satisfying one to me. Maybe I underestimate the hazards of second hand smoke, and to be in and around it is a death warrant. If that is the case, again I say the appropriate answer would be to ban it. But as has been pointed out, the public would not stand for that. That is one thing that I do not like about the smoking ban. The incremental way that government is putting its hand into the everyday decisions that business owners can make about how their property is used. I agree, as you said the objection is larger than just the smoking ban.

But I want to shift the thread away from the halls of our judiciary, and back to the bars of Toledo if I may. . .

[Tormac]

Restaurants, and especially bars are for the most part selling atmosphere. I like to go to Rusty's and enjoy a rob-roy or two while listening to the live bands. I find the experience very pleasant. I hate the fact that my favorite sport jackets end up smelling like cigarette smoke when I leave Rusty's, but in some ways, cigarette smoke is part of the atmosphere. When I think of Rusty's I see muted light filtered through cigarette smoke and the simple beauty of scotch and vermouth.

I have many friends that smoke. I don't get it personally, but they seem to enjoy smoking while "unwinding", shooting a game of pool, or just "shooting the bull". I'm the only one of my friends that enjoys the taste of whisky. If I was expected to go outside, drink my drink in a designated "drinking" area without the real fireplace, leather seats, and live music, I don't think I would bother to go to Rusty's.

The smoking ban necessarily degrades the quality of service that bars offer, that service being the atmosphere. That some people do not like cigarette smoke I understand. Shoot I sympathize with that feeling. If I was a smoker I would not go to a “non-smoking” bar. This law lessens the quality of life in Toledo, in my opinion, on two grounds. It hurts the quality of the service that Toledo bars can provide. It also is one more area where government metals in the business of private business. Both are undesirable I feel.

I still have not seen an argument that is convincing why there cannot be smoke friendly and non-smoking bars. Most bar tenders and waiters that I've known personally smoke. Most people who play in bands that play in the bars I like smoke. As I picture the people in Rusty's, the Brake room, the Village Idiot, or Miss Cue, my memory recalls that the majority of them smoke (happily enough many of these bars are in the burbs, and not under the Toledo ban). I find it difficult t swallow that the smoking minority is forcing their will on the public with their evil smoke.

I suppose to some extent the free market is going to decide, as there are many bars in the “burbs” that advertise that they are smoke friendly. The coalition of restaurant and bar owners from Toledo that are fighting the ban have predicted that it is going have a strong negative impact on their revenue. Most of the people that I go bar hopping with smoke, and they all plan to stay in the burbs.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon
Shanek,

You say this law isn't constitutional.

No, I'm saying that the law can't be justified just because there's no "right to smoke" in the Constitution. That's two entirely different things, people!

Are you all even TRYING to understand what I'm saying?

[Tormac]

I wanted to get back to the notion that a ban on drinking in a public bar is nothing like a ban on smoking. Obviously the dangers of smoking and the dangers of consuming alcohol are different.

The danger of second hand smoke is subtle, hard to quantify. I live with my brother and he smokes, I have many friends who smoke, and I often hang out in bars filled with second hand smoke. While I am sure it is not doing me any good, so far it has done me no detectable harm. It is hard to quantify how many people "die" from second hand smoke. Some may say that it is impossible to make the direct correlation.

Now after consuming even one alcoholic drink one's motor skills and judgment in impaired. One has become more likely to be involved in a accident well before one reaches an illegal blood alcohol content. The degradation of people's motor skills after the consumption of alcohol under the illegal limit is easy to test and verify. Even if one has two glasses of wine with dinner, as one drives home, one is putting the general public at risk. The link to alcohol consumption and injurious, even fatal accidents is easy to make.

One can choose to not go into a smoky bar. One cannot choose to only drive on streets where there is no one affected by alcohol use. One can choose not to get a job in a smoke filled environment, one can not choose not to get in an accident with someone who has been drinking.

If alcohol use is banned from public bars and restaurants people can obviously still get drunk, but at least they will be more likely to pass out on the floor at home, rather then behind the wheel driving home from the bar.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tormac
Restaurants, and especially bars are for the most part selling atmosphere. I like to go to Rusty's and enjoy a rob-roy or two while listening to the live bands. I find the experience very pleasant. I hate the fact that my favorite sport jackets end up smelling like cigarette smoke when I leave Rusty's, but in some ways, cigarette smoke is part of the atmosphere. When I think of Rusty's I see muted light filtered through cigarette smoke and the simple beauty of scotch and vermouth.


There will be plenty of atmosphere without the smoking. The atmosphere will just be a little clearer.


This law lessens the quality of life in Toledo, in my opinion, on two grounds. It hurts the quality of the service that Toledo bars can provide. It also is one more area where government metals in the business of private business. Both are undesirable I feel.


I think you really oversetimate the impact this is going to have. Seriously, I never hear anyone in California pine for the days without a smoking ban. You can still find plenty of what you describe, just without the smoke. The predicted problems, if they happen at all, will only be short term as people adjust to what it's like without smoking. Some bars will lose certain customers and gain certain other ones, but on balance I don't think there's going to be as much change as you fear. The ONLY difference I notice between California bars and ones out of state is the smoke, everything else runs the same spectrum. Hell, you might even find out you like the places more without the smoke.

P.S. it's meddle, not metal ;)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Is there any evidence that shows that second hand smoke differs in any significant way from directly inhaled smoke? If not then the argument appears to be that if you are smoking the cigarette, it is dangerous, but if someone is standing next to you inhaling the smoke from the same cigarette, it is safe. What is it in the 12 inches of air that the smoke passes through that changes it from carcinogenic to safe?

The same thing that changes two deadly elements into harmless table salt. Concentration and state change.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tormac
I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.

Hasn't proven to be as much of an economic disaster as the Democrats in California.


2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves. I do not think local government has the right to limit the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.


There is also money to be made by career bureaucrats in agencies that regulate such things. I would like to know exactly where the extra "sin" taxes on cigarettes go to benefit.


3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies. Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people. The consumption of unhealthy foods leads to an increased economic burden on society with increase health care costs.


How about those Big Macs that are making our children dangerously fat?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


The same thing that changes two deadly elements into harmless table salt. Concentration and state change.

Any evidence for the harmful level of concentration or when this state change occurs?

[Tormac]

Ziggurat commented

I think you really oversetimate the impact this is going to have. Seriously, I never hear anyone in California pine for the days without a smoking ban. You can still find plenty of what you describe, just without the smoke. The predicted problems, if they happen at all, will only be short term as people adjust to what it's like without smoking. Some bars will lose certain customers and gain certain other ones, but on balance I don't think there's going to be as much change as you fear. The ONLY difference I notice between California bars and ones out of state is the smoke, everything else runs the same spectrum. Hell, you might even find out you like the places more without the smoke.


Well maybe. I have to ask if you smoke, or if you have friends who smoke. I do not smoke, but as I have mentioned, I have family and many close friends who do. They hate the smoking ban. They always gripe about it. I go outside and hang out with them sometimes to continue conversations while they smoke. It is very unpleasant, especially in the winters here in Northwest Ohio. I can understand how they could come to see themselves as an oppressed minority. As I posted before, if I was expected to stand outside in the weather to dink my whisky, instead of leisurely drink it while listening to the live jazz bands by a real fireplace, I doubt I would bother to go to Rusty's. As it is my smoking friends have stopped going to bars and restaurants in Toledo, preferring Maumee (the burb).