Well, it’s official. As of midnight, it is illegal to smoke cigarettes at virtually any workplace — including restaurants and bars — anywhere in New York. This is nothing new for New York City, which had already instituted its own citywide smoking ban, but an even broader ban now applies throughout the whole state.
Up in the Buffalo area, bar patrons and bar owners are notably pissed off about this, as I learned last week when I went to several bars with Becky and her friends. At each bar, there were signs posted like this:
Now, mind you, I’m no great champion of smokers’ rights. I’m an asthmatic whose father is a hardcore nicotine addict and whose ex-girlfriend has an idiotic habit of “smoking socially” to such an extent that she’s going to be addicted pretty soon too. I personally think cigarettes are gross and disgusting. I don’t like them. I don’t like them at all.
So I have no problem with bans on smoking in public places and workplaces, including restaurants. Indeed, I support such bans. This isn’t just based on my personal feelings about cigarettes; the dangers of second-hand smoke are such that, logically, the old “my right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins” principle clearly applies. If it’s a battle of liberties between your right to smoke and my right to breathe, the latter clearly wins.
But bars? I’m not so sure we should be banning smoking in bars. Given the fact that there aren’t too many non-smoking bars out there — which market forces dictate that there would be if lots of people wanted them — I think we can safely state that a large majority of bar patrons either: 1) like having the right to smoke; or 2) are indifferent toward whether they have that right or not. So a law that bans smoking in bars is effectively putting the interests of a small minority ahead of the interests of a large majority. But why? What’s the justification for such an anti-democratic move?
Ostensibly, at least, it’s a health issue, and the same “my rights vs. your rights” argument that I discussed above applies. But in the case of bars, I think the calculus is different. People have a legitimate and reasonable expectation of healthy air in workplaces and restaurants. But people don’t go to bars to be healthy. They go to bars specifically to be unhealthy — to eat, drink, and be merry (and drink some more).
Bar patrons’ right to breathe free air is diluted by the fact that they have already made a conscious choice to enter a mecca of unhealthy behavior. If people don’t want to breathe smoky air in a bar, they could just — here’s a stunning concept — not go to bars.
That would be an unreasonable statement if we were talking about restaurants or other workplaces, but in the case of bars, it makes sense to me. Is the ability to publicly drink alcohol in healthy atmospheric conditions an unalienable right that needs to be defended by state action?
Essentially, what this boils down to is not right-to-smoke vs. right-to-breathe, but rather, right-to-smoke vs. right-to-drink. In that case, there is no compelling state interest either way, so I say, let people have their poison. Don’t regulate. Leave well enough alone.
Moreover, as I indicated above, if enough people want to drink publicly without either smoking or inhaling other patrons’ cigarette smoke — i.e., if they want to enjoy their drug of choice, alcohol, without suffereing the side effect of somebody else’s drug of choice, nicotine — surely market forces will conspire to create non-smoking bars for them to patronize. Where there’s a will, there’s a way; and where there’s a demand, there’s a supply.
The only somewhat strong argument I can think of for a ban on smoking in bars involves not so much bar patrons, but bar employees. I can’t dismiss this point too easily, since there is a possibility that I could end up working at a bar sometime in the next year, if I get desperate enough for cash. So you could argue that a smoking ban is justified to protect me, and other desperate unemployed people like me, who don’t really want to work at bars but are forced to do so by an unforgiving job market.
You could make that case if you want, but I wouldn’t. I don’t think the state needs to cater to my needs quite to that extent. If bars were exempted from the ban, this law would still ensure that there are plenty of smoke-free workplaces for me, or anyone else, to work at. No one is really “forced” to work at a bar; if you don’t want to, you don’t have to. So I just don’t see why the desires of the few should outweigh the desires of the many in this case.
In the case of bars, I say the majority should rule. If people want to kill themselves slowly, in public, that should be their right, as long as they’re not doing it in a fashion that harms other people who are actually making an effort to be stay healthy.
We have the right to do stupid things to ourselves. This is America, dammit.
|
Categories: News, Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
July 23rd, 2003 at 9:58:30 pm
Brendan, you’re being awfully cute and dicey with your logic here. I hate cigarettes as much as you do, and I’ve had to watch a grandfather die from a combination of ashtma, emphysema, and lung cancer because of his addiction. But please tell me how every argument you made about bars, markets, and protecting employees does not also apply to, say, restaurants.
You say people go to restaurants with the expectation to eat, not to inhale secondhand smoke; I say I go to bars with the expectation to drink and develop beer goggles, not to inhale secondhand smoke. You say there would have developed a market for smokeless bars; I say the same argument could apply to restaurants. Indeed, I could argue that a market did develop, not to mention there was the usually useful compromise of “Smoking or Non-Smoking?” The employee argument you use works for restaurants, too.
This is real specious arguing on your part, Brendan. If you were more intellectually honest, I think you’d have to be just a tad more libertarian on this. Maybe you could justify disallowing smoke in the workplace, for the same reasons the state can apply the Civil Rights Act to businesses. But even then you’re pushing it. Do I benefit greatly from California’s ban on smoking in bars and restaurants? Absolutely. And I’m in no hurry to fight to overturn it. But I’m equally willing to admit that the state has no right to legislate on my and other nonsmokers’ behalf like that.
July 23rd, 2003 at 10:19:52 pm
I just think bars are qualitatively different than restaurants, for the reasons I expressed. I admit that I’m attempting to use logic to back up a gut feeling, which is always risky. But nevertheless, I stand by both my feeling and my logic.
Well, most of my logic. Let me say this: I am not a *fervent* supporter of anti-smoking laws as applied to restaurants. I’m basically indifferent about that issue, leaning slightly in favor. So it was probably a mistake to say “Indeed, I support such bans.” I didn’t say that in the first draft of my post; I think I added it in upon revision after reading over the portion about Becky’s smoking habit, and I was probably all riled up and feeling hostile to smoking at the time. So, yeah. I should have left that out. I should have stuck with the phrase “I have no problem” with the ban as applied to restaurants. That’s true. I think the good probably outweighs the bad in that case.
In the case of bars, on the other hand, banning smoking just seems silly to me. No smoking in bars?! What?! That’s the gut feeling I was talking about. It just *feels* dumb.
July 23rd, 2003 at 11:40:40 pm
Alright, it *feels* dumb. But feelings aren’t a substitute for a sound, rational argument. Unless we’re going by Jonah Goldberg’s rules, in which case there’s nothing wrong with public policy being decided by public moral sentiment. But then homosexuality and gay marriage just *feels* wrong to the vast majority of Americans, and we can’t legislate that? Why not? Ahhhhh slippery slopes can be so fun!
July 24th, 2003 at 7:50:07 am
Seems to me, it should be thus: 1) Hit smoking in public with a heavy fine. It’s harm to others, but at the same time it’s not worth throwing smokers in jail with murderers and rapists. It should be deterred, but it’s not so dangerous that smokers must be removed from society. 2) Any owner of private property may determine the rules of his property. If you’re at home and you want to smoke, do so. If a friend says you can smoke in his house, do so. If a restauranteur or bar owner says you may, you may. If they say you may not, you may not. 3) At the same time, let’s recognize that smoking sections are a crock. Smoke doesn’t stay inside the smoking section, especially in a restaurant that has fans.
Oh, Brendan, I’ll make a libertarian of you yet. And I mean a REAL libertarian, not the Republican variety.
July 24th, 2003 at 9:41:04 am
First (it is me, with two parts again), California has had a smoking ban for years and the bars don’t seem too much the worse for the wear–in fact, I’m willing to go to bars in California and I’m not willing to go to them in Georgetown because there is smoking. So, Brendan I think there is a stronger demographic for the smokeless bar concept than you think, but most proprietors have the same “it is just dumb” reaction that you do preventing them from implementing it–and forcing those of us who dislike smoking to be subjected to it to go to such establishments. Some restaurants in my area have just begun to decided to go non-smoking, and non of them have been hurt by the move and the bars and concerts in California continue to have ample customers despite a prohibition on smoking.
Second, to Andrew’s diatribe against gay marriage, and the comment “more than half of americans think it is dumb.” I think you best check your statistics. Now, if I recall correctly, the statistic stands as: Over 60 two thirds against, under thirty two thirds in favor, and 30 to 60 is about evenly split. And heading more in the direction of in favor as the old foggy population ages and dies off. And, as to the sodomy laws that the court recently overturned, many of them are very old and no longer reflect public sentiment, and are so badly enforced that they could easily be overturned on failure of equal protection–lest we forget any non reproductive sex act (anything that is not coitus) is defined as sodomy regardless of the gender, or orientation of the partners involved (I think that barley keeps the comment within the family nature of this site; Brendan would have certainly pulled the draft version on the last sentence)
Okay, I’m done.
July 24th, 2003 at 10:06:12 am
Dane, I encourage you to make more use of The Dictionary; go look up “diatribe” and you’ll see I composed nothing of the sort.
Dane, I’m quite positive there are more people who feel gay marriage should be banned than there are people who feel smoking should be banned from bars and restaurants. Not only that but they are much more vehement. Whether or not those numbers change in the future due to birthrates and deathrates is irrelevant right now. And the point of my argument above, if you actually chose to pay attention, was that if feelings are enough to justify state response in smoking, then how is that any different than sodomy or gay marriage?
Don’t give me arguments about equal protection or Supreme Court rulings or whatever, those are irrelevant to the issue at hand (which is, whether or not popular feelings are good enough to justify state laws). I personally don’t have strong feelings about sodomy; the way I see it, if gay people wanna have bathhouses and sleep around and give each other HIV, they’re free to do so–as long as the hospital bill doesn’t show up on my taxpayers’ tab. And if they want to be monogomous and go do a civil union before the court, hey, that doesn’t bother me either–it’s probably a healthier option for them and for society. Either way, whether I feel something is moral or immoral, I’m not much interested in stepping in or using the state to control homosexuals’ behavior.
But gay marriage opens the backdoor to bigamy, polygamy, and other forms that our society doesn’t want, so I’m not for that. I’m not hysterical about this, I’m not spewing diatribes, and in the end, I’m not even talking about rational arguments or poll numbers in this particular discussion. I’m just talking about whether it’s legitimate for the state to pass legislation based almost solely on the feelings of the people, especially when the logical or legal reasoning seems somewhat specious. Thus, if it is okay for laws to be based on such feelings, I ask Brendan to relent and be more flexible with the average Americans who find homosexual sex disgusting and want to pass laws against it and against gay marriage. And if he refuses to allow for that, I ask him to be more libertarian and admit that government forcing restaurants and perhaps other businesses to ban smoking is illegitimate.
July 24th, 2003 at 11:20:37 am
Andrew, interesting points; However, I have a sufficient number of paper dictionaries at my disposal not to require dictionary.com, and if I were to use an online dictionary I would prefer to use oed.com until my ability to login to USC’s VPN expires at some point in early September. And you are correct, a diatribe is verbal not written. (Please note the use of playful sarcasm that runs throughout most of the posts that I have written on this web page is also in use in the present comment).
Now where was I, ahh right what the legislature should be making rules on, and what the basis for said rules should be. Now, if we were going to require legislates to have sound arguments for their decisions beyond just “I want to” and “the other way is dumb” then Texas would not presently be attempting to redistrict the sate on a year that is not supposed to involve redistricting, and the redistricting proposal would increase the level of gerrymandering in the sate to an obscene extent. But of course they are going to try and do just that. If they had to base things on logic, Clinton would not have been impeached, and Bush should be investigated for a wide verity things. But we do not live in a world, nor do we use a system where people are necessarily required to use logic in the legislative process.
The courts are expected to use logic, and precedent, but even that does not happen (I reefer you here to the decision entitled Bush v. Gore in which the court held that this is not a precedent for any other case, but in this one lone instance Bush can be president, we base this on absolutely nothing, and complete contradict all of our other decisions, but this is what we say, and it goes even thought this case is not even justiciable in federal court.)
Now, according to John Ely the purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect the functioning of the political process. (In the world of Constitutional Legal Theory, there are a lot of different purposes and functions of the Supreme Court. Ely is helpful in this situation because he argues that the court protects the political process and the political arm of government makes whatever decisions it so desires, so long as those decisions do not hamper access to the political process to change said decisions (in re: sodomy laws, nobody cared about them because they were not enforced and the irregular application of them is sufficient to render them suspect.).)
In this view, it is the function of the legislature to pass laws consistent with what the majority wants through the political process. However, saying that desire must be bound by hard logic is ridiculous. You and I might make decisions based upon logical reasoning but this does not mean that the legislature must, or even should. If the legislature so desires to ban smoking in public places it is within its power to do so, and if later the legislature (due to public pressure from an awareness campaign, or later election) decides to lift said ban it is within its power and it is right that it should do so. The political process of the legislature is not bound by any requirement to use logical debate, and is free to base its decisions upon gut feeling if it so desires. However, if their constituency lacks such gut feelings it is often times helpful to show logical reasoning that led to a particular course of action. The point is, at no time in the history of this nation has the legislative decisions of this country been bound by hard logical argument, or even (strictly speaking) what is Constitutional (Alien and Sedation acts among others). Rather the legislature makes decisions based upon what is politicly popular or expedient and what is politicly popular or expedient is rarely tied anything remotely resembling logic.
July 24th, 2003 at 3:12:13 pm
Oy vey.
Dane, you’re muddling my argument. In political philosophy, it is quite appropriate to argue about government process and function, and what underlying philosophies should gird that. Nowhere did I suggest that legislatures always do or always should rely solely on logic. My argument was a philosophical one: Should the government be considered bound to interfering with the activities of its citizens only when there is a logical and valid state interest; or should it be allowed to interfere in whatsoever manner it chooses for whatever reasons it chooses, so long as the political majority say Aye and the courts leave it alone? This question you have not answered, and your legal citations are largely irrelevant because we’re talking about political philosophy not jurisprudence (yes they can overlap but in this case, I’m talking what should be not what is).
I’ll let Chris or whatever his name is answer the remark about the Texas redistricting process, but if I’m not mistaken, the Texas Republicans’ argument is: The legislature is supposed to draw the maps, not the court (which I think is what happened last time–someone want to validate this?). Thus, now that they are in power, they want to have the legislature redraw the map. Now as for gerrymandering and all that, perhaps the GOP’s plan is outrageous, I don’t know, I haven’t seen it. But how can the current maps be legitimate when Republican congressmen in Texas got something like 10% more of the vote in the 2002 election, and the GOP swept the statewide offices by large margins, yet somehow there are more Democratic congressmen than Republicans? If you ask me, it sounds like the will of the voters is already badly distorted by the current map, so the Republican one, by causing more Republicans to be sent to Congress than Democrats, would be much more legitimate. But that’s just my surface analysis; I’ll let Chris, who probably knows this issue in far more detail than me, supply the rest.
September 2nd, 2003 at 8:31:42 am
Well, it happened today, September 2, 2003. I have been smoking in my office with a clean air machine for almost five years. I had a partner come over and tell me it is now illegal in the State of Oklahoma. I have to go to the smoking room or outside (and no one can smoke in front of the building because it looks bad).
I am angry. There have been so many lies. If government agencies would go against illegal drugs as they have smoking then we might not have the drug problem we have in the United States.
I just needed to vent. Thanks!!!!
September 2nd, 2003 at 8:32:16 am
Well, it happened today, September 2, 2003. I have been smoking in my office with a clean air machine for almost five years. I had a partner come over and tell me it is now illegal in the State of Oklahoma. I have to go to the smoking room or outside (and no one can smoke in front of the building because it looks bad).
I am angry. There have been so many lies. If government agencies would go against illegal drugs as they have smoking then we might not have the drug problem we have in the United States.
I just needed to vent. Thanks!!!!
May 27th, 2006 at 10:02:39 am
Oh, my world. It is ok