The St. Joseph County Council voted this evening to enact a smoking ban, according to the 11:00 news on WNDU. (I can’t find an article online yet about the vote.) The ban had previously been passed by the council and then vetoed by the county commissioners, but the council apparently overrode the veto. According to this earlier report:
As passed by the council, the ordinance would ban smoking in restaurants, stores, shopping malls, stadiums, sports arenas, parks and most other public places, as well as in most places of employment, including businesses that provide employees with smoking in breakrooms.
Bars, bingo parlors, private clubs and outdoor areas of golf courses would be exempt from the ban, which would be enforced by the county health department.
Hmm… what about bowling alleys?
I don’t know when the law will take effect, but this article implies it won’t be for several months.
UPDATE:Here’s the article from the South Bend Tribune. The ban goes into effect on April 10.
This is the sort of legislation that pulls one in several directions. I’ve always been a free-marketeer as far as restaurants go: hey, if the bistro up the block allows smoking, start your own eatery, advertise “NO SMOKING INSIDE,” and take your shot. On the other hand, lately it has been a pleasure to breeze into every great restaurant in Houston without having to wait for a non-smoking table, or else the chance that your non-smoking table is bang next to the smoking section.
But let me say. Bars should at least be permitted to allow smoking. I say this as someone who doesn’t smoke, save cigars at cigar bars, and that maybe once a month. Post the smoking ban in CA, I’ve been to the alky bars in Seal Beach (there are about six of them) and they were more depressing than before without the privilege of lighting up. Ban smoking in bars? You might should ban Scotch.
They should ban smoking in bars. That’s what other states are going to. They just did it in Washington, and no one seems to have a problem with it. Plus it was so nice to be able to breathe when I went in a bar.
I agree with Lisa. Your clothes don’t smell like an ashtray, it’s safer for the employees who work there, and it’s kinda funny to watch people step outside every ten minutes.
Why don’t they ban alcohol from bars too? It’s so unhealthy! And it’s the government’s job to protect us from ourselves.
Besides, it’s not as if we have a grand tradition of entrepreneurialism in this country, whereby if the market will bear a non-smoking bar alongside a smoking bar, someone can create one. No way would that work — allowing people the freedom to choose whether they want to go to a bar with smoking or a bar without smoking. Nope, we need the government to be our nanny and decide for us.
Nor are there any possible alternative, compromise options like nudging the market in a desirable direction by creating tax incentives to create non-smoking bars. Nope, the only possible solution is an outright ban on smoking in bars.
And hey, it’s no problem, because EVERYONE agrees with me. Everyone! “No one seems to have a problem with it” when they ban smoking in bars. This is a completely uncontroversial issue. Why are we even talking about it? There is 100% consensus about this.
We are Borg. Freedom is irrelevant. Personal responsibility is irrelevant. The market is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.
I have no sympathy for employees of bars. When you decide to become a bartender you know the risks (eg, smoke). Give me a break. Freakin’ NY State. I can’t wait to go to PA in March, where I can smoke all I want in my bar.
Is it not possible the ban protects us from others who smoke instead of protecting smokers from themselves? Whether you believe there are health risks with second hand smoke or not it should be obvious that smoking infringes on people who do not smoke. At the very least it can cause discomfort with breathing, sight and smell. Whether that deserves a ban or not is debateable but there is more to it than protecting smokers from themselves.
Scott - there are implications and issues with almost any ban …
The close-to-absolute ban is a Bad Thing, in my own humble non-smoking opinion cuz there are lots of ways to protect non-smokers while allowing smokers to have lives, too …
In restaurants, it is already fairly easy to have non-smoking areas that work … go into Benihana or other such Teppan Grill (I think that’s the term) style restaurant, and those extractor fans *work* … rather than ban, set a requirement that some technology be used (at the choice of the owner of the establishment) that effectively makes whatever area the owner wants to be for smokers such that it won’t affect any non-smoker area(s) … and then let the customers decide …
For employees, the employee should be able to decide if the smoke is important enough to them to want to work elsewhere …
Finnally, a post I can hop on. What a precident is being set all around us. We’ve never seen anything like this before. THIS is history in the making. A national movement to protect non-smokers rights. And can someone give me ONE reason why anyone should fall victim to second-hand-cancer? This is a victory for the greater good. Let’s not stop short here, I would like to see this great nation’s legislature pass an amendment. Why must we move forward in a piecemeal-procession?
And yet, now that I think about it, second hand smoke or “environmental tobacco smoke” (ETS) has never been linked to cancer. Wait, wait, before anyone gets huffy allow me clarify the aformentioned absolute… never-ever, ever, ever, been linked to cancer. Unless you count a certain pre-determined EPA study that shall remain nameless and discredited. HOWEVER, I do support this. Seriously. But first I’d like to ban drinking… again… but for good this time. It’s more dangerous and obnoxious than smoking and kills more non-participants than non-smoking (which, if you are a non-participating non-smoker, or ETS victim, the symptoms are um… not cancer.) For the record I’d also like to ban that damn 50 cent, but I realize that I would be acting on my personal prefrences alone and I would be morally wrong in limiting others rights while legally forcing my own agenda down other’s throats. That’s wrong right? “But I come home from the bar and my clothes smell like an ashtray…” Hey I agree with you, that’s the same reason I avoid tupper-ware parties. I hate going home smelling like channel number 5 and old-whiny broads. BUT let’s not get the ol’ cart before the horse. Ban alcohol first, then smoking. It makes more sense. Won’t work, but makes more sense. What a giggle this is. You’re all worried about going home SMELLING like an ashtray, not going to bar, getting intoxicated, killing brain-cells, damaging your liver, being assaulted by drunken patrons, getting behind the wheel of a car and playing dodge-drunk as you go wee-wee-wee, all the damn way home.
Alisdair - for the record, it sounds like we are in agreement. My personal view was not reflected in my response to Devil’s Advocate.
It sounded to me like he/she was proposing the sole purpose of the ban was to protect smokers from themselves. I don’t support an absolute ban but I at least recognize it’s not a black and white issue and there are valid arguments for the ban.
A local small city passed a ban that went into effect the 1st day of January last month. They had big problems due to poor dissemination of the news. I was at the local Waffle House New Year’s Eve visiting friends who had to work the busy night. Shortly before midnight police officers visited to “remind” them customers could no longer smoke and my friends put makeshift notices in the windows. Imagine dozens of drunks arriving in the wee hours after partying for New Year’s Eve who had always been used to smoking after they eat at this restaurant. The ashtrays had been removed so plates were being used. It was quite a mess. :-)
This is the classic example of competing rights. My right to smoke v my right not to have to deal with your smoke. It is not absolutely clear which right should prevail, which is why people should get to decide. If the majority of a community decides they want smoke-free public areas, the smoke has to deal with it or move. If the majority like smoke in their face, then those who dislike smoke in their face need to move. I do not care if second hand smoke has been found to cause cancer. It is annoying as hell to have smoke in your face. Why should my healthy lifestyle (I do not smoke) and my clean air be curtailed by your unhealthy, nasty habit? If you just have to have a smoke after dinner, sit on the patio, or go out to the patio and have a smoke. Do not subject the rest of us to your nasty habit. People can smoke in the privacy of their homes and cars, and I certainly would not support outlawing smoking (like I think it is lame to blame cigratte companies for people who cannot quit and the health problems associated with smoking). But, precluding you from smoking in my face, by local government ordinance is quite alrgiht in my book. There is nothing anti-freedom about it, if a community gets together and decided this is what they want for themselves.
I have to admit that when I hear someone (non-smoker) complaining about coming home from somewhere ’smelling like an ashtray’, I first wonder why the non-smoker hung around the smokers …
Most of the time, when someone’s smoking manages to bother me, I have found that politely asking them to change places with me is usually sufficient either for us to change places or the person stops smoking …
(Disclosure: only occasionally have I found myself, sadly, uncontrollably, coughing and hacking in their general direction, covering my mouth less and less and somehow completely innocently managing to get more and more liquid into subsequent coughs - then again, we Scots don’t tend to be known for our diplomatic subtlety …)
Bea - I find myself concerned when communities BAN things … restricting them is one thing, and often irritating, but banning something usually is done for other reasons than stopping the activity - like Prohibition, for example …
“There is nothing anti-freedom about it (smoking-ban,) if a community gets together and decided this is what they want for themselves.”
No, sadly there is something anti-freedom there. One must keep in mind that majority rule pertains and prevails only in controlled communites. Perfect scenarios under pre-constructed rules. You can’t even elect a president with majority rule in this country. If that were the case there would be no electorate, and I think if we’ve read Zinn, we know this already and we can come to terms with why. The majority of people would not approve of a Klan rally persay, but it’s not illigal. A Klan rally should not be illigal and the majority would not agree with me on that. While I don’t agree with the existence of that organization in my community, I do agree that outlawing them WOULD be anti-freedom. The majority of people in this country would probably not approve of gay-marriage, but there’s no reason why gay-marriage should be illigal. That motion is anti-freedom as well. There was a time in this country where the “majority” of the people supported slavery as a necessay means to support agriculture. Here’s an example closer to the case that I hinted toward before… I find drinking to be obnoxious. I hate, hate, hate, going into a restaurant and sitting near the bar. I’ll be enjoying my dinner and have the whole atmosphere disrupted by drunken morons slurring loudly and acting belligerently. YET the “majority” of people think this an acceptable form of social interaction and that it is okay to serve alcohol in restaurants. That seems to me to be a bit of a double standard.
During 2004, 16,694 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths
In 2004, about 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice, 2004). ThatÃs less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcoholñimpaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).
More than two-thirds of child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 1997ñ2002 were riding with the drinking driver; only 32% of them were properly restrained at the time of the crash
Number of deaths proven to be a result of to second hand smoke or
(ETS): 0
Deaths from AIDS in 2004? 15,798 And sex in public places has been a no-no for a real long time. Who will this save again?
This is NOT a battle for the good of public health. So don’t tell me about the “healthy lifestyle.” It doesn’t even apply. In fact, every new study that is released in the hopes of proving a link between second-hand smoke and cancer, does just the opposite.
As for the “majority” theory, I just took a poll at work 3 out of five thought the lochness monster exists…
This is a self-serving battle for those who truly believe they are better, smarter, or more capable of making this desicion.
“I’ve got something to tell all the non-smokers out there, because
I know you don’t know this, and I feel it is my duty to pass on
information at all times. You ready? Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight. See, I know you’ve employed some kind of eternal life fantasy because you’ve chosen not to smoke..” -Bill Hicks
Death is inevitable for all of us. Please do not protect me from myself thanks. We’re all heading that way soon enough.
Last thing: why do ETS opponants always stretch their examples to cartoon proportions? If you’re going to a bar in which anyone is blowing smoke IN your face I suggest finding a new bar. That type of behavior is just plain inconsiderate, albeit not illigal.
I do not care of people smoke. They have every right to smoke. Howeve, they have no right to make me deal with the unpleasantness of smoke in my face in public places. I do not care of secondhand smoke kills or makes me smarter. The bottom line is, it comes down to his right to smoke and my right to breath non-smoky air. If my community would rather have non-smoky air in most public places, then the smoker needs to move or deal. Period. End of story. We do this every day, choose bewteen competing rights. Often times, it is better to let a community decide it out, and a local ordinance restriction on smoking sounds good to me. Banning smoking altogether? I would never support it. Banning smoking in some public areas? Sure. The smoker’s right stops right where my right to breath non-smoky air starts. Communities can and must be able to make these minor decisions. This is what communities do.
Bea, we aren’t talking about public places, we are talking about private businesses–bars, restaurants, etc. The owner of the establishment should decide whether or not to allow smoking. As much as I love smoke-free bars and restaurants, I’m with the libertarians on this.
Andrew - more importantly, the establishment’s customers will decide for most owners whether a place should be smoking-friendly or non-smoking … it’s called voting with the feet …
1. “environmental tobacco smoke” is not enough of a carcinogen to cause cancer in itself. or. Not a public safety risk.
2. SOME non-smokers are really put-off by the existence of ETS. they don’t like smokers BLOWING smoke right in their faces, blowing it, RIGHT in their faces.
3. Politicians are setting a president “against smoking” using eronious information on ETS that has since been discredited to pass laws banning smoking in private places of business. They just love chasing the safe issues don’t they?
4. Private institutions like Smoke Free Educational Services are pushing their own agenda on the masses, convincing the public that ETS is a serious health problem. The media is not helping to dissuade these un-truths and the public is eating it up.
My point? It’s all wrong. The facts are wrong, the reasoning is wrong, but the motives are clear. I don’t like non-smokers anymore than they like me. I am however a proponant for the free exchange of factual information. ETS is an annoyance. that’s it. Sorry. The government should not get to regulate annoyances. I like my freedom.
Anyway, you should rest easy, Smoke Free Educational Services, lazy politicians and huffy non-smokers are winning the war. Good job.
“I don’t drink but I smoke. To me that’s fair, we’re trading vices. But you non-smokers are like, “No it’s not! Why should our lives be threatend by your nasty habit!” Yeah, but you know what? I can’t kill anyone in a car because I’m smoking a cigarrete, and I’ve tried. Turn off all the lights, rush them, they always see the glow.”
“Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state.”
What’s interesting to me, bandwagon rider, is that the argument you made seems to only be regarding the EPAs epidemiologic argument, which is totally significant because epidemiology is well known to be a highly unstable, qualitative science that is hugely prone to human error (or ignorance). WHY is this significant? Because that’s the only kind of study the court decision threw out. Multiple other studies since 1998 have identified as many as 40 carcinogens in ETS. The tobacco industry has yet to discredit any of them. (Also, shortly after the North Carolina court threw out the EPA study, significant evidence found that the tobacco industry paid off several “scientists” to find contrary evidence denying second hand smoke’s cancerous effects. They got in trouble for that one.) The new smoking-is-bad studies, of course, are based on more substance-based scientific studies, and NOT studies based on who died and whether or not they smoked, or their spouse smoked, or if they could remember every time someone smoked around them before they contracted lung cancer. THAT is what the first study covered, and THAT is why the court thew it out. Conclusion? Second hand smoke (& first hand smoke) are dangerously bad for you. Question? What should our government be able to do about it?
To anyone confused by “argument’s sakes” BIG ol’ words, allow me to define… Epidemiology
Epidemiology is the scientific study of factors affecting the health and illness of individuals and populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventive medicine. It is considered a CORNERSTONE methodology of public health research, and is HIGHLY regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice.
hmm.. “argument’s sake” defined it as “well known to be a highly unstable qualitative science that is hugely prone to human error.
odd.
isn’t epidemiology how we figured that whole asbestos thing ten years ago? but don’t forget the great plauge, the 1854 cholera outbreak, etc, etc,
the FUNNY part, and you’ll love this:
Strictly speaking, epidemiology can only go to prove that an agent could have caused but not that, in any particular case, it did cause…
Epidemiology is based on a low level of probability…
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION COULD NOT EVEN SUPPORT A LOW LEVEL OF PROBABILITY THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CONECTION BETWEEN SECOND-HAND SMOKE AND CANCER OR HEART DISEASE.
come on folks, lighten up and giggle along with me on this one.
Oh and which new studies prove the connection? I’d LOVE to know, MA and CA banned smoking with the following study as proof…
1992. ìRespiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders.
A study thrown out by the Honerable Judge William Osteen
The following is a direct quote from Judge Osteen’s 90 page decision: “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion.
Some of the problems with the report?
1.The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant.
2.Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
As for the Judge, In: COYNE BEAHM, INC., BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, LIGGETT GROUP, INC., LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED, and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY vs.UNITED STATES FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION and DAVID A. KESSLER, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
Osteen ruled that the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.
gosh, could it be that you’re all being lied to by your government, gee I hate to even think it… Gulf of Tonkin Affair, WMD’s, Duck and Cover, Marijuana…
I know it looks bad, cig’companies tend to lie to people. On the other hand, your government tends to lie to people. On the other hand the public is scared and the media is manipulative. AND on the other hand you have science and FACT. Just look at it this way: You’ve got a drug dealer on trial for murder and drug dealing. You can prove the drug dealer dealt drugs, but you can’t prove that he murdered anyone because there is no evidence to support it. Yet you’re convicting him on both charges.
“Conclusion? Second hand smoke (& first hand smoke) are dangerously bad for you. Question? What should our government be able to do about it?”
Should our government be able to convict this guy because they REALLY REALLY REALLY think it only makes sense that he might have murdered someone if he’s a drug dealer?
I say no. Just me. I say PROVE IT FIRST, then you get your conviction.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:21:13 am
The smoking ban is supposed to be in effect for bowling alleys; they should become smoke-free.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:51:19 am
Sounds a lot like the ban we have here in California
February 15th, 2006 at 12:55:40 am
This is the sort of legislation that pulls one in several directions. I’ve always been a free-marketeer as far as restaurants go: hey, if the bistro up the block allows smoking, start your own eatery, advertise “NO SMOKING INSIDE,” and take your shot. On the other hand, lately it has been a pleasure to breeze into every great restaurant in Houston without having to wait for a non-smoking table, or else the chance that your non-smoking table is bang next to the smoking section.
But let me say. Bars should at least be permitted to allow smoking. I say this as someone who doesn’t smoke, save cigars at cigar bars, and that maybe once a month. Post the smoking ban in CA, I’ve been to the alky bars in Seal Beach (there are about six of them) and they were more depressing than before without the privilege of lighting up. Ban smoking in bars? You might should ban Scotch.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:43:45 am
Why not bars too? I feel like I have been tortfeased everytime I go to the Backer.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:21:11 am
I don’t smoke, but I’m gonna almost miss the nostalgic smell of a smoky bowling alley. Something will definitely be amiss for awhile.
February 15th, 2006 at 7:21:55 am
Here it is, Brendan:
http://www.wndu.com/news/022006/news_47987.php
February 15th, 2006 at 9:09:20 am
The British banned it, too.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:54:47 am
They should ban smoking in bars. That’s what other states are going to. They just did it in Washington, and no one seems to have a problem with it. Plus it was so nice to be able to breathe when I went in a bar.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:24:47 pm
I agree with Lisa. Your clothes don’t smell like an ashtray, it’s safer for the employees who work there, and it’s kinda funny to watch people step outside every ten minutes.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:35:10 pm
Why don’t they ban alcohol from bars too? It’s so unhealthy! And it’s the government’s job to protect us from ourselves.
Besides, it’s not as if we have a grand tradition of entrepreneurialism in this country, whereby if the market will bear a non-smoking bar alongside a smoking bar, someone can create one. No way would that work — allowing people the freedom to choose whether they want to go to a bar with smoking or a bar without smoking. Nope, we need the government to be our nanny and decide for us.
Nor are there any possible alternative, compromise options like nudging the market in a desirable direction by creating tax incentives to create non-smoking bars. Nope, the only possible solution is an outright ban on smoking in bars.
And hey, it’s no problem, because EVERYONE agrees with me. Everyone! “No one seems to have a problem with it” when they ban smoking in bars. This is a completely uncontroversial issue. Why are we even talking about it? There is 100% consensus about this.
We are Borg. Freedom is irrelevant. Personal responsibility is irrelevant. The market is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:32:04 pm
I have no sympathy for employees of bars. When you decide to become a bartender you know the risks (eg, smoke). Give me a break. Freakin’ NY State. I can’t wait to go to PA in March, where I can smoke all I want in my bar.
February 15th, 2006 at 1:42:01 pm
> it’s the government’s job to protect
> us from ourselves.
Is it not possible the ban protects us from others who smoke instead of protecting smokers from themselves? Whether you believe there are health risks with second hand smoke or not it should be obvious that smoking infringes on people who do not smoke. At the very least it can cause discomfort with breathing, sight and smell. Whether that deserves a ban or not is debateable but there is more to it than protecting smokers from themselves.
February 15th, 2006 at 2:09:39 pm
Scott - there are implications and issues with almost any ban …
The close-to-absolute ban is a Bad Thing, in my own humble non-smoking opinion cuz there are lots of ways to protect non-smokers while allowing smokers to have lives, too …
In restaurants, it is already fairly easy to have non-smoking areas that work … go into Benihana or other such Teppan Grill (I think that’s the term) style restaurant, and those extractor fans *work* … rather than ban, set a requirement that some technology be used (at the choice of the owner of the establishment) that effectively makes whatever area the owner wants to be for smokers such that it won’t affect any non-smoker area(s) … and then let the customers decide …
For employees, the employee should be able to decide if the smoke is important enough to them to want to work elsewhere …
February 15th, 2006 at 2:13:55 pm
Here is the California Law
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=0309278360+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
February 15th, 2006 at 5:35:20 pm
Finnally, a post I can hop on. What a precident is being set all around us. We’ve never seen anything like this before. THIS is history in the making. A national movement to protect non-smokers rights. And can someone give me ONE reason why anyone should fall victim to second-hand-cancer? This is a victory for the greater good. Let’s not stop short here, I would like to see this great nation’s legislature pass an amendment. Why must we move forward in a piecemeal-procession?
And yet, now that I think about it, second hand smoke or “environmental tobacco smoke” (ETS) has never been linked to cancer. Wait, wait, before anyone gets huffy allow me clarify the aformentioned absolute… never-ever, ever, ever, been linked to cancer. Unless you count a certain pre-determined EPA study that shall remain nameless and discredited. HOWEVER, I do support this. Seriously. But first I’d like to ban drinking… again… but for good this time. It’s more dangerous and obnoxious than smoking and kills more non-participants than non-smoking (which, if you are a non-participating non-smoker, or ETS victim, the symptoms are um… not cancer.) For the record I’d also like to ban that damn 50 cent, but I realize that I would be acting on my personal prefrences alone and I would be morally wrong in limiting others rights while legally forcing my own agenda down other’s throats. That’s wrong right? “But I come home from the bar and my clothes smell like an ashtray…” Hey I agree with you, that’s the same reason I avoid tupper-ware parties. I hate going home smelling like channel number 5 and old-whiny broads. BUT let’s not get the ol’ cart before the horse. Ban alcohol first, then smoking. It makes more sense. Won’t work, but makes more sense. What a giggle this is. You’re all worried about going home SMELLING like an ashtray, not going to bar, getting intoxicated, killing brain-cells, damaging your liver, being assaulted by drunken patrons, getting behind the wheel of a car and playing dodge-drunk as you go wee-wee-wee, all the damn way home.
February 15th, 2006 at 6:08:56 pm
Alisdair - for the record, it sounds like we are in agreement. My personal view was not reflected in my response to Devil’s Advocate.
It sounded to me like he/she was proposing the sole purpose of the ban was to protect smokers from themselves. I don’t support an absolute ban but I at least recognize it’s not a black and white issue and there are valid arguments for the ban.
A local small city passed a ban that went into effect the 1st day of January last month. They had big problems due to poor dissemination of the news. I was at the local Waffle House New Year’s Eve visiting friends who had to work the busy night. Shortly before midnight police officers visited to “remind” them customers could no longer smoke and my friends put makeshift notices in the windows. Imagine dozens of drunks arriving in the wee hours after partying for New Year’s Eve who had always been used to smoking after they eat at this restaurant. The ashtrays had been removed so plates were being used. It was quite a mess. :-)
February 15th, 2006 at 7:19:16 pm
This is the classic example of competing rights. My right to smoke v my right not to have to deal with your smoke. It is not absolutely clear which right should prevail, which is why people should get to decide. If the majority of a community decides they want smoke-free public areas, the smoke has to deal with it or move. If the majority like smoke in their face, then those who dislike smoke in their face need to move. I do not care if second hand smoke has been found to cause cancer. It is annoying as hell to have smoke in your face. Why should my healthy lifestyle (I do not smoke) and my clean air be curtailed by your unhealthy, nasty habit? If you just have to have a smoke after dinner, sit on the patio, or go out to the patio and have a smoke. Do not subject the rest of us to your nasty habit. People can smoke in the privacy of their homes and cars, and I certainly would not support outlawing smoking (like I think it is lame to blame cigratte companies for people who cannot quit and the health problems associated with smoking). But, precluding you from smoking in my face, by local government ordinance is quite alrgiht in my book. There is nothing anti-freedom about it, if a community gets together and decided this is what they want for themselves.
February 15th, 2006 at 8:43:03 pm
I have to admit that when I hear someone (non-smoker) complaining about coming home from somewhere ’smelling like an ashtray’, I first wonder why the non-smoker hung around the smokers …
Most of the time, when someone’s smoking manages to bother me, I have found that politely asking them to change places with me is usually sufficient either for us to change places or the person stops smoking …
(Disclosure: only occasionally have I found myself, sadly, uncontrollably, coughing and hacking in their general direction, covering my mouth less and less and somehow completely innocently managing to get more and more liquid into subsequent coughs - then again, we Scots don’t tend to be known for our diplomatic subtlety …)
Bea - I find myself concerned when communities BAN things … restricting them is one thing, and often irritating, but banning something usually is done for other reasons than stopping the activity - like Prohibition, for example …
February 15th, 2006 at 8:46:59 pm
“There is nothing anti-freedom about it (smoking-ban,) if a community gets together and decided this is what they want for themselves.”
No, sadly there is something anti-freedom there. One must keep in mind that majority rule pertains and prevails only in controlled communites. Perfect scenarios under pre-constructed rules. You can’t even elect a president with majority rule in this country. If that were the case there would be no electorate, and I think if we’ve read Zinn, we know this already and we can come to terms with why. The majority of people would not approve of a Klan rally persay, but it’s not illigal. A Klan rally should not be illigal and the majority would not agree with me on that. While I don’t agree with the existence of that organization in my community, I do agree that outlawing them WOULD be anti-freedom. The majority of people in this country would probably not approve of gay-marriage, but there’s no reason why gay-marriage should be illigal. That motion is anti-freedom as well. There was a time in this country where the “majority” of the people supported slavery as a necessay means to support agriculture. Here’s an example closer to the case that I hinted toward before… I find drinking to be obnoxious. I hate, hate, hate, going into a restaurant and sitting near the bar. I’ll be enjoying my dinner and have the whole atmosphere disrupted by drunken morons slurring loudly and acting belligerently. YET the “majority” of people think this an acceptable form of social interaction and that it is okay to serve alcohol in restaurants. That seems to me to be a bit of a double standard.
During 2004, 16,694 people in the U.S. died in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes, representing 39% of all traffic-related deaths
In 2004, about 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics (Department of Justice, 2004). ThatÃs less than one percent of the 159 million self-reported episodes of alcoholñimpaired driving among U.S. adults each year (Quinlan et al. 2005).
More than two-thirds of child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-related crashes during 1997ñ2002 were riding with the drinking driver; only 32% of them were properly restrained at the time of the crash
Number of deaths proven to be a result of to second hand smoke or
(ETS): 0
Deaths from AIDS in 2004? 15,798 And sex in public places has been a no-no for a real long time. Who will this save again?
February 15th, 2006 at 8:56:03 pm
This is NOT a battle for the good of public health. So don’t tell me about the “healthy lifestyle.” It doesn’t even apply. In fact, every new study that is released in the hopes of proving a link between second-hand smoke and cancer, does just the opposite.
As for the “majority” theory, I just took a poll at work 3 out of five thought the lochness monster exists…
This is a self-serving battle for those who truly believe they are better, smarter, or more capable of making this desicion.
“I’ve got something to tell all the non-smokers out there, because
I know you don’t know this, and I feel it is my duty to pass on
information at all times. You ready? Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight. See, I know you’ve employed some kind of eternal life fantasy because you’ve chosen not to smoke..” -Bill Hicks
Death is inevitable for all of us. Please do not protect me from myself thanks. We’re all heading that way soon enough.
Last thing: why do ETS opponants always stretch their examples to cartoon proportions? If you’re going to a bar in which anyone is blowing smoke IN your face I suggest finding a new bar. That type of behavior is just plain inconsiderate, albeit not illigal.
February 15th, 2006 at 9:46:14 pm
I do not care of people smoke. They have every right to smoke. Howeve, they have no right to make me deal with the unpleasantness of smoke in my face in public places. I do not care of secondhand smoke kills or makes me smarter. The bottom line is, it comes down to his right to smoke and my right to breath non-smoky air. If my community would rather have non-smoky air in most public places, then the smoker needs to move or deal. Period. End of story. We do this every day, choose bewteen competing rights. Often times, it is better to let a community decide it out, and a local ordinance restriction on smoking sounds good to me. Banning smoking altogether? I would never support it. Banning smoking in some public areas? Sure. The smoker’s right stops right where my right to breath non-smoky air starts. Communities can and must be able to make these minor decisions. This is what communities do.
February 15th, 2006 at 10:35:41 pm
Bea, we aren’t talking about public places, we are talking about private businesses–bars, restaurants, etc. The owner of the establishment should decide whether or not to allow smoking. As much as I love smoke-free bars and restaurants, I’m with the libertarians on this.
Sean, where are you? Spread the wisdom, man!
February 16th, 2006 at 4:24:00 am
Andrew - more importantly, the establishment’s customers will decide for most owners whether a place should be smoking-friendly or non-smoking … it’s called voting with the feet …
February 16th, 2006 at 10:35:00 am
These are the facts:
1. “environmental tobacco smoke” is not enough of a carcinogen to cause cancer in itself. or. Not a public safety risk.
2. SOME non-smokers are really put-off by the existence of ETS. they don’t like smokers BLOWING smoke right in their faces, blowing it, RIGHT in their faces.
3. Politicians are setting a president “against smoking” using eronious information on ETS that has since been discredited to pass laws banning smoking in private places of business. They just love chasing the safe issues don’t they?
4. Private institutions like Smoke Free Educational Services are pushing their own agenda on the masses, convincing the public that ETS is a serious health problem. The media is not helping to dissuade these un-truths and the public is eating it up.
My point? It’s all wrong. The facts are wrong, the reasoning is wrong, but the motives are clear. I don’t like non-smokers anymore than they like me. I am however a proponant for the free exchange of factual information. ETS is an annoyance. that’s it. Sorry. The government should not get to regulate annoyances. I like my freedom.
Anyway, you should rest easy, Smoke Free Educational Services, lazy politicians and huffy non-smokers are winning the war. Good job.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:12:03 pm
“I don’t drink but I smoke. To me that’s fair, we’re trading vices. But you non-smokers are like, “No it’s not! Why should our lives be threatend by your nasty habit!” Yeah, but you know what? I can’t kill anyone in a car because I’m smoking a cigarrete, and I’ve tried. Turn off all the lights, rush them, they always see the glow.”
February 16th, 2006 at 12:16:12 pm
“Now what I contend is that my body is my own, at least I have always so regarded it. If I do harm through my experimenting with it, it is I who suffers, not the state.”
February 16th, 2006 at 12:19:32 pm
“The prestige of government has
undoubtedly been lowered considerably
by the prohibition law. For nothing
is more destructive of respect for
the government and the law of the
land than passing laws which cannot
be enforced. It is an open secret
that the dangerous increase of crime
in this country is closely connected
with this.”
February 16th, 2006 at 1:54:06 pm
What’s interesting to me, bandwagon rider, is that the argument you made seems to only be regarding the EPAs epidemiologic argument, which is totally significant because epidemiology is well known to be a highly unstable, qualitative science that is hugely prone to human error (or ignorance). WHY is this significant? Because that’s the only kind of study the court decision threw out. Multiple other studies since 1998 have identified as many as 40 carcinogens in ETS. The tobacco industry has yet to discredit any of them. (Also, shortly after the North Carolina court threw out the EPA study, significant evidence found that the tobacco industry paid off several “scientists” to find contrary evidence denying second hand smoke’s cancerous effects. They got in trouble for that one.) The new smoking-is-bad studies, of course, are based on more substance-based scientific studies, and NOT studies based on who died and whether or not they smoked, or their spouse smoked, or if they could remember every time someone smoked around them before they contracted lung cancer. THAT is what the first study covered, and THAT is why the court thew it out. Conclusion? Second hand smoke (& first hand smoke) are dangerously bad for you. Question? What should our government be able to do about it?
February 16th, 2006 at 2:04:30 pm
For an interesting perspective on ETS (second-hand smoke) see this cite and see if you can find any mistakes in his reasoning …
February 16th, 2006 at 3:26:33 pm
To anyone confused by “argument’s sakes” BIG ol’ words, allow me to define… Epidemiology
Epidemiology is the scientific study of factors affecting the health and illness of individuals and populations, and serves as the foundation and logic of interventions made in the interest of public health and preventive medicine. It is considered a CORNERSTONE methodology of public health research, and is HIGHLY regarded in evidence-based medicine for identifying risk factors for disease and determining optimal treatment approaches to clinical practice.
hmm.. “argument’s sake” defined it as “well known to be a highly unstable qualitative science that is hugely prone to human error.
odd.
isn’t epidemiology how we figured that whole asbestos thing ten years ago? but don’t forget the great plauge, the 1854 cholera outbreak, etc, etc,
the FUNNY part, and you’ll love this:
Strictly speaking, epidemiology can only go to prove that an agent could have caused but not that, in any particular case, it did cause…
Epidemiology is based on a low level of probability…
THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION COULD NOT EVEN SUPPORT A LOW LEVEL OF PROBABILITY THAT THERE MIGHT BE A CONECTION BETWEEN SECOND-HAND SMOKE AND CANCER OR HEART DISEASE.
come on folks, lighten up and giggle along with me on this one.
February 16th, 2006 at 3:43:10 pm
Oh and which new studies prove the connection? I’d LOVE to know, MA and CA banned smoking with the following study as proof…
1992. ìRespiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders.
A study thrown out by the Honerable Judge William Osteen
The following is a direct quote from Judge Osteen’s 90 page decision: “In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs, products and to influence public opinion.
Some of the problems with the report?
1.The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant.
2.Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
As for the Judge, In: COYNE BEAHM, INC., BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION, LIGGETT GROUP, INC., LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, PHILIP MORRIS, INCORPORATED, and R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY vs.UNITED STATES FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION and DAVID A. KESSLER, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
Osteen ruled that the FDA had the authority to regulate tobacco.
gosh, could it be that you’re all being lied to by your government, gee I hate to even think it… Gulf of Tonkin Affair, WMD’s, Duck and Cover, Marijuana…
February 16th, 2006 at 4:04:55 pm
I know it looks bad, cig’companies tend to lie to people. On the other hand, your government tends to lie to people. On the other hand the public is scared and the media is manipulative. AND on the other hand you have science and FACT. Just look at it this way: You’ve got a drug dealer on trial for murder and drug dealing. You can prove the drug dealer dealt drugs, but you can’t prove that he murdered anyone because there is no evidence to support it. Yet you’re convicting him on both charges.
“Conclusion? Second hand smoke (& first hand smoke) are dangerously bad for you. Question? What should our government be able to do about it?”
Should our government be able to convict this guy because they REALLY REALLY REALLY think it only makes sense that he might have murdered someone if he’s a drug dealer?
I say no. Just me. I say PROVE IT FIRST, then you get your conviction.
February 16th, 2006 at 6:35:54 pm
bandwagon rider - do you play much tennis ?
After all, you seem to have quite a powerful four-hand …
(innocent grin)