13 Jan 2003 | SU said...

Boulder has completely banned it in restaurants and bars. And I've got to say that it's great to know you can go hang out in a bar for hours and not breathe in copious amounts of carcinogenic second-hand smoke. I appreciate it when I go out in Denver and there is no such ban -- when I come home, I feel as thought I've smoked a pack on my own.

13 Jan 2003 | informer said...

I know this is off topic but Fed-Ex has redesigned it's site

13 Jan 2003 | COD said...

As a non-smoker, I want to support this, but I can't. It's a direct violation of the property owners rights. There is no "right" to a smoke free drinking experience in a public place. If you hate smoke you should avoid bars. Also, given that non-smokers far outnumber smokers in the general popualation, you would think that there is a booming market for non smoking bars and restaurants. But we all know that they don't really exist unless in a locale that mandates it. Why? I don't really have an answer, unless smokers frequent bars and restaurants in far greater percentages that non smokers.

It is an interesting question though. If this is so needed, why hasn't the market taken care of it?

13 Jan 2003 | ek said...

If you, your relatives and friends work in bars, restaurants, hotels or any business that depends on out-of-town visitors this ban will hit right in the wallet, leading to loss of income and possibly employment.

Right, so all of our convention business is going to go to Gary, Indiana instead. Whatever. Have NY and LA seen a massive loss of convention business because of this? The answer is no.

The opposition to this is baffling. A speaker at one of the public hearings here in Chicago put this issue into startlingly clear perspective when he said:

If this debate were about whether we should allow urination in certain areas of public pools there would be no debate.

The issue is the same here. To think that you can create a non-smoking area within a small, enclosed space is laughable.

13 Jan 2003 | Benjy said...

I am so for it! I am allergic to the smoke and hate the amount of $$$ I spend on dry cleaning to remove the smell from sweaters and jackets after going to bars. No other "personal freedom" regularly practiced in public is as annoying and harmful to those around you as smoking is.

And I don't see how it'll really affect business that much, seeing as it'll affect all locations. Are people suddenly going to just stop eating out or going to bars because they can't smoke? I highly doubt it. And I don't buy the claims that conventions will stop choosing Chicago as a location. I'm sure that is WAY down the list of considerations.

13 Jan 2003 | ek said...

It is an interesting question though. If this is so needed, why hasn't the market taken care of it?

Because markets are far from perfect. If we had relied on the marketplace for auto safety we'd still be driving cars without seat belts. Sometimes the market needs a swift kick in the ass to jolt itself out of its inertia induced stupor.

13 Jan 2003 | eismith said...

I am a smoker. I go to school in a city (Waterloo, ON) that has a smoking ban in effect, and my hometown (Oakville, ON) also has a smoking ban.

And get this: I'm for it.

I've gotten so used to it that it doesn't bother me to go outside for a cigarette. In fact, it's gotten to the point where I just CAN'T smoke indoors, it makes me feel sick. Which is a weird, weird feeling.
And, to boot, I've cut down on my smoking alot.

Mind you, it does destroy businesses. In Oakville, when the smoking ban went into effect over a year ago, bars' business dropped by 53% in 6 months.

13 Jan 2003 | Ed F. said...

Greetings from Los Angeles. In my experience, most of the bars I go to actually have outdoor patio areas now, for the smokers. And for those bars that don't have outdoor areas, you'll usually find a group of smokers on the sidewalk out front, sometimes even in a cordoned off parking space or three with bar stools, which is set up by the bar. So it's kind of a win-win situation. Yes, the weather in LA allows for year round open air patio areas, i know. i have no idea what smokers will do in colder climates. As for restaurants, dining in a smoke free restaurant is an enlightening experience, for sure. once you get used to it, when you visit a state where people can still smoke, you will most certainly miss the smoke-free atmosphere, smoker friends of mine say the same thing. so that's my 3 cents...

13 Jan 2003 | Urbanchords said...

I have seen this debate happen across the country. One thing I find interesting is how many of these cities/states that are trying to make the ban have collected money from the tobacco industry lawsuits a couple of years ago?

You admitted that smoking is wrong, why not accept the consequences for it? Or did they just want the money?

13 Jan 2003 | Scott said...

I'm a non-smoker and would love to go to a club to see concerts and not have to shower when I get home.
With a choice I could see some (non-smoking) places suffer, however, I can't see how businesses would suffer if it was universal. Smokers would not stop eating out going to bars etc if they couldn't smoke.

13 Jan 2003 | Derek said...

If you, your relatives and friends work in bars, restaurants, hotels or any business that depends on out-of-town visitors this ban will hit right in the wallet, leading to loss of income and possibly employment.

Whereas if the ban is not put into affect, it will hit right in the lungs and kill you and your loved ones. I think I would rather have myself and my loved ones possibly unemployed than possibly hacking up blood and dying slowly in a hospital.

13 Jan 2003 | pb said...

I lived in NYC and now in SF and can report that most people are pleased with the ban. Bars, restaurants and morning-after clothing smell distinctly better. Establishments with outdoor areas will enjoy a competitive advantage. NYC is really the only US city where a ban might be problematic because of all the foreign tourists. It is odd that with so many people displeased with indoor smoking that not establish could make a go of it in a free market manner.

13 Jan 2003 | dooce said...

As a former resident of Los Angeles, and now of Utah which is also a smoke-free state (smoking is banned in all public places except bars, which is totally odd), and as a sometimes-smoker, I think can say that many smokers don't necessarily mind the small inconvenience. The smoke-free environment does make for a better going-out experience, for everyone, not to mention those who have to work an 8-hour shift behind the bar.

Because the law was instituted throughout California I don't think any bar or venue in particular saw any sort of loss of income. Initially I'm sure there were a few rumpled feathers, but it seems everyone has gotten over it.

Of course, I've always been of the opinion that smoking, especially in public, isn't a traditional personal freedom, just as walking up to a stranger and spraying mace in their face isn't a personal freedom. I know that's a leap, but you can't smoke in a public place without somone else being directly affected by it.

13 Jan 2003 | ~bc said...

Here in Brookline, Mass, the whole town is smokefree. All enclosed public spaces are, at least. You can still smoke outside. None the less, it's awesome. There's no lack of bars here, so I doubt any "closed" due to it (the ban predates me). In fact I'm more likely to go to a bar that's smokefree to one that's not. To walk into a bar without having to use my inhaler is truely liberating. It's been so successful, that our better known neighbor, Boston, has adopted one as well.

13 Jan 2003 | josh said...

Funny, I have the same background as Dooce. LA to Utah.

I hadn't been to a club or bar in a while, and I was shocked at how unpleasant it was to be choking on smoke all night. When I went to clubs a lot I didn't really notice.

I think if a state that had a smoking ordinance for several years suddenly switched back, THAT is where you would see businesses die.

13 Jan 2003 | Scott M. said...

Yeah, I was at Metro last night (in Chicago) and after the place filled up it was almost unbearable. It would be such a great thing to go see a band and be able to breathe (I have allergies/asthma so it's worse for me).

Of course the guys in all three bands smoked. Sets might get shorter...

13 Jan 2003 | paul said...

it's banned indoors in vancouver and it definitely is enforced. i smoke (not habitually but socially) and i don't mind at all. i'd rather step outside for a min or two than to come home and have the smell in all my clothes.

13 Jan 2003 | Geoffrey said...

A restaurant without smoke is a good thing. A bar without smoke is empty. Who wants to hang out in an empty bar?

14 Jan 2003 | mephisto said...

remember people it is a slippery slope one freedom lost and more follows.

14 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

mephisto said: "Remember people it is a slippery slope one freedom lost and more follows."

Ok, what do you think would be the next freedom lost?
(Although I don't agree a freedom is lost. I think the freedom to breath fresh air is gained.)

14 Jan 2003 | Cker said...

As a smoker living through the california ban I can say it was very annoying to go through the ban. Bar "attendance" dropped significantly. I know of several bars that had to close or lay off people beacause they were unable to provide an outdoor smoking space or that they were unable to compete with businesses that ingnored the ban. Several places started charging a "cover charge" to pool up money to pay off the "smoking fines"

It did hurt businesses, people did loose jobs, you just don't hear about it much any more because the damage is already done.

After the ban non-smokers have to push through groups of smokers that are outside nearly every public place. Most continue to be annoyed with this and are now pushing for further bans.

Now many locales are creating 25 foot ordances, where it is illegal to smoke within 25 feet of an enterance or exit to a public space. So this begs the question where will it stop?

14 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I started smoking cigars last August, partly because I got so sick of the anti-smoking Nazis taking away freedom of choice. If you want non-smoking bars, simply convince the bar owners by using your wallet, or forming a group. But using government to force a private business is, indeed, a slippery slope.

Know what's worse? You folks -- you same folks who oppose our government invading a foreign country -- you folks look to the government to solve your problems! That, my dear friend, is way too frightening.

Finally, what's being done in areas where they ban smoking in bars? The bar "reopens" as a "private club", where you must purchase an annual membership. Then, it can allow smoking.

Please, please, folks, for the love of freedom, I beg you: quit looking to the government as the solution to your problems, and please start using private activism.

(Stepping off soap box at Speaker's Corner)

14 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

p8 asked "which freedom will be lost next?".

I'll tell you. In some areas, it has been attempted to ban smoking within one's own home or property if the neighbor can smell it!

And you know what? Some of you would support such a law!

Okay ... fine ... I find strong perfume offensive, and some are allergic to it. So let's ban perfume.

Sound far-fetched? You are so naive.

(Note: Actually, it's just an argument -- I personally find strong perfume to be an aphrodisiac!)

14 Jan 2003 | gianni said...

They just passed that law here in south florida. Miami is known for its night life. Many of my friends in the hospitality industry are worried about the ramifications of this decision. But in actuallity how do they inforce that law, will the patrons get fined or will the establishment get fined. I am a smoker, I do not smoke in restaurants, or in places where there are large groups of people, its just rude. But I believe the law should stipulate the local. Night clubs, bars, etc. should be exempt from this act. The law is a conflict in my mind, smoking is harmful, the second hand smoke is harmful, some establishments even to a smoker can become places of disgust just for the amount of unclear breathing air. I dont know...

14 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Don said: "I'll tell you. In some areas, it has been attempted to ban smoking within one's own home or property if the neighbor can smell it!"

I agree this is a bit too much.
On the other hand should I be allowed play very loud music (like Zappa ;) ) in my appartment at 2 in the morning?
Or should I use a headphone?

14 Jan 2003 | Melanie said...

They tried this in Toronto several years back. I remember being in bars where the owners were handing out saucers to smokers to use as ashtrays, so if any officials came in they could avoid having to take responsibility. The law ended up being ditched, and now it's back to smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants.

14 Jan 2003 | Paolo said...

We've had similar laws passed in Canada and for the better! Take for example that our airline, Air Canada, has completely banned smoking on all of its flights and installed smoke detectors in all the washrooms to prevent passengers from sneaking a smoke.

Essentially what Air Canada has done is removed the possibility for nicotine addicts to pursue their addiction while on a flight. To the best of my knowledge smokers haven't started using the train and bus to prove a point about it.

The bottom line is, if smokers weren't allowed to pollute everyone elses breathing space they'd have to get used to non-smoking restaurants and bars just like Canadian smokers have had to get used to non-smoking planes. If you want your booze you'll have to leave the pack at home.

And a BIG P.S. Last time I checked being employed in a bar where you breathe in 2nd hand smoke wasnt a perk. Cigarettes make you sick. Fact.

Ask yourselves this: If the United States uncovered a vast conspiracy ( you know how you love them! ) of terrorists who deliberately infused toxic smoke into public places in an effort to cause illness and death to the U.S. citizens youd all be screaming for blood. Any person caught smoking in a public place would be considered a terrorist attempting to bring down the American people. Now consider what tobacco companies are doing to bolster the strength and health of US populations. Thats right, theyre making money off their victims and killing off taxpayers, police officers, doctors, teachers, etc. In the right perspective youll quickly realize that you have major terrorists selling you death on your doorstep.

Enjoy!

14 Jan 2003 | Netizenkane said...

I'm a resident of LA who is frequently in NYC (where the law, btw, won't take effect until March, I believe). The difference is such that I'd rather not go to crowded bars in NYC because they're still smoking in them. My eyes water, my clothes end up reeking, and I can smell the smoke coming out of my hair when I wash it the next morning. Unfortunately, there is no shampoo for lungs.

Smoking is not a traditional personal freedom because it impinges on the freedoms of others, namely that of staying healthy. Freedom of speech does not permit you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater; the right to bear arms does not allow you to take a shot at your neighbor when he's enjoying the personal freedom of listening to loud music at 3 a.m. Until there's a cancer vaccine to protect the rest of us from smokers' questionable decision to enjoy sucking down toxins, this is a law you're going to see more and more.

In terms of this having a demonstrable effect on restaurants and bars, I think that's hard to quantify. Does a restaurant go out of business simply because people can't smoke indoors anymore, or has the service been on decline, the prices been raised, and people can't smoke indoors anymore? Does a bar go under because of this law or because the owner got wiped out financially by a divorce? Numbers indeed tell a story; it all depends on what story you'd like them to tell.

14 Jan 2003 | Matt said...

I know here in Dallas, the city council will be voting on a smoking ban for bars and restaurants. There's a catch though establishments who gain at least 75% of revenue from alcohol sales will be exempt.

14 Jan 2003 | Jay said...

Don: Please tell me you're intentionally being absurd just to rile up people like myself.

Are you saying that we shouldn't pick and choose the ways that our -- OUR -- government works? Please explain what this has to do with whether or not we approve of our government's foreign policy. Are we not supposed to meddle with our government's foreign affairs? Are we not supposed to have domestic and foreign interests at the same time? Please, please explain what you mean.

14 Jan 2003 | pb said...

Noone has addressed the question: if people hate going to smokey restaurants and bars so much, why couldn't the free-market have handled this?

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

pb:

The free market doesn't work unless everyone involved is ambitious enough to care. Most of us americans are just too damn lazy to care. Yea, we KNOW Wal-Mart destroys small town economies, lower's the living wage in an area, exploits labor forces around the globe, but DAMMIT, I'm just too lazy to care and will walk in there because I can save 50 cents on a new mop.

I also dislike the use of economic arguments. "Banning smoking will hurt the economy. Better gas mileage will hurt the economy. Higher gas prices will hurt the economy. More social services will hurt the economy." The economy is, has been, and always will be a man-made concept of short-term consequences. Yea, not using oil will hurt the economy for while, but in return, our planet will last a few more millenia. Yea, banning smoking will hurt tobacco sales, but we may save a few bucks in the long run with decreased lung cancer patients.

Smoking is dumb. Even if you smoke, you realize that it is dumb. We all do dumb things, nothing wrong with that, but let's keep the harm to ourselves.

I've been to CA a few times and was just thrilled that I could wake up the next morning and not smell like an ashtray. I would argue that no smoking would INCREASE revenue.

Here's a scary comment:

My wife has been looking at some day cares for our 1 year old. She went to the organization that provides the data, and one of the questions they asked was:

"Would you prefer your child be in a non-smoking environment?"

Sigh. We just don't care anymore, do we?

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"I would argue that no smoking would INCREASE revenue."

Of course, I said that, but didn't argue anything. ;o)

My point being that if I could go out and not breathe foul air and wake up hacking up brown phlegm and smelling like an ashtray, I may actually go out a bit more often and spend a few more bucks at these places.

14 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Jay -- I see government as a necessary evil, which is to be *limited* as much as possible. When people give up on initiative and personal responsibility and, instead, simply turn to the government to solve their every problem ... well ... *that* scares me.

Good old-fashioned manners, being a good neighbor, *morality* ... all that is being replaced by laws and regulations. That's good??

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Good old-fashioned manners, being a good neighbor, *morality* ... all that is being replaced by laws and regulations. That's good?

No. But what's the alternative? We all know smoking in front of others is rude, but we do it anyways, don't we?

14 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Non-smoking laws have been demonstrated to hurt the economy of a city and lead to the closing of many bars and restaurants .

I'd like to see where this has been demonstrated. Yes, there were individual cases of businesses closing as a result of the California smoking ban. However, overall, the restaurant and bar business has *increased* since the ban was instituted. (Article from the LA Times a couple months ago; I'm too lazy to look up the date, but an archives search should reveal it.)

On to another point:

Don, do you have a problem with the government banning smoking on airlines? How is that any different than banning smoking in a restaurant or bar? Both are public accomodations within a confined space. In fact, from where I sit, pretty much all of the reasons in favor of banning smoking on an airplane apply to banning it in a bar or restaurant.

14 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

It's banned on airlines because your choices for airline travel are so limited, and I don't have a problem with that.

At the end of the day (overused catch phrase), it really doesn't matter, does it? I mean ... I stop at the cigar shop on Fridays for happy hour (food, no alcohol for me when I drive, thankyewverymuch) and enjoy a cigar then. I enjoy them outside, on my deck, in nice weather. Or by the outdoor fireplace when it's a bit colder. And in my car with the moonroof open. The bars that want to support smoking can close and re-open as "private clubs".

It's just the knee-jerk reaction of "let's get the government to fix this problem" that gets my goat.

14 Jan 2003 | COD said...

Ek said
Because markets are far from perfect. If we had relied on the marketplace for auto safety we'd still be driving cars without seat belts. Sometimes the market needs a swift kick in the ass to jolt itself out of its inertia induced stupor.

Thats comparing apples to oranges. We have unlimited choices of where to spend our entertainment dollars. We had 3 or 4 choices of where to buy a car from. The lack of choices, by the way. was directly related to protectionist government policies that made it hard for foreign manufactuers to sell here. Given an open market for cars, somebody would have jumped the safety angle, and if it had been successful the rest would have followed. Tucker tried it in the 40's. When there is an ogilopoly market some government regulation is appropriate. However, in this case, what has happened is a small, loud, minority of anti smoking zealots is using the police power of government to infringe on the property rights of law abiding business owners. And like Don said, next time maybe they will be coming after you.

BTW, I don't smoke and I hate coming home smelling like a chimney after a night out. But I don't expect government to solve that problem for me.

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

Sometimes the market needs a swift kick in the ass to jolt itself out of its inertia induced stupor.

Can I steael that line? It's great!

However, in this case, what has happened is a small, loud, minority of anti smoking zealots is using the police power of government to infringe on the property rights of law abiding business owners.

Smoking is a property right? Damaging the lungs of other's in your publicly supported business is a legal right?

But I don't expect government to solve that problem for me.

Why not? People won't solve that. Hell, we've all been smoking of centuries. We've known it kills for decades.

We're stupid consumers. We don't want change. We accept it when government says so. What? You're not going to tell me to wear a seat belt! Fuck you! Oh...it's a law now? Oh. Ok. Fine...I'll wear it then.

14 Jan 2003 | jay said...

Man, when did we get another Jay? We Jays are used to being unique in name. At least I can be recognised for my longwindedness.

I used to smoke socially when I lived in Dallas. When I first came to college in California, it felt weird that folks weren't smoking at parties. I always got embarrassed by friends who commented loudly about people smoking near them. Now, when I go back to Dallas, I get bothered by the smoke, too. Damn California hippies are contageous.

Actually, quite a few bars / clubs in LA have backroom or upstairs smoking areas. Hanging out occasionally in those places, I don't know how I ever lived with my clothes always smelling like smoke. Plus, whoever was playing at The Metro probably would have lit up in LA, too. Bands do it all the time. Like many things in LA, the smoking ban is a pretty facade, but I think a lot fewer people smoke because of it.

Why wouldn't the market provide for non-smoking bars? Bars target trendsetters. They want the people who will draw other people to like their place. Too many of these people smoke. I bet the sXe kids would flock to a non-smoking bar, but they don't drink, either, so where's the business model?

Don, government has to help those who can't help themselves and protect us from those who would harm us. Second hand smoke is harmful. Governmental regulation should protect us from it the same way it should protect us from large corporations dumping toxic waste. I think it's pretty clear that we can't rely on ethical considerations when the forces of capitalism run the other way. Why should we rely on them when dealing with personal addiction or even a simple lack of courtesy?

Would you privatize social programs? Education is a perfect example. Even with the view that every person has the ability to work hard and succeed, can't you admit the important role that education plays in that process? Why shouldn't everyone be compelled by law to contribute a portion of their success to the development of our youth? Clearly a moral imperative isn't enough when we have CEOs making ten figures and uninsured kids who can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map.

14 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I used to smoke socially when I lived in Dallas.

See! We're STUPID. I've smoked socially in the past...I'm sure a lot of us had. We're just stupid-assed sheep.

So sometimes it's OK for the shephard (a law) to lead us.

I think it's pretty clear that we can't rely on ethical considerations when the forces of capitalism run the other way.

Beautifully worded.

15 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

There's another option: If we must have a law, why not have a law dictating indoor air quality?

That way, those bars and restaurants that really want to allow smoking can opt to get a high-quality ventilation system. If you've never been in a cigar bar with a good system, you have no idea. You literally cannot tell that anyone is smoking.

15 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Another prediction: In a few years, a couple will be charged with "child abuse" or neglect because they smoke in their home.

15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"In a few years, a couple will be charged with "child abuse" or neglect because they smoke in their home."

That's not entirely unjustified, though. I'm sure it's a LONG way aways, but I don't disagree with it. See my post above re: the day care directory person asking if we wanted a smoke-free daycare.

Sadly, we really don't care a whole lot about our children in society, so I think you have plenty of time to keep smoking in front of the kids, Don ;o)

I grew up with a mom who smoked. It never bothered me. This xmas we took our 1 year old to their house and an uncle I hadn't seen in years stopped by. He smoked. I couldn't believe how bad the air can get just having ONE smoker in a relatively large house.

15 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

It saddens me to see parents smoking in front of little children. Even worse are pregnant women who smoke and drink alcohol.
When there is a unequal balance of power (parent vs. child, A boss vs. employee) laws can help.
Even demanding a smoke-free working environment used to be very hard for employees with asthma. Laws have made life a lot better for these people.

15 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Don wrote: Good old-fashioned manners, being a good neighbor, *morality* ... all that is being replaced by laws and regulations. That's good??

The problem is not everyone will agree on what makes a good neighbor. Or what makes good, old-fashioned manners.

I do get your point, but government is necessary. It is only evil when the governed give up. Besides, there is time to change. This form of government has only been here for a couple hundred years. Give it time. :)

This thread somehow falls in line with the open source thread. What if government was open source. Think of the bloat! Oh wait...

15 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Well ... gee ... let's turn the tables to MY side now, shall we?

I'm a bit of a fitness freak. Exercise, that's me. Damn good shape -- can still do 20 one-armed pushups (either hand) and I'm almost 44.

Soooooo ... *I* maintain that if you aren't actively engaging your children in a fitness program, if you're letting them get fat, then YOU are guilty of child abuse.

And WHEEEEEE ... down the slippery slope we slide, faster and faster!

15 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Life is a slippery slope. One either takes an action that one thinks is correct, or one doesn't act.

In the actual grand scheme of things, my child may have a competitive advantage over the children that have smoking parents. That's fine by me.

But then the laws come in to play deciding (by few for many) that children need protection. More to the point: children need to live a prescribed way. And that prescription is dolled out by whoever's ideology is the front runner.

The best thing to is take care of the things you are personally responsible for. And if you have time/energy left over, and others request the help, then help.

15 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

A lot of people wouldn't call *softly* hitting a child child abuse. But somewhere you pass the border. Where the border lies is determined by judges who interpret the law (or does a jury decide in cases of child abuse?)

I can imagine parents who won't let their very unhealthy fat children exercise (even if the children want to) and force them to eat tons of junk food (when the children want to eat healthy food) could be found guilty of child abuse.

Don, you're all for freedom. What about the freedom of children who want to exercise, don't want to eat junk food and don't want to breath unhealthy air?

15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

And WHEEEEEE ... down the slippery slope we slide, faster and faster!

Well, sure, but you can't advocate an all or nothing system. There always has to be a line drawn with exceptions on either side.

Not taking care of your children in any form is abuse of some sort, and you are right, we could get crazy in how we define that.

15 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

"What about the freedom of children who want to exercise, don't want to eat junk food..."
---
they stopped making those models when Beaver Clever went off the air. Todays models are sugar-eating, lazy little monsters, who start smoking at age 12 and having sex at age 14. ;-)
I heard that in S.F., some bar owners have rebelled and started welcoming smokers again - they pay a $500 fine, and pay it gladly because they make thousands more a night than anyone else who doesnt allow smokers.

15 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Alisha, our children exercised, didn't eat junk.

p8 -- so you're in favor of banning smoking in homes with children in them?

Question: Should we ban activities that cause damage to others?

Finally: Here, I proposed a win-win solution, but no one wants to accept it. You don't want win-win, you want win-lose. All or nothing. No one has commented on my suggested solution.

Interesting. And quite telling, methinks.

15 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

Don wrote: Finally: Here, I proposed a win-win solution, but no one wants to accept it. You don't want win-win, you want win-lose. All or nothing. No one has commented on my suggested solution.

Interesting. And quite telling, methinks.

Don, was your win-win idea about indoor air quality? I think it is a good concept. Really does speak to the design issue. But it involves heavy infrastructure changes (though it might even create jobs). Much easier (not better mind you) to say "don't do it or we'll fine you."

And it's usually the cost of money and resources that lead people down the all or nothing path. People and governments make all or nothing statements/decisions all the time. It's where they feel safest.

It's just that the line that is drawn keeps being redrawn. Everyday. By people like me who choose to (or not to) say something to the parent driving with unbuckled, cavorting children. Or the call the cops (or not) on motorists that insist the road is their ashtray.

And laws don't always stay the same. They change. Fines go up, go down, go away. It all depends on who's ideology is the front runner.

So, it's the difference between designing a solution and making something that functions. Inevitably, people choose the latter.

15 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

d'oh, misplace ending em tag. sorry.

Should be after "methinks."

15 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Meanwhile ... cigar makers sue the state of Florida.

15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

I think the indoor air quality law is a good option, but that has it's own problems too. A wealthy chain of restuarants can afford fancy venting systems, but ma and pa corner bar can't. So, the only choice for ma and pa is to ban smoking alltogether, giving the chain an unfair advantage (at least based on the opinions that a no-smoking ban reduces revenue.)

15 Jan 2003 | COD said...

Somebody above questioned my assertion that smoking is a property right. It is. The only person who should decide if people can smoke at Moe's Bar & Grill is Moe. If you don't like his decision, don't frequent Moe's. A factory polluting the air is different. Nobody owns the air and it is reasonable to suggest that the polluted air near a factory will affect neighbors down the road, etc. It is not reasonable to assert that the smoke filled air at Moe's Pool Hall will have some negative affect on a household a mile away.

This recent poll http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/03/05/obesity.poll/ asserts that 23% of americans smoke. That being true, it seems like somebody in Chicago should be getting rich providing an enjoyable smoke free bar experience down Michigan Ave somewhere. (Unless smokers make a huge percentage of frequent bar visitors)

I haven't been to Chicago since my college days in the 80's. Apologies if Michigan Ave is passe by now. Hell, it may have been passe when we were roadtripping there in the 80's :)

15 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

What's REALLY freaky is that in THE cigar state -- Florida -- it will be illegal to smoke in a cigar factory! Now that is weird.

15 Jan 2003 | fajalar said...

It seems strange that they should have to sue for that. It should be a simple modification to the law.

I can understand having to sue to use the convention center.

But in their own business facilities?

15 Jan 2003 | jay said...

Darrel, thanks for balancing calling me stupid with a nice complement. =) Seriously, though, I like smoking a cigarette or two a couple times a week. I like the taste. I've never been addicted. The only reason I quit entirely is that being an athlete is more important to me, and I could feel the difference.

Don, I like the air quality idea. I think people should be absolutely free to do whatever they want to their own bodies. It's the encroachment on other people that bothers me.

Interesting that you bring up obesity. Junk food advertisement are clearly targeted at kids. Is there any uncertainty about the potential harm in abusing snack foods? Do you know any kids who wouldn't make themselves sick on candy if given the chance? Many cities are beginning to remove vending machines from public schools. If city government can see the problem with making junk food freely available to kids, why shouldn't parents be held responsible for the same?

15 Jan 2003 | Darrel said...

"Many cities are beginning to remove vending machines from public schools. "

Actually, there was a snippet on NPR yesterday of a CA school that pushed to remove the commercial vending machines and replaced them with their own health-food machines at the request of the district administrator (or someone at that level). It turns out that students preferred the healthy food and the school is making MORE money selling that.

Yet another example of how the free-market system does not self-correct without a kick-in-the-ass from a higher authority.

15 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Somebody above questioned my assertion that smoking is a property right. It is. The only person who should decide if people can smoke at Moe's Bar & Grill is Moe. If you don't like his decision, don't frequent Moe's.

But, property owners whose property is considered a public accomodation are not allowed to do whatever they wish. For example, Moe is required to allow disabled people access to his bar (seeing as how a bar and grill is about as public as a public accomodation can get). He's not allowed to tell non-white people to eat elsewhere. He's not allowed to work naked. He's not allowed to ignore health regulations. Obviously, I could go on and on.

Truly private property - for example, if it were Moe's Exclusive Club, or if it were just Moe's house - enjoys a far greater level of protection. That's why the idea of a smoking ban in people's homes is far-fetched. However, regardless of whether they should do so, governmental entities are well within their powers to restrict activities that can be undertaken in a public accomodation.

16 Jan 2003 | alisha said...

Alisha, our children exercised, didn't eat junk.
---
oh Don lighten up. I know your kids are perfect - they sprang forth from your loins, how could they be anything but? ;-)
---
you can pass laws in public domain but private domain is nearly impossible. It depends on the mentality of the people. In America, smoking laws have been successful, in Europe it would never fly. So unfortunately, those of us who want to live here (and want to have a life) are stuck with smoke. The funnest thing here is going dancing and half the crowd is smoking on the dancefloor, so not only are you inhaling double the amount, you and your clothes are getting burned here and there. I put a guys cigarette out once on the dance floor and he nearly beat the shit out of me. So much for standing up for your public rights here in deutschland.

16 Jan 2003 | snark said...

Just buy one of these and live forever.

17 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

"Non-smokers take note: Today the government outlaws smoking, tomorrow they may come after a personal freedom that is important to you! Almost any restriction can be justified in the name of public safety."

Oh oh, watch out for Tobacco Company propaganda:
Unwarranted extrapolation (site also has other interesting info on propaganda).

Extrapolation is what scientists call such predictions, with the warning that they must be used with caution. A homely illustration is the driver who found three gas stations per mile along a stretch of the Montreal highway in Vermont, and concluded that there must be plenty of gas all the way to the North Pole. You chart two or three points, draw a curve through them, and extend it indefinitely."(Chase, 1952)"

17 Jan 2003 | Brian Chidichimo said...

Smoking is not a nice thing. There are many reasons to be against smoking. However, none are strong enough to support a prohibition law (i.e. 1919). To support a law that bans smoking in restaurants is WRONG no matter how you look at it.
America claims to be a country that prizes freedom and personal choice. (really?).
If you own a restaurant and wish to allow smoking, you should have that choice. The same choice any customer or employee has when he enters such an establishment. You have the freedom "not" to spend money in a place that allows smoking. You have the freedom "not" to work there as well. Is it too much to ask; to simply let the owner post the "hazards" that are present and let the customer/employee choose if he wants to enter? Is that too fair? Too easy? Too "american"?
The ONLY LAW I would support is one that simply forces owners to make a choice "smoking" or "non-smoking" and post it on the front door. Then the choice is yours. You don't like 2nd hand smoke? Then do go in. It's as simple as that. When did this become a right?????
If a vegetarian doesnt like the smell of cooked meat, should he have the right to enter a place free of flesh fumes? What about employees who work in a place that has live music? Do they have the right to work free from ear damaging musicians? We can outlaw live music?
The list can go on and on, and if we allow laws like the "smoking ban" to exist, we are slowing killing America's freedom and the foundation in which it stands.
The authors of the constitution would be rolling. Gee, why didn't they outlaw such things when they wrote the document??????? Because they knew it was not the governments place to make these decisions. That's why. Wake up people?

17 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Public urination is not a nice thing. There are many reasons to be against public urination. However, none are strong enough to support a prohibition law (i.e. 1919). To support a law that bans public urination in restaurants is WRONG no matter how you look at it.
America claims to be a country that prizes freedom and personal choice. (really?).
If you own a restaurant and wish to allow public urination, you should have that choice. The same choice any customer or employee has when he enters such an establishment.

I could go on, replacing "smoking" with "public urination" throughout Brian's post, but I think I've made my point fine enough with this much. We prohibit all sorts of unhealthful, unsanitary behaviors in public. I'm one of the first to speak out against the creeping erosion of personal freedom in this country, but a smoking ban is not the first sign of the apocolypse - or even the 314th sign.

The authors of the constitution would be rolling.

I've always been quite impressed by people who know exactly what the authors of the Constitution would think about situations that didn't exist in their era - and know this 200 years after they've been dead, even!

Gee, why didn't they outlaw such things when they wrote the document??????? Because they knew it was not the governments place to make these decisions. That's why. Wake up people?

Gee, why didn't they provide for the flexibility for legislative bodies to make laws, and provide a judicial branch to stop them if they overstep their bounds? Oh, wait. They did that.

Courts have upheld these types of laws. That doesn't always make them right, but it's the system we live in, and them's the rules. There are far more worthwhile things to get worked up over than not being able to have a fag with your burger.

17 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

"If a vegetarian doesnt like the smell of cooked meat, should he have the right to enter a place free of flesh fumes?"

This is a silly example that isn't comparable to smoking. No one has died of the smell of cooked meat. Nor have I ever heard someone complain about the smell of meat. A "smell of cooked meat"-ban law would never pass.

"What about employees who work in a place that has live music? Do they have the right to work free from ear damaging musicians?"

Aren't there noise standards that protect the working conditions of employees? Measuring and controlling the amount of noise is pretty easy (set volume at 5) compared to measuring and controlling the amount of smoke (what is the amount of smoke you can safely inhale?).

"The list can go on and on, and if we allow laws like the "smoking ban" to exist, we are slowing killing America's freedom and the foundation in which it stands."

Your freedom ends where it harms someone else's freedom:
-You can't drive faster than +-55 mph.
-You can't drive through red lights.
-You can't drink and drive.
Do these laws also kill America's freedom?

"The authors of the constitution would be rolling. Gee, why didn't they outlaw such things when they wrote the document???????"

Maybe because they didn't know you can:
-go deaf from loud amplified music
-kill someone if you drink and drive in your 2002 BMW
-get an awful disease called cancer from second hand smoke?

19 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

You don't get it. It's a *private* establishment. You have the right to stay out. You have the right to start your own, non-smoking bar or restaurant.

Taxes don't go down; the restriction of freedom never ends.

19 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Ok Don, the difference between our points of view are:

You see smoking as a choice:
Restaurants are allowed to decide what kind of music they play and what type of food they serve.

I see smoking more as a health hazard:
Restaurants aren't allowed to serve contaminated food. They should have proper fire exits and adequate refrigeration.

19 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

What if restaurants forced people to smoke cigarettes ("Yeah, the kids too. But they can smoke lite cigarettes.")? That sounds pretty outrageous. Would you take your kids there?
It's not that different from badly ventilated restaurants that have smokers in them.

19 Jan 2003 | JF said...

Look who's #1 at Google when you search for "Chicago Smoking Ban".

20 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

p8, it's a shame that you feel compelled that you are being forced into a restaurant that allows smoking. I'm sorry for you ... but in the United States, you're allowed to chose to *not* visit such a restaurant. It's a beautiful liberty.

What's great is that the government here has this agency that controls hotels. It rates them and then they publish a book, so that I can decide to stay out of crappy hotels and, instead, chose to only visit three- or four-star hotels.

Oh ... wait ... that's *not* a government agency! That's a free enterprise system.

Too bad that same sort of thing is illegal to set up for restaurants vis-a-vis smoking.

Oh ... wait ... it's *not* illegal for such a system. It's just that you want Big Brother to do it for you.

I get it now.

20 Jan 2003 | Steve said...

Don, I doubt people want Big Brother to do this for them. However, there are cases where the free market system doesn't always provide desired results, and that's when government steps in.

While I'm sympathetic to much of a the libertarian point of view, its major flaw is that it insists on viewing a grey world in black-and-white terms. There are all kinds of times where the goverment steps into the market to achieve desired results. If it were up to the free market, there probably would not be electricity and phone service in remote areas, the Enrons and El Pasos of the world would be free to manipulate energy prices for their own gain, companies could freely lie about their earnings and revenues, no one would ever be able to ensure themselves against floods, etc. ad nauseum.

Take again my abusrd example above. Change "smoking" to "public urination." Do you have a problem with the government not allowing restaurants to give people carte blanche to urinate wherever they please? Even if they provide a non-urination section. I mean, you still have the option of using the restroom if you wish?

And, lastly, again the fact that a restaurant or bar is a private establishment is irrelevant. It is a public accomodation, a status that has been upheld by the Supreme Court, and one that the same court has allowed is appropriate to regulate moreso than private property that is not a public accomodation. This is why restaurants and stores can be compelled to provide disabled access, adhere to public health regulations, provide restrooms, etc. You telling me the government's overstepping their bounds in those case?

20 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Tell you what; YOU go ahead and open a restaurant that allows open urination. I have NO problem with that. Seriously, none whatsoever.

I'll stay out. My choice, government be damned.

20 Jan 2003 | paolo said...

Here's what I have learned from this debate:

There are people in the world who think smoking is a right and that breathing toxins on others is not as serious a crime as banning smoking in a bar or restaurant.

With thinkers like this, one can only hope that the government that we ask to correct such problems aren't the same people.

Guns are an on-going debate because so many have them and like them. The fact that so many children die due to accidental gun shots is irrelevant to these people because they like their guns.

Smoke and 2nd hand smoke kills people by the thousands every year. People don't want to give up this addiction even though people are dieing because, dammit, they like their nicotine.

So who are we to suggest that while these people are near us in public places they put away their killing devices?

The end result? Why debate the obvious with those who cannot/will not see it?

20 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Paolo brought up "addiction".

Don, shouldn't you be standing up for the nicotine junkies who - because of their addiction - are limited in their freedom to choose if they want to smoke?

21 Jan 2003 | Brian Chidichimo said...

I am sorry, All of you who have attacked my words, really don't get it, and never will, until something you enjoy is attacked and taken away. You can analyze my choice of words, (such as the vegetarian complaining about cooked meat), but the list truly does go on. What you feel is ok today, may not be viewed as such tomorrow. Somehow you feel you are fighting the cause for the common good. You are protecting us all from the evils of 2nd hand smoke and you feel just. (How many people have died from 2nd hand smoke anyway?). By the way, other civilized nations (Such as those found in Europe), do allow driving over 55mph, and do allow smoking (everywhere) and they also allow drinking most everywhere, etc. Are they evil, are they ignorant? Are non-smokers dying left and right from 2nd hand smoke? I don't know, but society seems to function without such prohibitions.
Anyway, my point is that many things that are abused can be bad for you. Many foods are packaged and sold to us that are not healty and in the long run, if abused, will harm our health. If you eat a pound of butter every day you will probably get heart disease. I am being silly here, but anything is possible. Do we need protection from these foods? from the advertising of these foods? from the targeting these foods to children? from the addition of addictive properties (caffiene to cola) of these foods? Some may feel we do need this protection, and may go after them next.

By the way, if you have ever worked in a concert hall, you know that low volume is not an option. My hearing is damaged. Maybe I should petition to get loud music banned. It will protect us all.

21 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

"I am sorry, All of you who have attacked my words, really don't get it, and never will, until something you enjoy is attacked and taken away."

You seem pretty selfish. You only look at your own freedom but it's attacking other people's freedom. I don't care if you smoke. You can smoke all you want. Just don't pollute/attack my breathing space. I enjoy breathing fresh air but it's being attacked by smokers. It's like I'm walking on the sidewalk and you're running me over in a car. Cars belong on the road so people don't get run over. Smokers can smoke in special areas or should use a yet to be invented device which only let's the smoker inhale the smoke.

"How many people have died from 2nd hand smoke anyway?"

You mean you don't know? I thought you put some thought into this?

From the BBC Second-hand smoke 'causes cancer'
"The group of 29 experts from 12 countries found second-hand tobacco smoke was carcinogenic to humans and that typical levels of passive exposure have been shown to cause lung cancer among people who have never smoked.
This means hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide from these cancers could now be linked to smoking. "

And if you still wanna play russian roulette with your life here are the odds (from the same article):

"The experts also stated that one half of all persistent cigarette smokers are eventually killed by a tobacco-related disease.
Half of these deaths occur in middle age, which means they lose an average of 20-25 years of non-smoker life expectancy. "

"By the way, other civilized nations (Such as those found in Europe), do allow driving over 55mph, and do allow smoking (everywhere) and they also allow drinking most everywhere, etc. Are they evil, are they ignorant?"

All those countries have a speed limit 120/130 km/h (only on some parts of the German Autobahn there is no speed limit). If you think you want to abandon all traffic rules, you should go to countries like Egypt. The complete chaos will give you a heart attack.
Smoking in public spaces is getting banned in more and more countries because most people are seeing the dangers of second-hand smoking. So, no, they aren't ignorant.

"By the way, if you have ever worked in a concert hall, you know that low volume is not an option."

As much as low volume isn't an option, not smoking is.
Most people go to concert halls to hear music. Music is the main reason. Most people don't go to a restaurant to smoke.

My hearing is damaged. Maybe I should petition to get loud music banned. It will protect us all."

You don't have to get loud music banned. People can protect themselves with earplugs (which I use). Should I put a gas mask on when I go out?

I'm all for freedom. I think heroin, cocain and XTC should be legalized. You can smoke all you want. Tobacco, pot or crack. Just don't force me to second-hand smoke.

21 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Cotinine Levels Fact Sheet(as published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) = Second-Hand Smoke

"ETS causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers. Scientific studies have also estimated that ETS accounts for as many as 35,000 deaths from ischemic heart disease annually in the United States. More research is needed to know exactly how recent changes in ETS exposure may affect lung cancer rates among adult nonsmokers."

"ETS causes serious respiratory problems in children, such as greater number and severity of asthma attacks and lower respiratory tract infections. ETS exposure increases the risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and middle ear infections for children."

And if you still want to smoke in your home:
Secondhand Smoke in Your Home:

"We spend more time in our homes than anywhere else. So the thought of cancer-causing chemicals circulating throughout our houses and apartments can be quite unsettling. Yet, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, that is exactly what happens when someone lights a cigarette in your home.

Those most affected by secondhand smoke are children. Because their bodies are still developing, exposure to the poisons in secondhand smoke puts children in danger of severe respiratory diseases and can hinder the growth of their lungs. On top of that, the effects can last a lifetime.

Ventilation systems in homes cannot filter and circulate air well enough to eliminate secondhand smoke. Blowing smoke away from children, going into another room to smoke, or opening a window may help reduce childrens exposure but will not protect them from the dangers of secondhand smoke."

And for those that only care about their own enjoyments:
One of the benefits of a smoke-free home is:
"Your food will taste better."

21 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

AS I PREDICTED ... you're ALREADY proposing banning smoking in my own home OR making parents who smoke quilty of child abuse.

That didn't take long.

I gotta run; I gotta go charge fat people with child abuse.

21 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

God this is a great thread. God I love freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and the fact that intelligent, reasonable people can disagree and no one ends up in jail.

Unlike Sierra Leone :-(

21 Jan 2003 | Willy the Smoke Magnet said...

This is indeed a great thread. With just of splash of diligence I've been able to learn quite a bit. I've discovered the subtle differences between smoking (including but not limited to tobacco, crack, heroin and the myriad subphylum thereof), listening to loud music, emptying one's bladder, and driving like a maniac. I've gained untold insight into the minds of our divine forefathers, their genius and their outmoded shortcomings. And thanks to a few of you, obvious grantees of some high level security clearance, I've been able to read with my own eyes the heretofore secret statistics on smoking and lung cancer.

At last enlightenment is mine!...and I thank you.

22 Jan 2003 | Brian Chidichimo said...

For the record, I don't smoke cigarettes and never have.
I do smoke a pipe and occassional cigar. Most restaurants have banned pipe/cigar smoking (they chose to do so, even though there is no law requiring it. This is how it should be. Up to the owners of the bar/restaurants (generally in a well ventilated bar area only) It's nice to know there are a few very few) places that allow this type of smoking. Most of the places I frequent are "known for this type of smoking" and customers have no problem with it (after all, if the name of a place is "Joe's Cigar & Martini bar", it's not a shock to find they allow cigar smoking). So those of us that enjoy this type of pastime, choose to damage our health by smoking and drinking high octane cocktails, where (due to excellent ventilation systems) our smoke is hardly noticable to non-smokers in the restaurant area.
As for the authors of our constitution, they lived in a time when cigar and pipe smoking was extremely popular. 2nd hand smoke existed then, but lung cancer was very rare in former times. It wasn't really a big problem because pipe smokers didnt inhale and surely didn't chain smoke like today's cigarette smokers (tobacco was an expensive luxury to be charished in moderation, not abused as it is today) Lung Cancer was quite rare until the advent of the "cigarette" in the 1900's. It wasn't until the 1930's that the effects of inhalation and chain smoking led to large cases of lung cancer. All of your statistics and arguments are geared mainly toward the "cigarette" smoker who abuses the product. Most pipe smokers live a long healthy life equal to their non-smoking friends (most, I said, we all know that some do get cancers of the throat and mouth but it is still realtively rare as compared to lung cancer of the cigarette smoker).
Like I said, I am limited to a very few places that do allow pipe or cigar smoking and everyone who enters accepts this. I would never smoke my pipe in a place that does not allow this (owners choice). So if a "Joe's cigar/pipe Martini bar wanted to exist, you would still want it outlawed, even if you would probably never step foot in the place? Thanks. Joe's wife and kids thank you as well.

22 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

What Brian said. Exactly.

Hey Brian ... I enjoyed a nice Partagas Black Label last Friday.

22 Jan 2003 | p8 said...

Brian I agree with you. I think there still should be places like "Joe's cigar/pipe Martini bar" for those that want to smoke.

22 Jan 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Whoa! Common ground.

There *is* a way around the current laws in California, Florida, etc. You open a "private club", that is to say, you charge an annual "membership fee" for your bar.

22 Jan 2003 | Brian said...

P8, I respect your statistics. 3000 deaths of non-smokers per year, and 35,000 deaths from heart disease are being attributed to environmental Tobacco smoke. It would be interesting to break those down and see how many of the 3000 were "restaurant workers" who never exposed themselves to smokers other than in bars and restaurants. I also await the result of California and other places that have banned smoking in public to see if restaurant workers live longer now that smoking is gone. If a smoking ban in restaurants and bars is truly to "protect" these workers, than statitics like this shall be sought.
On the other hand, is the average restaurant goer (who sits in a (partial) non-smoking section with very limited exposure to these toxins truly significantly endangering his health? Any more than say, cooking on a BBQ grill (and eating the charred meat) which some may do as often as they visit these restaurants. We may never know the answers, but it's clear the prohibitionist will win and smoking will be banned all over the country eventually, and the we everyone will be happy... until............the next villian is sought.
And that is the whole point the defenders of smoking are making. That it won't stop once smoking is banned. There is always a fight to fight for those who want to save us. After we eliminate the rist of lung cancer, maybe we should go after colon cancer?
When they prove the risk of colon cancer can be limited by not serving or eating charred red meat (let alone the deaths of many cows), we may find some who will want the practice banned. The cooks are exposed to Carcinogens all the time, they may need protection. etc. etc. I don't agree with it, but I see present the case for consideration.
To all, Go ahead, ban smoking, but be warned it will come back to haunt. little brother is growing up and will soon become "big". Keep feeding him, he's hungry.

30 Jan 2003 | cuartis said...

"If I want to open a restaurant where smoking is permitted, I should be able to open a restaurant where smoking is permitted. Go or don't ...........
There's my long winded diatribe."
Curt Mullegut

01 Feb 2003 | Brian Wayne said...

If I choose to eat smoked mullet even though the ministry of protections has outlawed smoked fish (due to the high levels of carcinogens present in smoked meats and the health hazards presented to the cooks and patrons of said restaurant), I should not complain. They are protecting us all.

However if a restaurant chooses to not allow me to eat my fish in their restaurant, simply because I have a mullet hair cut, then I should get into college before anyone else, as I am a minority in today's society, and this is the right thing to do.

Also, if I choose to smoke in my car, I should have that right as long as I don't talk on my cell phone and I am not driving an SUV and listening to unauthorized copies of CD's in MP3 format at the same time. Smoking while driving should not be targeted next.

I will work on the hill to ensure this is enacted into LAW.
-Your next representative, the half wit.

02 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Brian Wayne ... or Tim Slagle?? Either way, you get MY vote!

:-)

03 Feb 2003 | Yo said...

Yo

04 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Guess who's banning smoking now? Ireland: Smoking extinguished in Irish pubs

09 Feb 2003 | Brian Wayne said...

How about a comprimise?
If proper ventilation is installed, we allow smoking?
Not good enough, I know. You want smoking banned; period.
just like, no matter what argument is presented ot go after Iraq, it won't be good enough. I love Liberals.
Please outlaw everything. I am weak and need the government to keep me from harming myself and others.

09 Feb 2003 | Maurice Cranston said...

By definition a liberal is a man who believes in liberty.

15 Feb 2003 | Brian Wayne said...

Interesting remark. A liberal is a person who believes in Liberty? Ok, but by definition, Liberty is The condition of being free from restriction or control. Or, better yet, the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. (except smoking, of course).

17 Mar 2003 | MKalvin said...

I work in a bar in New York City and I despise the smoking-ban. Michael Bloomberg can rot for it. It complicates my life as a security worker, as a smoker, and it takes away my rights to engage in a licit activity on private property.

You can't argue otherwise: if you think a bar is public property, go into a bar with a bouncer, offend the bartender, and then refuse to leave when you are asked to. See what happens.

Anti-smokers disgust me to the point of nausea. They know better than you do. They are the great masters of the whiney self-righteous argument that drips with heartrending, emotion-based 'argument,' (tobacco companies are terrorists...,' 'we want to protect the children...') but the point buried under the all the whining and single-issue concern is some deep and sick need to eliminate someone else's right to do something that they choose not to do, or cannot do. They want to give up someone else's rights for them.

Reasoning by analogy:
A catholic man wants to outlaw abortion for Jewish women. If this seems right or fair to you, go take a course in ethics.

Here are the Answers to the inevitable counterarguments (while the violins swell):
Smoking kills: True. So does drinking. In time so does everything.

Smoking has a fallout to others: stay away from me while I do it and it will not hurt you. Honest, I'll be careful not to blow it at you, even in the street.

Smoking hurts bar workers: those who smoke know what they're in for or don't care. Those who don't can damned well find something else to do. Working in bars is a hard business. Think about it: we sell poison to losers and live off their pocket change: under Bloomberg's stinking proposal, the right to smoke-free air is the only right that bar employees have. You want to give us another one? I'll take health-insurance, or vacation pay, or anything else that office workers get. A smoking-ban to protect bar-employees is BS. It's pure, shining hypocrisy. It's mana from heaven for yuppies and neo-puritans who always have a good word to throw in about things that don't have a damned thing to do with them.

You want to be a concerned citizen crusading for clean air in bars? I got an idea for you, open one. Go to some place that isn't sunny, tofu-munching, lipo-suctioned California--some place with weather they didn't make up in Disneyland--and open a bar that forbids smoking surrounded by places that do and see how long you last.

Talk is cheap, sweeties. You think it's a great idea vote with your wallet. Try it. Vote with your kid's college fund and with no safety-net from a mayor's office that knows more about your life and needs than you do.

Show me that kind of stones and I'll even work for you: I'll make people put it out for you.

Until then, STFU

17 Mar 2003 | R said...

MKalvin, you missed a hundred points, but the argument for passion's sake is sound. New York will not go smoke-free, ban or not. We will find our ways.

27 Mar 2003 | IZZY said...

yo yo tis is EMINEM
ur mamma
ur dadda
ur bald headed granny
she's 929 and she thinks she's so fine
but she's goin dwn like frankinstein
she wished she wished
ooooo, she just got dissed

28 Mar 2003 | H0H0 said...

Why is it other people always feel as if they know what's better for you than you do. Why do people get so angry when you don't agree with them. I thought in this country was based on freedom. Freedom to choose the way you live, who you live with or without. Who are are all these people that want to kill an industry by forcing their wants on business owners. If you don't like the way I run my business go someplace else. Why are you trying to dictate what I do. Get a life of your own!

29 Mar 2003 | mkalvin said...

HOHO
The problem is not that people know better than you or think that they do. That's an opinion and there's nothing you can do about that. Some people won't feel that they are really living until you've validated their way of life by sharing it wether or not it make sense to you.

The problem is that they can *impose* aspects of their lifestyle on you and they are perfectly willing to do so. This problem manifests itself in bar and restaurant smoking bans. You can understand that kind of ban in offices where people are thrown together and have to share a space. In that situation, the smell or respiratory discomfort on someone's part makes a smoking ban justifiable.

The real problem crops up when you see someone with some legal justification for a smoking ban on your leisure time in order to protect employees in really marginal business like bartending--smoke-free air in a place that serves poison for a living.

The problem there is that anti-smokers feel justified in protecting employees who are afraid of smoke or who are discomfited by it. Given the figures that say that passive smoke is deadly, deadly, deadly (even if the employee himself/herself is a smoker who just doesn't care) it is possible, just possible, to justify making taste and preference a matter of law.

Of course, the problem with that is that the smarts of the average person, coupled with our education system create an atmosphere where most of society is helpless before *any* statistical justification for anything.

In order to challenge the statistical basis for a law or policy, you have to have access to the original data used in the study and you have to have the skills necessary to make sense of the original statistician's work to understand whether or not the information has been used to produce a truthful or even meaningful result.

Most people just don't have it so that anyone with an agenda on either side of any issue (tobacco companies did try to tell us smoking was harmless for years) can wave statistics around and John Q. Public can only stand around slack-jawed while the results determine voting, tax-policy, or whether or not you have to stand in the rain to smoke seven-dollar-a-pack cigarettes on a saturday night.

Sucks, doesn't it?

30 Mar 2003 | Larry said...

If I went into the L and started pumping out some toxic gas, I'd be arrested for assault and various other violations. Yet if I walk into a public place, light a little stick and start blowing gases into people's faces when those gases are proven to cause potentially deadly health issues, I am not arrested and charged for assault.

If the government has the power to regulate emissions from factories for the public good, if it can force private businesses deemed as public accomodations to serve women, gays, handicapped, aliens, whomever, if it can set minimum wages and maximum hours, if it can enforce the right of workers to form unions, if it can regulate so many aspects of our lives and shape so much of our relationships among each other, why then can it not regulate the emissions of dangerous toxins in public places? And further, why can I not as a citizen apply the law of torts and public nuisances? Imagine the outcry...

And for smokers, here's my response. Whenever a smoker lights up next to me, exercising his "right" to smoke in public and blow his noxious fumes, I simply whip out my little can of compressed fart, and spray it in his direction. Funny that, they don't seem to want me to enjoy my right to emit fart in their direction... and it isn't even going to kill them. It just smells as bad as what they are blowing out of their MOUTHS.

30 Mar 2003 | Larry said...

I love it:

Certainly, second-hand cigarette smoke is dangerous. But most of the evidence is based on regular, close contact over many years, as in a home. There is little if any evidence to suggest that occasional, brief exposure in a non-smoking section of a restaurant harms one's lungs. Employees in a smoky bar may face greater exposure to smoke, but employees do have the option to seek work in a smoke-free environment. from here

So, a woman who is sexually harrassed in her workplace always has the option to seek employment elsewhere? I love that thought process.

Look, if we grant to the government the power to regulate our activities when those activities may harm others, then we have granted that power. Smoking can harm the person standing next to you, even if it takes fifty years. Therefore, the government has been, through a century of court-tested precedent, granted a power to regulate the smoker's activity. That's something we as a people have clearly chosen. I personally feel that smoking should be banned anywhere there is a non-smoker around. You are smoking outside in the park, and a non-smoker sits down on the bench with you: you put out your cigarette. Your right to smoke and harm yourself is over-ridden by the right of your fellow citizen to breath air free of your toxins, no matter where you may be.

30 Mar 2003 | Scott said...

If this does happen what is next. No fatty foods because it can cause a heart attack? How about not selling booze because you have to drive home (DUI). I can understand the fact that smoking is just bad for you, so is this bann.

Next thing we know we will have to dress a certain way in order to eat. Or speak a certain language. people Please think once in awhile. Are men and women are in a war to fight for our freedom and this is what we do?

If you don't like to smoke stay home and cook it is cheaper and you can play your own music.

30 Mar 2003 | Bigman said...

Next you people will support the banning of being able to post your own opinoin. Sorry non smokers you put more CMox in the air with your car eveyday, unless you own a honda Hy or walk. F- You

think

03 Apr 2003 | Kerri said...

I think it's insanity what they're trying to do. I think a smarter action is to improve air ventalation and have further regulations on that level.
It's going to hurt businesses and people will rebel!

04 Apr 2003 | Brian Chido said...

There are many things that are NOT regulated that are more deadly than 2nd hand tobacco smoke. We can make a list of hundreds of food items that are proven to cause cancer, heart disease, diabetes, tooth decay, high blood pressure, kidney failure, acid reflux, ulcers, toxic shock, liver disease obesity, and of course the most deadly of all "heart attack". it's rather pointless to try to protect us from everything and maintain our free society.

The world is a deadly place. Let's just live life and try to avoid conditons that we feel may be harmful.

This should apply to smoking as well. 2nd hand smoke may be harmful if exposed for long enough time. It's not guaranteed, even a heavy smoker isn't sure to get cancer, but he sure has a higher chance than the occassional restaurant goer, who happens to get a whiff of a camel from the guy accross the restaurant in the smoking section.

But then again, he is exposed to so many deadly toxins during his life, if he did devlop some life shortening disease, we can never be sure what really did him in.

Was it those years of standing at the bus depot breathing those noxious exhaust fumes, or was it the job he had working in a garage sniffing car exhaust all day, or washing his hands with harsh chemicals, or was it those years of working as a life guard on the beach (exposure to the cancer causing UV rays). Maybe it was that job as a cook at the restaurant breathing that cancer causing smoke from charred meat
Could have been that job in the steel mill, or maybe it was that job as a house painter? or maybe it was that time he worked for the..........hmmmmm......

Anyway, if any of you think you are so pure that the occasional exposure to a persons cigarette smoke while in a restaurant is going to hurt you, than you best stay in your house and never leave (oops, the house may do you in as well, Radon, dust, climate control

Maybe living in a bubble would do the trick.

So all of you feel tobacco is the ONE. The one that deserves to be singled out. We need to protect workers and patrons from 2nd hand smoke, even though their chances are probably no greater than that of the jobs mentioned above, move into that bubble, because the world is a dangerous place, with or without catching a whiff of tobacco smoke.

And do your civic duty the next time you see a fat man eating a big mac, tell him that we need a law to protect him from the evil corporations that produce and market these awful toxins to his system.

05 Apr 2003 | McQuillen said...

I'm from Wisconsin. My son was born premature, and has been diagnosed with chronic lung disease. We have been very lucky so far, in that he hasn't had any complications from it yet. But, his lungs will always be too small for his body, and he will always be at risk of getting athsma. We were given strict orders from his doctors to keep him away from cigarette smoke, and we have done a good job. However, it has not been easy.

Wisconsin leaves the smoking ordinances to the city governments. Madison was great, because most of the restarants are smoke free. But the smaller towns are more difficult because you have to search for the no smoking sign (that small picture you can't see from the car, so you have to get out and look for it). Sometimes we make several stops before we find a smoke free facility.

I love the one I read earlier about the urinating in public pools, its a good comparison. I mean, its the same thing: Other people shouldn't have to suffer for one persons pleasure. Why put the health of others at risk so you can have your fix?

I must agree, however, that property owners should be allowed to permit smoking as long as that owner meets the right criteria. In Madison, any business that caters to the public must have a permit from the city to allows smokers to smoke in the building. To aquire a permit, the building must be fitted with a ventalation system that meets the requirements set by county ordinance. The systems can be very expensive to install, so only the businesses that expect smokers to visit them have them installed. As far as I know, It has not had a major effect on the economy one way or the other.

14 Apr 2003 | Mary Goldstein said...

Hello from San Diego!
I am a smoker in California and must summarize that the smoking ban has been a very beneficial law for our state. It is wonderful to dance in a packed club and be able to breathe! And I emphasize packed. To those in less progressive and more conservative parts of the US that listen to the rhetoric that the law will "clear out clubs" and hurt businesses, come to Cali sometime and you will see something quite different...It is no big deal at all to go out to the patios that they set up, it actually gives variety and a better chance to meet people when doing so.

18 Apr 2003 | Bart Peterson said...

We are fighting in Iraq for their freedoms while ours here get slowly taken away (one by one). If second hand smoke cause 3000 deaths per year (and they are probably so old they wouldn't have lived much longer before something else got them), then just think of some other freedoms we could eliminate that will save even more lives. #1) Raise the drinking age to 24, since 21 to 24 year olds pay higher insurance to drive and are more likely to be involve in a DWI then older married people. #2) Ban drinking alcohol in bars because there might be people leaving by themselves. #3) Eliminate swimming and boating in all lakes and mandate that all swimming pools have no deeper than 3 ft. of water. #4) Eliminate all prescription drugs that could become habit forming (I wonder how many people that kills per year before they get old). #5)Ban smoking, eating, putting on makeup, listening to music in all moving vehicles because it may cause as much or more of a distraction than a person in the passenger seat sipping on a cold beer. #6) Eliminate sports like football because you might die of heat exhaustion in training camp. #7) Ban all motorcycles from paved roads because you can't wear a seatbelt on them. #8) Require all passengers in a moving car to wear a football helmet to protect against head injuries in case there is an accident. #9) Ban all people who have more than 2 inches of fat hanging over their belt from entering fast food restaurants. #10) Eliminate camping due to the high amount of smoke caused by campfires (and it's worse than a smokey bar when the wind isn't blowing) #11) Raise the driving age to 24 - after all, statistics show that younger inexperienced drivers cause more accidents. But on the other hand, if they don't start until they are 24, the inexperienced group will be moved to 24 to 30 year old range. #12) Eliminate School busing for racial equality. It appears as if this has caused urban sprawl so the WASP's have to move across the county line so that they can keep their schools mostly white (Carmel, Indiana is a good example). Urban sprawl causes more fossil fuel burning and more outdoor polution because we tend to drive twice as many miles now than we did when cities were close and compact. #13) Ban Religion and Professional sports events except on TV because we will have less outdoor polution from those traveling to and from and less of a chance we will die in a car accident. #14) Ban bleach and other harmful cleaners from being used in our homes, workplace, and shools because they might cause about 5000 deaths annually in the nation (actually, that figure is probably much higher than second hand smoking with janitorial personnel) My point is, before we pass laws that restrict our freedoms, just keep looking down the list at what might be next.

20 Apr 2003 | Mary Goldstein said...

Bart, most of your suggestions actually sound like viable options! J.S. Mill once noted on regulation that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." This means arresting people that choose to drive drunk, that endanger innocent people because of their own irresponsibility. This means curbing smoking where many others are affected, esp. in light of very strong evidence that second hand smoke is damaging (and moreso for prolonged exposure, as in the case of restruant and bar employees) This means regulation of corporations that choose to pollute the environment with unacceptable levels of deadly chemicals (mecury, lead, etc.) The common thread here is regulating CHOICE (ie freedom) when the agent is too irresponsible to consider the harm over others.

24 Apr 2003 | nicolas sivolella said...

The smoking ban as yet another infringement on human rights? What about the rights of non smokers not to inhale the stuff. All arguments against the ban conveniently leave out that question....except one obtuse writer above who said, "Non smokers shouldn't go to bars if they don't like it." Hey, I enjoy the social atmosphere of bars just like anyone, but I've always, always loathed and resented ingesting second hand smoke. And I congratulate law makers commited to instituting the law-- not something fascist as some ridiculously cry, but a law that protects the public at large, which good laws do.

Several years ago I was in a bar in New York, and hating the smoke, I said to my friend that bars should be smoke free here, like in California. My friend, a smoker, laughed like it was the most ridiculous thing he ever heard, and he said such a law would never happen. I sadly agreed. Last month New York went smoke free in bars, (ha ha) and it's so great it still seems too good to be true. What a difference! I walk into my favorite lounge in the east village and can smell the attractive aroma of lighted candles on the tables. And many smokers I talk to have to admit it, "it's nice."

I honestly don't understand how smokers are so resentful at a law that keeps air clear and breathable. And more brutally honest I have no sympathy for their whines. Non- smokers have had to put up with their foulish habit for way too long. I hope the law continues to spread, as indeed it will.

29 Apr 2003 | Josh said...

I am a naturally born US citizen, and I have rights in this country. I am highly allergic to most musks and pefumes. They cause my eyes to tear and invoke asthma attacks. I am tired of suffering for some idiot's personal freedom to wear overbearing cologne. I am requesting that my local congressperson begin lobbying for a ban on frangrance in public locations.

I also have parents who died of heart disease b/c they were overweight. Obesity is a growing problem in the US and I've seen several reports lately about how much money this is costing our health care system. I am asking my elected represntatives to please ban fast food, including caffeine, sucrose, and fat from the commonwealth of massachusetts.

We all know that McDonalds isnt good for you, but people indulge in it anway. My heart goes out to those poor immigrant kids who are forced to work at McDonalds b/c when you leave the restrauant you can smell the grease-laden particles on your clothing, in your hair, and on your clothes. It's not fair to them and it's not fair to me. I mean - french fries (oops - sorry - freedom fries) taste great, but is it really worth the risk to the common public to allow them to slowly kill themselves (and poor kids from Bolivia who come to this fine country for work and only end up at Burger King for minimum wage??)

The Coca-Cola and PesiCo corporations are part of a vast conspiracy that's been hidden for years. They have a secret corporate agenda to poison and kill you with their supersized vats of caffeine (a deadly heart stimulant), and sucrose (the use of which - if not regulated by the government leads to diabetes). I also believe that Starbucks should be made illegal not only for the caffeine poisons they're distributing, but also b/c of the number of air-polluting SUV's I incessantly record in their parking lots.

C'mon people! Wake up! This is the US of A and no one should have to suffer these attrocties! Saddam may have gassed & tortured his people privately, but we're allowng US corporations & big business to get away with murder and this is undeniably cruel, sadistic, and most definitly unpatriotic!

12 May 2003 | Cherise said...

i think smoking ... srry g2g

14 May 2003 | Candace said...

SMOKERS WHO SMOKE IN PUBLIC PLACES ARE RUDE AND UNCONSIDERATE!!!!!they are uncosiderate of other people's health. If smokers want to smoke they can do it in their own house, there is no need for smokers to have to smoke while eating dinner in a restraunt if anywhere in public. Second hand smoke is harmful to people's health. WHY SHOULD IT BE ANYONES RIGHT TO KILL SOMEONE? second hand smoke can kill and harm others! There is a ban against killing to there should be a ban against public smoking!

14 May 2003 | Marco said...

Okay, much of the arguments against smoking ban seem to center around freedom. Laws must regulate improper and irrational behavior.

Laws do not allow people to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs; such behavior is dangerous for the general public. I you drive under the influence, you may kill your self and others.

Sure, if you really want to kill your self, go ahead, just don't take us with you. Now, smoking also kills the smokers, and yes, others that breath the second hand smoke.

The individual rights end exactly where the other individual rights starts. For all smokers that insist in smoking in public places: I you want to kill your self, jump off a bridge or something.

If you are not able to behave responsible towards the general public, we'll have to make law to regulate irresponsible behavior. Public places must be safe for all and the books are full of laws regulating behavior that place the public at risk.

Nicotine is many times more addictive than cocaine or other illegal drugs; they have a huge impact on healthcare industry. Yes, all of us pay for it; I am all for treating any illness even if is self-inflicting.

How about the restaurant/bar employees? In cities that have passed laws there is initially a loss of business, the loss usually recovers with in 6 month (people get use to it). I believe workplaces should be safe, why do we have to force restaurant/bar employees to breath second hand smoke? Smoking has been banned from most workplaces in many cities and states.

Lets be real! Smoking kills! If you want to kill your self by smoking, go ahead, and please don't pollute the air I breath, I have no will to hurt my self, and if I ever do, I will make sure my behavior does not hurt anyone around me.

19 May 2003 | bronwen said...

All well and good re politics and health. Why do people go to bars - isn't one of the little reasons for a little intellectual stimulation? You go to meet people, not just pick-ups or old pals but interesting people from France, say (well, maybe not now .....) or Finland or Morocco. They have interesting things to say. Just as they're saying them, whoops off they have to go outside to have a smoke and your connection is gone. Are smelly clothes and dry cleaning bills more important than human connections? There are lots of smokers and non-smokers in relationships, do we have to form camps and stop them from meeting? Treating smokers like lepers is small minded and silly, they might be the most intelligent people in the bar, you might learn something from them, they might have a little addiction to tobacco but you've run them off and you'll never be ever to grow and find out about them any more.

21 Jun 2003 | john w k said...

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

TYRANTS IN TALLAHASSEE…smoking ban crowd

May 24th, 2003

Well, it appears Florida’s Legislature has decided to use its office of public trust to enforce the wishes of an intolerant, belligerent and factious group of voters which approved a state wide voter initiative, Amendment 6, demanding the force of government to be used to forbid smoking on privately owned property, and likewise forbid businesses owners to allow smoking within their business establishments.

What is most amazing is Florida’s Legislators, as well as other state legislators, in pandering to this factious group of voters, is willing to ignore their oath of office, the rule of law, constitutionally protected rights, and even ignore the fact that the United States Supreme Court has emphatically stated that constitutionally protected rights may not be voted away simply because a majority wishes to do so!

The rights in question are enumerated in our various state constitutions, and in our Federal constitution, and are of two basic kinds:

(a) those which are created by a constitution such as the right to a “uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools” [see Florida‘s Constitution], which, it ought to be noted, has been neglected by Florida’s State Legislature and probably every state legislature.

(b) those rights which are not created by a constitution, but are recognized as unalienable rights of mankind, such as the unalienable right to life, liberty and those rights associated with property ownership, and are protected by our constitutions “…from the vicissitudes of political controversy…beyond the reach of majorities and officials…”

In regard to constitutionally created rights the Florida Constitution has created a political right called the initiative process, touted by its supports to allow voters to express their will and compel an unresponsive state legislature to carry out the “will of the People“, but which, in reality, may very well happen to only be the will of a vocal and intolerant mob, and may only be a small fraction of the actual population of the State, as was the case with the approval of Florida’s Amendment 6.

And now, Florida’s legislators claim they are just carrying out the will of the people and are enforcing a voter approved amendment to Florida’s Constitution which they likewise assert is constitutional because of Florida’s constitutionally created initiative process.

But the truth is, Florida’s Declaration of Rights declares:

“The enunciation herein of certain rights [which it is assumed would include the initiative process] shall not be construed to deny or impair others retained by the people.”

These words are binding upon state legislators and among property and business owners as well as patrons and renters; to the rich and poor alike, to smokers and non smokers, and to an employer as well as those who are employed. Constitutional rights [including the right of initiative] are forbidden to be used by one faction to vote away, deny or impair other constitutional rights retained by the people…at least not those classified by the founding fathers to be the basic rights of mankind…the right to life, liberty and those rights associated with the ownership of property!

Confirming this truth, the United States Supreme Court has emphatically stated that:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” see: WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624

And, the Court, in LUCAS v. COLORADO GEN. ASSEMBLY, 377 U.S. 713 (1964) continued from the above paragraph by adding:

“A citizen's constitutional rights can hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be…”

Likewise, and only a few years ago, the Court, in ROMER v. EVANS, affirmed that a constitutionally protected and fundamental right could not be voted away by a statewide referendum!

It should also be noted what the United States Supreme Court stated in Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905) with regard to regulatory legislation:

“It must, of course, be conceded that there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power by the state. There is no dispute concerning this general proposition. Otherwise the 14th Amendment would have no efficacy and the legislatures of the states would have unbounded power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was enacted to conserve the morals, the health, or the safety of the people; such legislation would be valid, no matter how absolutely without foundation the claim might be. The claim of the police power would be a mere pretext,- become another and delusive name for the supreme sovereignty of the state to be exercised free from constitutional restraint. This is not contended for. In every case that comes before this court, therefore, where legislation of this character is concerned, and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty….”

To this date there is no credible evidence to prove some of the outlandish statements made concerning “second hand smoke”, and especially no evidence with regard to “second hand smoke” and the actual air quality conditions of some of our nation’s businesses affected by smoking ban legislation to justify the kind of smoking bans imposed upon them by the intolerant smoking ban crowd. For example, we find in an article dated August 13, 2002, New York Mayor Proposes Citywide Smoking Ban that Mayor Bloomberg alleges "Working one 8 hour shift in a smoky bar exposes one to the same amount of carcinogens as smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day,"

In the same article Bloomberg’s Health Commissioner, Thomas Frieden, is quoted as saying: "Secondhand smoke causes more cancer deaths than asbestos, benzene, arsenic, pesticides, hazardous waste sites, industrial chemicals, contaminated sledge, and consumer products combined,…. Secondhand smoke kills approximately 1,000 New York City residents every year. That is why we must act now."

As it turns out, the allegations made by Mayor Bloomberg and his Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, as well as many of those made by the promoters of smoking bans on privately owned property, are found to be groundless, especially if applied to an average restaurant, billiard hall, bowling alley, or other such privately owned businesses affected by the newly adopted smoking prohibitions. See: Mayor Bloomberg Exaggerates Secondhand Smoke Risk

Surely, Florida’s Legislature, as well as other state legislatures are fully aware of the people’s fundamental rights___ rights which are unalienable and inherent in mankind, and may not be voted away nor infringed upon, and especially not by those who took an oath to uphold and protect those rights. If not, perhaps, in addition to reading what the Unites States Supreme Court has stated above with regard to such rights, legislators voting for such bans ought to read what the Attorney General of the State of Florida has noted in AGO 77-139:

“It is undisputed that an individual has an inherent right to engage in a lawful business or trade. It is also axiomatic, however, that a municipal corporation (as an arm of the state) may impose reasonable restrictions upon the conduct of such activities in the interest of the public peace, health, morals, or general welfare, so long as such regulation is exercised reasonably, within constitutional limitations, not arbitrarily, and not in such a manner as to restrain trade or to unfairly discriminate.”

Indeed, and within the lawful boundaries of regulatory legislation, which requires it to be reasonable and within constitutional limitations, and not arbitrary nor restrain trade or unfairly discriminate, the Florida Legislature enacted the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act in the year 2000, as did many other States enact such legislation to accommodate the concerns of non smokers while at the same time considered individual rights associated with property ownership…creating a reasonable balance respecting property and business owners rights as well as an alleged public health concern.

But the intolerant smoking ban mob was not satisfied with reasonable legislation and decided to go further and trample upon the rights of others, and now, for some unknown reason, the Florida Legislature, as well as other State Legislatures, have decided to pander to this nation wide mob which chooses to use the force of government to control the property of others for their own personal comfort and enjoyment, to the exclusion of an identifiable group [smokers], and to do so without the permission of the owners of said property…the characteristics of such action being within the definition of fascism!

Question is, what is to be done with the tyrants in Tallahassee, as well as other state legislators, and public servants like Mayor Bloomberg, who are pandering to a factious intolerant voting block willing to subjugate the unalienable rights of mankind and our constitutional system to suit their own personal comfort and enjoyment?

John William Kurowski, Founder

American Constitutional Research Service

Seminole, Fl

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]

29 Jun 2003 | Brian Wayne said...

Amen Brother

25 Jul 2003 | k.m. said...

I am a smoker who previously lived and worked in Chicago as a bartender, and now I am a resident of L.A. where there is no smoking anywhere. I can't say what it will do to business in Chicago, but the bars and restaurants in Los Angeles are just as busy as they ever were. I actually don't mind going outside to smoke. It's nice because at the end of the night you don't completely reek. I'd like to point out though, that the weather in L.A. is conducive to this year-round, unlike Chicago. The warm months are limited there.

Some bars/restaurants in L.A. have tried to accomodate smokers by quartering off certain sections of their establishments with actual walls and doors and you may smoke in these "rooms" which are highly ventilated. These are pretty rare though. I think there are special city permits that these places have to pay for. Not cheaply either.

Another point that I'd like to make is...In Chicago, even supposed non-smokers smoke in bars. They like to call themselves "social" smokers. So if the city says they are doing it for the "safety" of these non-smokers, then they are clearly being misleading. It's not second-hand smoke when you're the one smoking.

I'm torn on this one. Because I know the benefits of not smoking in public places, and I know the detriments. Regardless, the city government will do whatever it wants...good luck Chicago.

k.m.
Los Angeles

01 Aug 2003 | E.R. said...

During the formation of this countrys constitution , the Federalist papers were written to debate the wisdom and context of our constitution and the powers granted to government . Alexander Hamilton had the wisdom to see this "Ban" and associated "tax burdening" on smokers or any other group . The final paragraph of paper # 35 spells it out . However, oppression is legal in this free country since it was considered to be beyond the decency of politicians to attemt such schemes as they would end in the loss of votes and office after the public saw the folly in allowing any group or class of citizen to be taxed unfairly or restricted through legislation .
The topic here is not for or against smoking , it's about liberty and justice being trampled by ideology . We are facing a great challenge in our democracy . Do we allow government the power to oppress any class of citizen for causes it deems worthy at any given time ? Should liberties be used as platforms of political campaigns ? This road leads to folly if followed and those who pave it should be voted from office before they destroy this country with their arrogance .

08 Aug 2003 | john w k said...

The Arizona Republic

Jul. 23, 2003 07:45 PM

TEMPE - A U.S. District Court judge dismissed a lawsuit claiming Tempe's smoking ban was unconstitutional ..Judge Roslyn O. Silver said in Tuesday's ruling that the ban "easily passes constitutional muster." She stated that a city does not need proof that smoking is a hazard, but can base regulation on the belief that is so. She also stated the ban is not an illegal. See Suit vs. smoking ban dismissed

AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

Smoking bans and judicial tyranny

July 28, 2003

I am amazed a federal Judge [Roslyn O. Silver] would suggest that folks in government are free to impose regulatory legislation upon privately owned property, restricting a use of that property, based upon a mere belief.

A principle of law allowing folks in government to be free to legislate as they please based upon a “belief” may have some truth if said legislation did not directly affect unalienable and constitutionally protected rights of our citizens. But in the instant case, [Clicks Billiards Inc.] constitutionally protected rights are at issue, e.g., rights associated with property ownership and individual liberty, and such a theory allowing folks in government to encroach upon an individual’s rights associated with property ownership or their liberty based upon a mere “belief” is immediately contradicted when considering the spirit and intent of our written constitutions. For instance, our federal constitution declares: “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation…”…probable cause is not a mere belief and requires much more than a “belief” before a warrant shall be issued!

Likewise, our 14th Amendment guarantees that no State shall deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Due process of law intentionally forbids actions by folks in government which is “unfair“, “arbitrary” and/or “capricious“, and regulatory legislation based upon “belief” and not upon factual evidence, when it affects constitutionally protected rights, is forbidden by the legislative intent for which “due process of law” has been adopted by the people of America as the law of their land.

Principle of law as stated by the U.S. Supreme Court:

“A finding without evidence is arbitrary and baseless. And if the government's contention is correct, it would mean that the Commission had a power possessed by no other officer, administrative body, or tribunal under our government. It would mean that, where rights depended upon facts, the Commission could disregard all rules of evidence, and capriciously make findings by administrative fiat. Such authority, however beneficently exercised in one case, could be injuriously exerted in another, is inconsistent with rational justice, and comes under the Constitution's condemnation of all arbitrary exercise of power. See: INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v LOUISVILLE & N.R.CO. 227 U.S. 88

Same principle, again stated by the Court:

“It must, of course, be conceded that there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power by the state. There is no dispute concerning this general proposition. Otherwise the 14th Amendment would have no efficacy and the legislatures of the states would have unbounded power, and it would be enough to say that any piece of legislation was enacted to conserve the morals, the health, or the safety of the people; such legislation would be valid, no matter how absolutely without foundation the claim might be. The claim of the police power would be a mere pretext,- become another and delusive name for the supreme sovereignty of the state to be exercised free from constitutional restraint. This is not contended for. In every case that comes before this court, therefore, where legislation of this character is concerned, and where the protection of the Federal Constitution is sought, the question necessarily arises: Is this a fair, reasonable, and appropriate exercise of the police power of the state, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right of the individual to his personal liberty….”, See:
Lochner v. New York 198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Same principle:

Legal Opinion 99-0-17

Lorain City Council

200 West Erie Avenue, 7th Floor

Lorain, Ohio 44052

Legal requirements to be met for government regulation to be within constitutional limits:

“…it must first have evidence of a particular problem affecting the health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”…

“that can be demonstrated by some factual evidence, and not just from opinions held by certain members of the community”

“Council must obtain some evidence to support these assertions, and may not rely upon mere conclusions or opinion evidence or hearsay.”

“if Council does in fact identify a legitimate problem from the evidence that is actually presented to it, Council must then determine how to remedy the problem. For example, does the problem, which Council identifies, really require the complete ban …”

“Police powers may not be applied in such a manner as to be arbitrary or capricious… is there a rational basis?”

“The constitutional considerations involved in adopting regulations are both Due Process and Equal Protection requirements of the Constitution. In a case dealing with recreational vehicles, the Eighth District Court of Appeals in, Euclid v. Fitzthum, (1976), 48 Oh.App.2d 297, at 300-301, stated, "The vice of the present ordinance is that the record will support neither an application of the ordinance which bears a substantial, and therefore reasonable, relationship to the public health, safety, morals or welfare nor the imposition of a taxonomic scheme based upon any state of facts that may reasonably justify it. Part of the lack of the reasonableness is exposed by evidence of an uneven regulatory application that contravenes the imperatives of the Yick Wo case."4

4 Yick Wo v. Hopkins, (1886), 118 U.S. 356, which involved the unequal application of regulations of laundries in San Fransisco, California. The regulations resulted in discrimination against Chinese laundry owners, and therefore lacked any legitimate purpose while having a detrimental effect upon persons of Chinese ancestry.

Also see what Florida’s Attorney General has stated : AGO 77-139

“It is undisputed that an individual has an inherent right to engage in a lawful business or trade. It is also axiomatic, however, that a municipal corporation (as an arm of the state) may impose reasonable restrictions upon the conduct of such activities in the interest of the public peace, health, morals, or general welfare, so long as such regulation is exercised reasonably, within constitutional limitations, not arbitrarily, and not in such a manner as to restrain trade or to unfairly discriminate.” ,

I have not been able to find and read the written opinion of the Judge in the above mentioned case [Clicks Billiards Inc.] , nor the lawyer’s brief, so what follows is based upon what appears in the above mentioned news article.

If indeed U. S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has stated in her opinion that a city may restrict the use of privately owned property based upon a “belief” that a public hazard exists upon that particular property, I would say that Judge needs to be immediately charged with Sec. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law and removed from the bench for willfully violating her oath of office to uphold “this” constitution, which guarantees, among other rights, the right to due process of law, and was intentionally adopted to protect individual rights associated with property ownership!

But if you want to study some of the reasoning which justifies regulation of privately owned property under the banner of public health and constitutional considerations, I suggest you study City of New York v New St. Mark's Baths, 130 Misc. 2d 911, 497 N.Y.S.2d 979 (1986) scroll down to “CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS” and study the evidence produced to justify the ban. Also see:

"Where such a compelling State interest is demonstrated even the constitutional rights of privacy and free association must give way provided, as here, it is also shown that the remedy adopted is the least intrusive reasonably available."

From smoke free, to fat free, to obese free, and now, Fragrance free is a civil rights issue!

John William Kurowski, Founder

American Constitutional Research Service

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness."___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

Please note: the author of the above is a non-smoker, believes smoking is more than likely a danger to the health of those who smoke, and may be a danger under specific and unusual conditions to those in near proximity of a smoker. However, there is a much bigger picture involved…the unalienable rights of individuals to make their own choices, and, constitutionally protected rights associated with property ownership. For this larger reason the article was produced.

[Permission is hereby given to reprint this article if credit to its author and the ACRS appears in such reprint. No copyright is claimed for quotes within the article which are public domain materials.]

12 Nov 2003 | Shay said...

smokin in restaurants should be banded in restaurants.First of all,as you all know secondhand smoking is worst than smoking.That's why I think smoking should be banded in restaurants.

12 Nov 2003 | Shay said...

smokin in restaurants should be banded in restaurants.First of all,as you all know secondhand smoking is worst than smoking.That's why I think smoking should be banded in restaurants.

12 Nov 2003 | Shay said...

smokin should be banded in restaurants.First of all,as you all know secondhand smoking is worst than smoking.That's why I think smoking should be banded in restaurants.

20 Nov 2003 | blue cross blue shield information said...

ban in cali has worked out okay

03 Jan 2004 | Joe Cvengros said...

Chicago will inevitably pass an ordinance to ban smoking in all public places. We might as well be a progressive city and lead other cities into the modern age. Smoking is an aggravation for non-smokers and a health issue for employees. New York and LA, along with non-smoking facilities here in Chicago have shown that there is not a drop-off in business. I personally believe there are many people that avoid the smoke and simply don't go out. There are many places that are just too smokey for me to go into at all. In short - people have no right to pollute my air and stink up my clothes.

08 Jan 2004 | Ashleigh said...

I am an ex smoker.I personally wouldnt see a problem with having to go outside to smoke. It makes me kind of sick to sit in a place when people are smoking because not only am I getting second hand smoke but the smoke is also traveling to my food and then I eat the food the smoke has smothere. I know when I used to smoke I would always go outside because I coudnt stand the smell of smoke. Yeah I know thats very weird considering I used to smoke.