Smoking Ban
 

I live in Austin, TX and here some active people have collected enough signatures to put the issue of smoking on the ballot. Currently, we have a city wide ordinance than bans smoking in restaurants/bars if they don't make at least half there money from alcohol sales. This leads to virtually every restaurant banning smoking because none of the alcohol sales remotely approach 50% of their total sales.

This current policiy also has an effect on music venues in Austin (live music capital of the world). People under 18 cannot enter an all ages music concert unless smoking is not allowed. If smoking is allowed, people 18 and under cannot enter. This has put a noticeable strain on local bands (according to the local radio station yesterday).

The new ban would prohibit smoking at any indoor public place.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

I personally think, if it was good for businesses to ban smoking in their bar/restaurant, they would do it. No one is forcing people to go there, and if they don't like it, they can leave. The government should not be concerned here. It seems to me like an attempt to legislate utopia, rather than letting free people make their own decisions.

Toronto has banned smoking in all public and work places... I am all for this. We have public healthcare here and as we are paying to heal these people when they get sick from smoking, we should do *everything* possible to prevent the addiction in the first place.

I think that sometimes what is good for public health is more important than what is good for business. In fact, i would say that in all cases, what is good for public health is more important than what is good for business. Remember that businesses exist to serve the public. If the majority of the public decides that businesses can't do something, and that something doesn't happen to be a constitutional right, that's how it goes.

It's just more Health/PC Nazis at work. They will use the law because they know that their ideas will not actually work in the free market. If it would work in the free market, there'd be voluntary "no smoking" and "smoking" clubs, and patrons would choose which ones they went to.

It's just another example of the "slavery is freedom!" mentality.

^lol^
Another smoking thread....this should be good.
I'm totaly in favour of banning smoking in public places. Why the hell should I have to breath some addicted persons foul smoke? Just step outside and get your fix, end of problem.

Do you also ban unhealthy food? Obese people cost your healthcare billions too. Much like a cigarette, McDonald's can kill you.

I am opposed to smoking bans, but at this time they are necessary. The "free market" concept wasn't working. Almost every restaurant had smoking sections (as if the 2 feet that seperated the smoking section from the non was some magic force field), every bar allowed smoking. In exceptionally rare instances, you might find a non-smoking restaurant or bar.

But most people don't smoke. So it was readily apparent that the concept that the free market would work out the issue on its own by providing something close to proportionate representation of smokers desires and non-smokers desires simply wasn't working. There was no premium for non-smokers, even though they made up the majority of patrons.

I attribute this to the history of smoking being essentially a non-concern. Potentially, after a few decades of a smoking ban, when society has become accustomed to a lack of smoking in restaurants and bars, society will be ready to handle the responsibility on the matter. If so, we will see many restaurants that do not permit smoking and many restaurants that do - and the clientele will associate themselves with those types of restaurants, respectively.

I will never understand the inherent selfishness of this point of view...

I truly believe that my personal freedoms do not trump those of the greater good of all. If I enjoy killing myself with cigarettes I would never assume that I should impose that "enjoyment" on those who do not.

Free market is not a panacea... if it was there would have already been a plethora of non-smoking clubs... The only reason, non-smoking areas arose is because of laws...

Get over yourself and the "health/PC Nazi" comments... the truth is, public opinion is shifting. Smokers are the new pariah and they will diminish into the past with time.

I don't understand. The issue here is who decides- you or the government? Why should you have to breathe some person's smoke? They fact is- right now, you don't. You have a choice. If a bar allows smoking, and you don't like smoking, find a bar that doesn't allow smoking.

Freedom in action.

The only imposition is on the people who own these places. If you don't like smoking areas, you have the freedom to go somewhere else. No one is making you stay there.

No way, there should be no bans on smoking. What's insane is that the same people who claim a loss of freedom since the FBI has the power to look over your library card record, also claim that people should not be given a choice over whether they should be permitted to smoke in a bar/resturant.

Not yet... but there are discussions of banning trans fats entirely. Money spent on prevention is well spent as far as I'm concerned.

Obeseity is an issue that I knew someone would leap on... I have raised this issue before in the context of public healthcare... I have a problem with the system paying for knee replacement surgery for severly overweight people... The problem is, what brought them to that state? It can be a number of things, genetics and laziness are just two of many...

More money on teaching good health habits.

Long time smokers who end up with lung cancer or emphizyma... I have a hard time conjuring up the sympathy.

Except this is basically mythology. Prior to the bans, there were almost no non-smoking bars.

Totally different issues in my opinion... you want to kill yourself do it in private.

ban it, i don't want to have to smell that nasty crap when i'm enjoying a beer. The smell makes me increadibly sick, why should I suffer so you can kill yourself?

As a performing musician in Miami, I've played in clubs before the current ban and after, and I much prefer the ban. After gigs all my equipment stank for days, and I probably inhaled enough second hand smoke to add up to a pack per gig.

I see it as a workplace issue. Workers (e.g. waiters/waitresses) who don't wish to inhale second-hand smoke, which is demonstrably bad for your health, shouldn't be forced to as an unavoidable consequence of their job.

In this case, I'm totally supportive of my government...thanks.
I don't get your point of view. You're free to go outside and smoke. You have a choice.

I guess that shows that the amount of smokers patronizing these bars is significant enough to warrant not banning smoking.

I wonder if we can find similar trends with this issue and others like wearing a seat belt/helmet. Some people believe they can legislate everything because they know better than everyone else. For me it essentially comes down to an issue of person freedom. I choose to have more choices for myself, rather than try and tell everyone else what to do.

One cannot argue that by banning smoking in bars, you are increasing freedom.

Since when does someone else smoking in the same bar as you're in kill people? If it were such a clear cut case, it would be a no brainer. But it's not.

No, it doesn't show that. It shows that society had simply assumed that bars = smoking, and for years and years, that was not only acceptable, but exactly how it needed to be. There was no effective concept of a non-smoking bar. If it existed, it was that rare establishment that maybe made the news and became a novelty for its smoking policy.

The bans we are seeing are a means of breaking that assumption - that bars must have smoking. Once that assumption is broken and society becomes accustomed to the new standard, it might be possible to allow society to work out the issue on its own. But after years and years (forever) of being trained in one way, society could not switch gears. It needs assistance.
Is that even addressed to me?

A bar that doesn't allow smoking? Those didn't really exist until smoking bans. Atleast they don't really exist in my pre-ban minneapolis.

A referendum on smoking bans is democracy in action.



That dismissive logic works both ways... If you want to drink somewhere where you can smoke, no one is making you go to a bar. Go somewhere else.

Society has assumed perhaps that the owners of the bars in question had the right to decide what kind of smoking policy suited his/her business, and not the government.

And no, the second question was not directed at you. It was just general commentary.

Society didn't assume that at all. It's a nice dream, but it wasn't working out that way because society had already been programmed differently.

I can't comment. I have never been there.

I agree that it is democracy in action, but I also believe this to be an issue of minority rights. Democracy has allowed a lot of things in the past. Would you be in favor of raising the tax on cigarettes by $3.00 per pack?

Like I said before, it is an issue of freedom. Lets say I own a bar, and I want to allow smoking in it. People can come in and complain, say they don't like the smoking, as the owner of that bar- I should be able to tell them to go somewhere else if they don't like it. The government should not have a say in the policy.

It is clear enough to institute the ban... especially when talking about public health.

Smoking is not healthy for you or those around you. The only people really disputing this are dedicated smokers and the tobacco lobby.

Its not a dream. It is an opinion. Much like your comment: Many people thought it was working. The problem is you have an idea in your head of how it is supposed to work. You think you know what is fair and just.

Other people have ideas about fairness and justice too. Just cause you don't agree with them, doesn't mean "they don't work."

I think everyone knows that smoking is bad for you. I doubt the tobacco companies are disputing anything either because their products have labels saying that if you keep smoking, it will kill you.

This topic always amazes me. I don't see how pro-smokers view it as liberty when it obviously infringes on other peoples liberties. I don't have a problem with smokers in principle, just as I don't have a problem with people who drink or do drugs or send themselves over niagra falls in a barrel, but i do have a problem when their idea of recreation infringes on someone elses freedom. For instance, if my idea of a good time was punching people in the face, I should be allowed do do it, right? Because legislators shouldn't be able to tell me what i can and can't do, and frankly I'm addicted to punching people in the face. It doesn't matter what the punchee thinks about it, if they don't like it they can leave, right?
Eating fatty foods is only a slightly apt comparison. While obese people drain resourses with a preventable illness through healthcare etc, the 400 pound lady in the next booth eating two pound of steak tips and five baked potatoes isn't infringing on my enjoyment of my grilled shrimp salad.
Are there people who are proposing anti-smoking legislation because they feel that no one should smoke in their opinion, probably, but that doesn't make the people who want to enjoy a night out without having to come home smelling like an ashtray any less entitled.

Those labels are government imposed as well...

If it weren't for the large number of people already addicted to the things, A total ban on cigarettes would likely occur as well... The tobacco lobby being what it is and the howls of rage from addicted masses would be deafening...

(not saying that we should ban smoking just that I could see it happening)

i smoke and dont have much of a problem with this kind of ban
i dont think that forcing us outside is an unreasonable exercize of power.

but i also do not think that it follows directly from the worker health arguments that more often than not are the rationale for such bans.
it would make just as much sense to adopt the uk pub model:
no smoking at the bar,
air filters in the main rooms where people hang out.
the worker health matter is resolved, more or less, by pushing smoking away from where they are, not necessarily outdoors.

i dont see how these bans can be understood as an unreasonable exercize of government power in themselves.

all that said, i prefer bars where i can smoke if i want--i prefer not having to stand out in the cold during the winter--i am suspicious of the worker health argument, not in itself, but because it came out of a long campaign against smoking motivated by other concerns and only appeared as a tactical argument after a long conflict. i do not fundamentally believe that those who oppose smoking necessarily care at all about worker health.

1> Worker safety. The government often restricts what sorts of environments you can expose your workers to. Second hand smoke isn't safe.

I consider the above to be a strong arguement.

2> Go to an area with such rules. People go to night clubs and events just as much -- all the non-smokers who hate breathing smoke learn that it is now safe to have this lifestyle. Practically, there is a short turn finantial impact, in the long term it doesn't hurt business.

3> Bars cannot make themselves into 'free assult zones', where murder and beating people up is legal, even if there is a market for it. Smoking causes harm to others.

If smokers didn't pour carcinogens into the air, this law wouldn't even be considered.

Were that to happen, it would be once again taking away the rights of the individual because the majority knows better.

Just a question- How many here for for the legalization of marijuana and the ban of smoking in bars or even cigarettes altogether?

Also, many people claim that smokers are impinging on their (apparent) right to be free of smoke wherever they go. I guess I have to remind you that when you enter a bar, you are entering someone's private business operation, not the public square. If you enter a bar and don't like smoking, find another bar. It is (once again) about freedom.

Well, I'm one of those people, so they do exist. I never wanted to be a smoker, yet I might as well be one if I have to work regularly in a restaurant that allows smoking. And prior to the ban, that was essentially all restaurants in this particular city.

Fair and just and dream-like: instant recognition by society that there will henceforth be a perfect proportion of smoking to non-smoking bars based on the proportion of smoking to non-smoking people.

Reality without the ban: far, far away from that.

Reality with the ban: much closer to that, swung in the opposite direction from where it was which therefore more closely matches the majority of people who do not smoke.

And as I said, maybe in the future society will be ready to self-regulate itself on this matter. It has not demonstrated that ability, ergo the need for the bans.

When I say "they don't work", that should be automatically understood as an opinion. An opinion which is actually founded on something more concrete than a generic desire for liberty.

1) I don't think personal freedoms are imutable.
2) Two seperate issues. Legalize marijuana... Just don't smoke it in public places.
3) Private businesses are subject to all sorts of zoning by-laws. Smoking laws are just another in a long list. A bar or club is a public space (i.e. a space were the public convenes and therefore subject to the rule of law). Someone's home is another matter.

Totally agree. It's kinda hard to do backing vocals choking on smoke so thick that you can't see the bar except for the neon signs.

The city I live in banned smoking almost 3 years ago. At the time the smoking lobby issued threats that the majority of bars would close, etc,..but something interesting happened. The 75% of people who don't smoke started going back to the bars which now has more people in them than before.

Most people I know who smoke, and that's not many, have either quit smoking, are thinking of quitting or have seriously cut down on their habit. And it is so funny also, one person I know who recently quit smoking cited societal pressures to finally quit because he felt like a loser standing outside of a bar alone with a smoke in his hand while the people inside occasionally looked at him freezing his ass off,...for a smoke.

Also to the bars I frequent, people stay longer and return more frequently than before. The people who do smoke have integrated nicely to going outside and apparently have little problem with it now. I 've got nothing against smokers, I smoked on and off for 20 years. But for me now if the ban overturned and smoking returned, I wouldn't go to bars. And the band I play with would double our fee.

But it still has the ire of the smoking lobby. They blame sales down in bars and restaurants across the board since September as the result of the smoking ban. On restauranteur I know says the smoking ban isn't hurting him one bit. He goes on to say, what is hurting him is the NHL lockout and because of it, 43 nights a year he doesn't have a packed restaurant with people watching the game or the dinner crowd that ate before they went to the game and that doesn't include the playoffs

OFKUO... this is my experience as well.

In my experience the majority of people who work in resturaunts and bars smoke themselves. While I don't agree with the ban and think it should be up to the owner, it doesn't bother me all that much. Of coarse when its 10 below with the wind chill it will probably bother me more.

That's fine with me. I know my local schools could probably use the money.

Being a business owner has never entitled one to complete control over what is and isn't allowed in one's place of business. Bars have always been subject to regulation. The fact is that if you want to run a business anywhere you must run it in accordance with the laws in whose jurisdictions you reside. Claiming that a smoking ban somehow results in a violation of owner's rights is flawed, because once the ban is made law, and perhaps subjected to judicial review, nobody's rights are being violated. The government absolutely has a say, because that is what our government is seemingly set up to do.

First, it is amazing in most places I see a smoking ban it comes from a GOP. What happened to allowing the owner to decide what is best for his own business? If the owner wants smoking, non smoking or both with seperate sections it is his right to do so..... NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S.

Sorry, if the "free market" idea didn't work, there was a reason for that perhaps....

Secondly, my cigarette taxes are a "voluntary" tax that local, state AND federal governments cannot live without. Therefore, they have no right to dictate to me where and when I may smoke.

Hell, part of my cigarette taxes went to pay for the Gund and Jacobs Field, those 2 buildings were paid for by Cle. smokers and drinkers and therefore we should have smoking sections available (esp. at an OUTSIDE venue).

Fuck it and fuck non-smokers, you want to dictate where I can smoke and not consider my rights, or the fact I pay taxes to enjoy my habit? Then I'll start buying ciggies on the internet tax free. See how long you can survive paying higher taxes without the ciggie monies..... then let's hear you bitch.

If a person asks me politely to put my cigarette out, I do so gladly. BECAUSE UNLIKE THESE NON-SMOKING NAZIS, I RESPECT OTHERS RIGHTS.

As for cigarette smoking causing death.... undoubtedly, but we all die of something. Just wait for all these new drugs to start causing health problems, or Bush's laxadaisical approach on the EPA laws, allowing for filthier air, more arsenic and poisons in our waters and foods.... yeah, smoking is so much worse.

If you can smoke without poisoning the air with carcinogens, go right ahead. The moment you spew toxic chemicals into the air, you do harm to everyone around you.

Yes, there are worse things being spewed out than breathing poisons out for others to breathe in. There is justification to regulate those as well.

The right to free speech ends when you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

The right to kill yourself with drugs without interfearance ends when you spread toxins into other people's bodies.