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.

I can't believe people have ignored this. It makes the pro-smoking argument look rediculous while giving me a good laugh at the same time :D , it also helps that I completely agree with your sarcasm. Smoking kills you....period. If you want to smoke, I shouldn't have to be forced to take part in it just because we are in the same establishment.

On a side note: Nothing makes me happier than to look out of my dorm window on a windchill-below-zero Iowa winter day where it's snowing and Johnny Smokesalot is outside freezing his ass off to feed his addiction, all the while I'm sitting in my heated room lying in bed reading a book. Someone should fence them off and put a sign out front like a zoo exhibit, "Smokers", "Look mommy! Don't they know it's freezing ass cold outside?" "Yes hun, but they have to get their hourly fix of nicotene."

Another variation is:
My gas 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 drive.

And lets not forget that we pay property taxes too, and if we give the government any money for something they can't tell us what to do with it. Human sacrifices on my lawn tonight at 8! Bring the whole family, the government can't touch us! ;)

One could just as easily make the case that bars serving alcohol should be banned because afterwards people have to get home from wherever they are. In most cases that means getting into a car and driving to that home. This is a huge problem public safety wise, therefore we should ban anyone from drinking alcohol except while in their own home, and anyone caught driving with any alcohol in their system whatsoever should have their license revoked. The current system of drunk driving punishment obviously isnt working (like non-smoking areas) so why not ban drinking all together in public areas? Why should *i* have to pay for your inability to drink responsibly by having to deal with you driving with alcohol in your system and possibly slamming into me/my family/my car/my home. If you insist on drinking in public areas you should be forced outdoors, often into the freezing cold weather and find a dark alley someplace out of view of the public, with your bottle/can in a brown paper bag so that your "problem" doesnt effect my senses. You may then walk home in the frigid weather knowing your uncontrollable urge to indulge has been satisfied.

Also i think that the comparison to over weight people and fatty foods is quite good. We pay as a society by the MASSIVE (no pun intended) medical costs that are pushed upon us as citizens - which means more hours of forced labor to pay for this (higher taxes = less $ to feed myself, therefore i need to work that extra hour, or pick up that extra job). It could also mean less money spent where it may otherwise be put to good use, like fixing those pot-holes or actually funding the education system.

Hey, how about banning those black people in public places too, their hair is greasy, so i could slip and fall from their jerry curl juice and break my neck. They are also very hostile and unpredictable, you never know when they'll revert to their animalistic ways and punch someone out who is waiting in line for pizza.

While we're at it we should ban all forms of motorized transportation too, the businesses may suffer cuz people cant get to work, but who cares, cuz all that smog is giving our children cancer and polluting our air/land/waters. We must remove all cars from the road for public safety, imagine all the accidents that would be prevented, all the medical costs prevented, all the deaths to wildlife (aka roadkill) that can be prevented, all the money that could be saved on not paving roads, and law enforcement for speedy and wreckless drivers..

Just for the record I'm not a smoker, i also think i've been playing Jennifer Government for too long. I was a smoker for many years but have not been smoking cigarettes for quite a number of years now. In my opinion less government involvement is needed in many areas, this area is a good start. People always come forth with some remark requesting someone to point out the last time they were oppressed by the government, or interfered with by the government - to that i can only say, what can you name that ISN'T regulated by the government these days. Hell i cant even retile my bathroom without getting a permit.

Except it is. The vast majority of drivers are not actively driving drunk. If most drivers were driving drunk, then you would be correct in claiming the system isn't working.

I haven't noticed the problem getting much better. People are still getting pulled over and testing positive. Rehab centers are still jam-packed full of people forced there by the state and local governments because they were discovered with a blood-alcohol content above the legal limit. People are still slamming into other people while driving drunk and wiping out entire families with one foul swoop. People are still getting ripped in bars and picking fights with random joe schmoe, knocking his teeth out and beating him senseless due to an inability to inhibit their actions under the influence. The blood-alcohol content limits in many states are constantly being lowered because people are not getting the message and are continuing this behavior, yet no matter how low they make it the problem never goes away. You can't ban drinking all together, we already tried that. For one those "crazy christians" wouldnt be able to practice their sacrament and would throw a fit. That christian lobby seems just as strong, if not stronger than the tobacco lobby, maybe we should badmouth them too. And dont forget the incense they use at those churches/temples/mosques/etc.. those are damaging to all the parishioners/worshipers, how dare that priest/rabbi/mullah wave their incense around in a building full of loyal parishioners and followers and give them a risk of cancer?! If you ban one smoke you must ban them all..? It worked for marijuana, right? No one smokes that evil stigmatized plant anymore! Oh, wait... :crazy:

...................

Don't take this the wrong way, but your responses here have been borderline hysterical. Stop jumping out to such extremes in your comparisons.

As I said - if something around 9 out of every 10 drivers were driving drunk that would be comparable to the percentage of smoking bars, pre-ban. Since something less than 1 out of every 10 drivers drive drunk (it's probably more like .000001), your comparison is absurd.

My biggest objection to these sorts of bans is that I fear the government is getting too intrusive into our lives. People make a lot of unsafe lifestyle choices and the government should regulate our activities as little as possible.

When you decide to engage in an unhealthy activity like freguenting a smoke filled tavern the government should not deny you the right to do so. No one is forcing you to go inside an establishment where the consumption of legal tobacco products like cigarettes, pipes, and cigars is permitted by the owner.

IMHO the government should stay out of it and let customers vote with their feet to decide which places get their business.
I don't understand why the fact that an establishment that permits smoking should bother a non-smoker since they can easily choose to go elsewhere. Many tavern owners etc.. wish to permit smoking and many people desire to go there. The government should not deny these establishments from permitting the consumption of legal tobacco products.

Also when marijuana is legalized the consumption of those products should be allowed as well. :)

I read an article recently that claimed that 9% of drivers are now talking on cell phones (up from 4%). It has been my experience that your chances of getting nailed by one of these is far greater than the drinkers. I wonder if a cell phone/driving ban is next.

My responses have been phrased the way they have been for many reasons, I'm well aware of their out-landishness and absurdity, but I've been trying to make quite a few points in a very limited amount of wording, so as to not go into a 10 page essay on the extreme interference of government in this day and age (among other things). However, while my points may seem absurd they attempt to delve into many layers and levels of society/current or past societal "norms"/basic freedoms/the meaning of America/definition of liberty/the purpose of government and many other parts of my thought process on this (and other topics of some relation) that would, otherwise, be nearly impossible to put into words. To put forth a proper represention of my point of view, some sarcasm and pushing at nerves is often required. Afterall, we are talking about laws (force) and loss of freedoms. I take both of those subjects very seriously, and will defend my right to liberty in any form with extreme prejudice if required. However since this is a message board, and words can very easily be poo-pooed away with little thought, a little emotional involvement by the reader is often required to get a point to sink in. :)

These laws are already in effect in some areas...

I'm a big fan of "live and let live" and "mind my own fucking business," but if there was to be a referendum on smoking...

I could stand behind a public smoking ban, if there were exceptions that allowed bars and restaurants to allow smoking if they choose.

I don't buy into smoking sections and non-smoking sections. I think that if a bar or restaurant chooses to allow smoking then the whole place should be a smoking section. If you don't care to be around smokers, they're not forcing you out into the cold, just to another bar or restaurant.

I think that would solve the majority of the public's concerns and not trample too much on the smokers. Public health should certainly be considered, however, you shouldn't have to ostracize a segment of the population to do it.

I also really hate that 'smokers clog up healthcare' argument. Yes, it takes a lot to care for a smoker, but it also takes a bit to care for careless drivers, victims of careless drivers, extreme sports fanatics, hypochondriacs, insurance abusers, old people looking for attention, alcoholics and the overly concerned parents who bring in little Jimmy everytime he coughs funny.

We seem to live in an 'all or nothing' society. So, unless your also willing to ban driving, all extreme sports, old people, alcoholics and limit the number of hospital visits for the hypochondriacs, insurance abusers and obessesive compulsive parents, we should stop singling out the smokers.

When I was younger I did a lot of stupid shit that sent me to the doctor on more than one occasion. I knew better, but I did it anyway. Didn't have any insurance either...

Nobody lives 'the' perfect life. We all do some remarkably stupid stuff both to ourselves and to others. Before we get up on the soapbox and start preaching to the smokers, maybe we should take a glance in the mirror.

Just a suggestion. Don't mind me. Carry on.

ObieX... No one is saying you cannot smoke. They are just saying you can't smoke in a public place where it will effect others.

As others have pointed out, bars, while privately owned are subject to all sorts of laws...

Bars may nor serve alcohol to minors for example.
Some bars may not serve alcohol between certain hours.
Some are abligated to be completely closed during others.
All bars are located only where zoning permits them (i.e. commerical zoning, etc.)


The smoking law is just another one of these regulations. This does not impinge upon your right to smoke. Puff away until you heart is content.

I think it's been said already, but the original intent was to protect workers, not patrons. I worked in Cupertino CA when early City non-smoking ordinances went into effect. There were large influences from food-service groups and office workers who, pre-ban, were forced to accept 2nd-hand smoke as part of the work environment. I didn't pay attention to statistics but my 18hr deadline days sure went more smoothly after the smoking stopped.

I'm reminded of the case in Maryland not too long ago where somebody was arrested for smoking in their apartment, because the smoke could get into the "public areas" of the building when the apartment door was opened....ie the hallway. And no, I'm not joking.

Health Nazis are just that...

Also on the agenda of curbing individual freedoms in Austin are checkpoints stationed thoughout the city at intersections doing.... can you guess?

Every driver wanting to pass through the intersection would be subject to a Breathalyzer test. It is another idea I don't agree with.

Your analogy is excellent as far as the public safety concerns arguement. I would wager that more people die as a result of the alcohol bars serve than second-hand smoke patrons of bars inhale.

With that logic in mind, it shows the transparency of the motive behind this referendum. The crybabies don't like to deal with smoke. They are trying to ban it so they don't have to put up with it. It is not a public health concern at all. You will not get cancer from second-hand smoke at a bar. They could have an arguement that the workers of the bar, with more prolonged exposure to smoke, could develop health problems. My counter would be- they can work somewhere else.


OFF TOPIC:
All this nonsense annoys me. While driving home from work today I heard a story about a boy who jumped off a parking garage and fell 80 ft. His parents are suing the city of Orlando for "making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk."

It is absolutely outrageous. If you kid jumps off a fucking building that makes him suicidal or stupid. Either way, it isn't the city of Orlando's fault. Are tall buildings a public safety concern now? Even if we try and idiotproof everything, the morons will find a way to hurt themselves.

Till it's your father laying in the hospital bed dying of lung cancer. Sure, he smoked. Yep, he should have known better, but he's still your dad and you both know that he's finished even if he did quit 12 years ago.

The above is why i have never smoked a day in my life.

And why I am all in favour of banning the fucking things in public, never mind just restaurants and bars.

You want to smoke, do it on private property as far as I am concerned.

Double, nay quadruple the taxes on them. Make them cost 50 bucks a pack for all I care.

You don't care because you don't smoke. You are in the majority, and want to oppress the minority. Do you drink alcohol? Would you support an extra $50 tax on beer? You know, if I didn't drink beer, what reason would I have to oppose it.

It seems selfish to me.

How about make SUV's cost 4x as much because they are hard for me to see over and pose risks to MY driving safety (think of all the extra tax money!). Don't I have the right to see over SUVs while driving on public roads (that is in the constitution, right?). If they want to drive those, they should do it on PRIVATE roads.

Plus, they burn way too much gas and are polluting the air. Air I breathe. If you want to drive your SUV, do it without spewing toxic chemicals into MY atmosphere. They are PUBLIC roads right? What right do these damn SUV drivers have to pollute my atmosphere. Besides, they are way more likely to flip over than any other vehicle. Do these people have a death wish? Lets ban SUV's for their safety and our own. Hell, we need to ban cars altogether. All this global warming is going to kill the cute little penguins.

Why do I care, I walk to work. It won't affect me.

How people can claim they have the right to go to a bar and legislate that it be smokefree is astounding to me. I thought we had a constitution in this country.

Hmmm, nothing in the preamble...some stuff about a king...nothing in the first seven articles...wait here's something "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." So the states CAN decide wether or not to ban smoking!

The problem with having a written constitution is that most people choose not to read it. :rolleyes: The way I see things, unti cigarettes are an illegal schedule I drug, defined as "drugs considered to have a potential for abuse, and no recognized medical use in treatment in the US", I will keep on smacking myself in the face anytime someone says they have a "right" to smoke.

I'm happy this progressive legislation is being contemplated by the fine folks of Austin despite the bleatings of the pro-smoking crowd.

As far as I'm concerned it's about the workers not the patrons.
Complain away smokers....your day has come. ;)

Was the person convicted? Was their smoke stinking up the public areas of the apartment?

Not those who favor a smoking ban are "health nazis". Not all smokers are "smoke nazis". Though it's amazing how quickly talk of a smoking ban turns the average smoker into a libertarian.

I think i hear the smallest violin playing for the oppressed minority that is the american smoker. I hope you don't mind, but you have to share the song with the drip coffee drinkers who have to wait in line behind the latte drinkers for their morning coffee.

Irony.

Sounds good to me, too.

Welcome to america. Unfortunately, the "rights" of smokers didn't seem to be a priority to anyone while the constitution was being written.

Here's my take on it, Banning smoking in public facility's is fine with me except for bars/clubs..The majority of people who attend bars/clubs smoke and the numbers show it, Every bar/club in my city is struggling with this new law, Although last time i was at my buddy's work (Doormen at a strip club) they had a smoking room which was a glass room with ventilation. I was talking to the owner of the club and he was saying the smoking ban doesn't take full effect until 2006 or 07..Then there is absolutly no smoking anywhere in the club.

This ban doesn't bother me much as i do not attend bars/clubs like i use too, But it bugs me that bars/clubs are now struggling in an industry that was always booming because of somebody who is probably a non smoker thinks this is what's best...Of course non smokers are going to agree and smokers are gonna think it's bullshit. I'm a smoker and have no problem with smoking outside..I actually prefer to smoke outside.

Bars do have ventilation systems for the smoke and IMO they do a pretty good job, Some better than others..Why not make bars/clubs up to code with the ventilation systems that have lower class ones, Why don't the non smokers open up thier own "Smoke Free Bars"?? Because they wouldn't survive, That's why..Look at the current bars, I bet alot of small bar owners are gonna be closing shop because of this and that sucks.

kirk... this is why I said I had a hard time... I can have sympathy on individual cases... it is just hard to justify the faceless smoker who makes no effort to quit.

As I said when he died, I am truly sorry for your loss...

By the way... bring on the higher taxes for Urban dwellers with SUVs... I can see a need for them in a rural setting but in the city? No need.

Fuck your personal freedoms... think of the greater good for change.

At the time this happened, I was living in Montgomery County, Md (Germantown) and this was big news locally. The County subsequently retracted the law under which the dirty dirty smoker was arrested after receiving much derision for its lunacy.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=566

This simply begs the question, where will it end? I saw a bit on the new this weekend that the anti-smoking lobbyists are pushing to get a special rating for movies that show people smoking.

It will go one until the anti-smoking lobbyist push too far. Then it will stop. Right now i imagine most nonsmokers favor a smoking ban. I don't know how many nonsmokers care about movie ratings.

Why am i not surprised!

Like i said above, If these people are so hell bent on making everything non smoking, And taking it even further to make movies have a special rating just so they can smile knowing that they got thier way..That's fine with me, But the minute somebody walks up and stands beside me outside and tells me to put my cigg out or in some way acts like i am bothering them, I will bend over and they can place thier lips on my ass.

I do not smoke and never have.

I personally hate smoking and will be the first to complain if they're are smokers smoking in the non-smoking section of a restaurant.

But I also think that if a business wants to allow smoking, that's their business and it's mine if I want to patronize them or not.

I am not for allowing governments or businesses to intrude on the rights of smokers for one simple reason; it sets bad precedent. For the same reason I would support an interpretation of the constitution that made a persons private sex life sacrosanct and businesses incapable of firing individuals for the things they say and do outside of work that are not illegal.

In otherwords, unless there is an overwhelming reason to restrict the rights of the individual, I am generally for erring on the side of the individual and their personal rights.

Smoking effects more then the smoker though, It's actually more harmful to people around the smoker then the person actually inhaling the cigarette. I would be very upset if people down the line tried to turn this into a constitutional/personal rights thing.

Of course it does...that's why I reserve the right whether or not to patronize an establishment that allows it.

The "it affects more people" argument can always be applied.

For example, the sale of 'sex toys' affects more than just the individual. It encourages a degredation of morals that affects the whole community.

Motor cycle helmet laws are good because the cost of accidents involving those who don't wear them is higher than those who do, affecting everyone's insurance premiums.

Company's that ban employees from drinking in their own time do so because the cost of alcoholism affects the entire company's profits.

And so on and so on.

But what I see is a disturbing trend to not care about these sorts of incursions into personal liberty because they don't affect you personally.

But if we wait until they DO affect us personally, it will be too late, IMO because the precedent is set.

Wait, I thought you were a "progressive"....if you're a "progressive", then why would you support a regressive tax measure? That's what cigarette "sin taxes" are...because which socio-economic class smokes the most?

I'd be interested to see evidence that cigarette smoking has more of a negative effect on bystanders than the actual smoker him/herself.

The smokestack next to my hellhole studio apartment on the Upper East Side affects more than the power company itself. Noise and emissions from that bloody place definitely aren't making me healthier. Everything affects everything. Legislating our way to living in a "sterile bubble environment" is not the answer. Agreed, there has to be a middle ground. That is the core of the issue I guess.

Victor Frankl once said that the Statue of Liberty on the East coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West. What good are rights if they are without regard to society as a whole?

Can you really unequivocally state there is "no need?"

My mother is a photographer in the "rural setting" of Houston. Her equipment won't fit in a car. You must have really thought hard on that one. Damn, can you think of anything else you think people don't have a need for? Perhaps we should up the taxes on everything you can think of.
You ideas remind me of the restrictive societies of the Taliban. I am thinking of the greater good- Freedom.
I think it is right next to the "rights" of nonsmokers.

Well, the nonsmokers are the majority, and in our country we like to pretend that the majority rules, as long as the majority doesn't violate the rights of the minority. Since there is no mention of smoking in the constitution, smoking isn't a right. At least it isn't the kind of right that can't be legally taken away by the majority.

Unless you happen to be rich, the privilege of the few is very often trumped by the desires of the majority.

it's pretty simple here. Your rights do not eclipse my rights. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to break in to my house and shout your message in my ear at 3am, because that would trump MY rights.

You have the right to smoke all you want as long as you're not poisoning me while you do it. You smoke near me, you're poisoning me.

There's nothing wrong with a smoking ban, and everything right. If you want to kill yourself, go right ahead, but do it in your own house or car.

Oh and by the way it's not just an issue of "well you can choose not to patronize those restaurants if you don't like smoking"

There's the health of the staff to consider. They don't have that choice.

To be fair, although second hand smoke may be unpleasant and irritate existing conditions (asthma, etc), there is still much debate as to the actual long term health effects of exposure to second hand smoke.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/...000_0000_ep_01

Feel free to smoke under your burka... :lol:

Since there apparently isn't a consensus among the scientific community we can't be sure either way. Though it seems like commonsense to me that minimizing my exposure to chemicals known to cause myriad diseases and conditions would be a worthwhile effort to pursue.

There is in fact a consensus among the scientific community, from dozens of large, very thorough, and unquestioned studies.

The fact that a few studies funded by tobacco companies failed to find links is not at all surprising, and does nothing to contradict that consensus.

Further down in the linked article:

The staff doesn't have a choice? They had as much choice as a customer wanting to attend a smoking or non smoking environment, As did the staff on where they wanted to work before the smoking bans took place in restaurants & bars.

Public Health is so much more important than what businesses think should be done. My wife has asthma, but it only comes up when she goes out. The next morning she will be coughing and not feeling good at all. It doesn't happen all the time, but still it is a nusiance and smoking is just a public hazard that everyone who doesn't smoke has to deal with. At the extreme maybe we should just make smoking and non-smoking clubs, but I think that would go a little far.

That's the point, one study says one thing, another one says another thing. I don't think that banning everything that could be dangerous is the right way to solve anything.

But to take the "ban cigs for the employee's health!" argument, OSHA has established PEL's (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all measurable chemicals, Including 40 carcinogens in second hand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
--Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

That's for an 8 hour workday! By OSHA's standard, I don't think that hanging out in a bar for a couple hours once a week would measurably increase your risk of any long term health effects from second hand smoke (even if you're crammed in between smokers).

My point was about the consensus. Again:

And that smokestack is heavily regulated.

They should pay for the air they contaminate, and that cost should be passed on to the consumers of that power. The payments should be distributed to those that breathe air.

Allowing people to generate profit by trashing the commons is wrong.

Negative (and Positive!) externalities exist, and unless unaccounted for distort and harm a market economy.

Should there be employment safety laws that restrict what risk a buisiness can expose it's employees to?

Take a smoke filled bar. If a city had that sort of air quality, what sort of death rates would be expected?

If second hand smoke turns out to be basically completely harmless, my the moral arguement I've pushed for these laws would have it's foundation removed. I should look into this further.

My mother has pretty bad asthma also, so I can relate. I've actually been in public with here twice when we had to call 911 because she had such a severe attack. Once was because she got a faceful of cigar smoke from a guy walking in front her. The other was because she caught a wiff of some rosemary that was garnishing a leg of lamb she ordered in restaurant. Ban rosemary? I've also seen her have asthma attacks when someone wearing a lot of cologne walks by. Ban cologne? The point is that a lot of things are "hazards". Banning everything doesn't solve any problems.

Bullshit. They can find another job.

Fact is, that smoking isn't just a matter of personal choice. Your smoke affects other people. Your habit is none of my business, but when you spew that stuff into the air which I, and everybody else, must breathe, you are infringing on our rights.
Smoke at home. Have at it.
I also have a problem with smokers who toss their butt garbage anywhere. Look over at the end of an offramp one of these days...it is truly disgusting. I say we remove those stupid filters. They clog our environment and smokers are going to die anyways.

The tobacco industry funded many studies that showed that smoking caused no harm. Does this mean there's no consensus that smoking causes harm? No.

The tobacco industry funded many studies that showed that second-hand smoke caused no harm. Does this mean there's no consensus that second hand smoke causes harm? No.

The scientific consensus is that second-hand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Just like first hand smoke.

Because jobs are so easy to come by? I think it would probably be much simpler for all smokers to have to step outside than it would be for all employees bothered by smoke to get new jobs.

I think it would be easier for prospective employees seeking jobs to exercise a little common sense. If you are going to go into a coughing fit everytime you walk by the smoking section, perhaps you shouldn't be a server.

Surely this would be easier/more reasonable than trying to ban smoking.

Surely you don't really believe that employees of a restaraunt should be at the mercy of their customers who smoke. :rolleyes:

On the issue of tobacco companies releasing a "study" showing that second smoke does not cause harmful effects: The tobacco corporations have billions of dollars invested in their crop, of course they will defend their livelyhood. On the other hand, what do scientists have in it for them to declare that smoking is in fact bad for you? Nothing. It would be a better move for them to just agree with the corporations rather than say otherwise, they could probably get a few million out of it. The bottom line comes down to who are you going to believe regarding negative effects of smoking, the multi billion dollar companies themselves or scientists probably on a small government or private grant.

There is an all too consistant stance by those who want to limit government interference in the areas of progressive tax policy on iindividuals and business, environmental regulation, workplace health and safety, minimum wages, gun control, intrusion of religious influence by the majority, and for
managment of health care that avoids making hospital emergency rooms the physicians of last resort for medical treatment of mild complaints of those without health insurance, to:

Favoring government enactment and aggressive enforcement of a prohibition on most abortion, "dildo control" (sex toys are illegal to sell in Alabama and in Georgia) specific, constitutional prohibition of marriage for same sex couples,
a new government policy that includes default on special bond class issued to SSI on borrowing from private contributions paid into the fund by emplyees and employers to this "independent entity" (SSI status was changed from a government agency to an independent entity in the mid 90's) , in exchange for a legislated program that includes massive new fed. gov. borrowing to create "personal investment accounts" that no one expects will improve SSI overall projected future funding shortfall, and a tendency to unquestioningly support government funding of scientifically questionable projects, like "starwars" and "missle defense shields", while dismissing scientific consensus
on issues like "global warming" and the risks of inhaling "second hand" smoke,
by citing industry sponsered studies that attempt to refute universally accepted conclusions of independent studies. Also included is a predictable pattern of nearly unquestionable support of a president and an executive branch with at best, a dubious track record of competency and transparency
when it comes to key foreign, defense, energy, and environmental policy, and
for the acountability to the people for it's policy and decsion making.

I don't see any way to debate these "less government" except....... view holders, because I can't see much consistancy in their opinions, for the most part.

Non-Smokers who open thier own bars wouldn't survive, The bars are smoke free right now and struggling.

And your gonna live forever..Right?

Have you ever needed a job? Have you ever worked a job that you hated because you effectively had no choice? If so, than you should see how silly your argument is. "Let them eat cake" has never been a good answer to anything.

Yes. Then I went out and got one.No. If I hated my job, I would find another one. In fact, I did not like working at a place, so I decided to work somewhere else, and guess what- it worked. Do you live in some weird world where people are not able to change jobs? Do you hate your job?

What if smoking is outlawed and people still hate their jobs? Will they still be stuck there? Your arguement seems silly to me.I don't think my arguement is silly at all. I do, however, think the "ban everything filtherton thinks is bad" is not much of an answer (see:SUV's).

I am 21 and have been working the the restaurant industry since I was 17. It is not at all hard to change the place you work. However, that is not the point. Like I said before, the issue comes down to individual liberty for me. That is where we fundamentally disagree.

You think you have the right to have to have smoke-free air wherever you go. I say you have the right to not go places where there is smoke.

Well, there is this thing called unemployment that sometimes makes it difficult to find a job. I don't know where you live, but if there is an abundance of livable wage paying jobs there, chances are it isn't in america.

I bet you think "everything that retsuki03 doesn't mind is a civil right" is a great answer.

Its not just me, in fact, i would imagine that there are a great many more people who think smoking is bad and favor the ban than think smoking is great and support pseudolibertarianism.

I'm all for individual liberty that doesn't expose me to carcinogens.

We'll see whose "rights" are upheld in the lawbooks.

You're right, I don't give a shit about smoker's having to pay 50 bucks a deck. Make it an even hundred.

One thing, it will stop a lot of kids from smoking.


No problem on my part there either.

Tax the crap out of alcohol too as far as I am concerned.

I totally agree with you. In fact, I might even take it one step further and slap a million dollar tax on an ignorant P.O.S. like a hummer, and a $500,000 tax on all Lincoln Aviators and Cadalac whatevers

Totally ignorant vehicles. No-one needs to drive things like that.



Very simple.

Second hand smoke is dangerous to my health. You do not have the right to make me sick with your filthy nasty disgusting stinking habit.

Plus I don't recall smokers rights being protected in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.