Smoking Ban

While I understand that the argument is "don't take a job there" you really aren't understanding the flip side of it. During the last few decades there were no venues for musicians that were smoke free. Jazz Factory broke the mold, bless them, but for other artists, performing music meant sucking up the carcinogens. I don't know of any other job I could have taken while I went to college...I worked nights at the Rodeway and The Terrace while finishing school. Many bartenders were working on their graduate degrees or were in beauty school. Some were Moms holding a second job or people who were laid off from jobs. There are few jobs for people who need evening work that pay enough to help with tuition, child care, etc.

I smoke but I tend to recuse myself from arguments like these as I often find that they're more taxing than the eventual policy result, whichever way it goes.

As someone who very consciously make choices based on many other community health and environmental standards, though, I find it intriguing that people are willing to expend so much energy on either side of the smoking debate while relatively ignoring a load of other issues that have tremendous impact on wellness. They're occasionally touched on but don't seem to compel the same level of participation.

People do all sorts of things that are collectively bad for us, both as a matter of business and personal pleasure. Why not focus all that energy on the ones more common than smoking?

I'm willing to admit that my smoking gets in the way of some of my other stances. Are others willing to concede their own destructive behaviors, even if it means being a little less comfortable or profitable?

Does someone who commutes 25 miles each way every day in a gas guzzler have any business complaining about air quality and public health? By the same token, most grocery stores sell foods chock full of stuff our bodies were never meant metabolize for consumption by children. Why isn't a majority of the public trying to regulate Brown Brothers Cadillac and Krogers with the same fervor? Why are state attorneys general not suing Kraft Foods and General Motors?

If it really is about the public good rather than personal preference (or at least politically acceptable preference), there are issues to be tackled that regularly touch the the lives of the population at large much more than possible exposure to secondhand smoke and yet smoking always takes center stage.

The conspiracy theorist in me suggests there may be purpose in that. Get 'em riled up about abortion and they'll forget all bout the bombs.

What ever happened to the classic defination of a democracy: Majority rule, tempered by minority rights?

This is what is happening with smoking. The majority is against it so it is being banned in public place. The minority (smokers) still has the right to buy tobacco products and smoke them in places they own or have permission to smoke in. Seems like this policy fits your definition of democracy perfectly!

Okay, it starts with smoking but where does it end? I don't care for smoking, but am fine with reasonable accomidation for smokers. I like alcohol, but don't like being around a bunch of drunks, so next the Government might further regulate or eliminate the consumption of alcohol. I don't want people to use foul language around my kids and it offends me in a restaurant as to undisiplined children, so do we next ban children and narrow the definitions of foul language?

My point is where does it end? Let the restaurants make the choice to be non smoking. When we allow the Government to dictate to us what we can do and can't do we all lose. I don't care for smoking at all, but care less for the Government controlling us.

Okay, it starts with smoking but where does it end?

I've never been a big fan of the "where does it end" argument? The question for me is whether or not the smoking ban is a good thing, instead of trying to forecast its implications and deciding on that basis.

[quote="Charles W."][quote="Kurt R."]Okay, it starts with smoking but where does it end?[/quote]

I've never been a big fan of the "where does it end" argument? The question for me is whether or not the smoking ban is a good thing, instead of trying to forecast its implications and deciding on that basis.[/quote]

The answer to that question is blaringly obvious; it does NOT end.

Cultural prohibitions have an extremely mottled history... at best. And the quote below from a recent article will give you a glance at one of the highlighted targets of the cultural prohibition advocates.

Never say "never". These are powerful activists who will not be content until you live, eat, breathe, and think exactly like they do. And they will NOT stop with a ban on smoking. The way I hear it, the movement for a smoking ban in Lexington was founded by a prohibition advocacy group based in Massachusetts... then they came to Louisville, a tougher target.

"The foundation has contributed more than $265 million in the past five years to notable anti-alcohol organizations which have used that money to fund studies, seminars, fellowships and community outreach programs that attack adult beverage consumption in various ways. These multimillion-dollar checks have financed an army of like-minded advocacy, activist, grass-roots and "research" organizations -- all aimed at reducing even responsible consumption.

"The collective result is a simultaneous, multi-pronged offensive on the way adult beverages are perceived, distributed, sold and consumed -- an assault designed not to address product abuse but simply to get everyone to drink less.

"At the recent "Alcohol Policy Conference XIII," a modern prohibitionist conference underwritten by the foundation, activists endorsed an alcohol rationing system, a government monopoly on adult beverage distribution, a total advertising ban, and zoning ordinances to restrict the number and location of "alcohol outlets" -- which are redefined to include restaurants."

You might consider preparing yourself for situations like, "We just got in a very nice Cabernet Sauvinon... would you like a half-ounce glass with your filet tonight?" That is, IF you can find a restaurant that still legally serves alcohol.

Again, never say "never"... they're out there, and they want to control YOU.

I've asked this question repeatedly and have yet to hear a coherent answer from anybody on the <i>laissez faire</i> side: Do you feel the same way about restaurant sanitation inspection or fire codes?

Yes, although probably not in the way you might have meant it.

Restaurant sanitation and fire codes are necessary in that they protect people from circumstances that they can not reasonably be aware of.

Do you oppose laws barring racial segregation or denying women entry to the bar?

..

The answer is, of course, I do. Racial segregation and denying women entry to bars places an artificial limit on freedom on the arbitrary basis of conditions of birth. They were never about public protection and were based entirely on prejudice and bigotry. These situations do not even come close to comparing.

For the record I would appreciate it if we could refrain from bringing topics like racism and misogyny into conversations that don't directly involve them.

After all, if a restaurant chooses to run an unsanitary kitchen, people will get sick and won't return, so the free market will soon put the nasty place out of business. No need for regulation there!

In this situation you are talking about circumstances that a customer may have no reasonable knowledge of. Which is entirely different from a restaurant that allows smoking. Not to mention you are citing a case wherein conditions pose an immediate threat to the health of the people eatting there. Not a possible threat sometime down the road due to continued exposure over a number of years. I really don't think there's any need for sarcasm and eye rolling here.

edit: fleshed out a bit that I apparently accidentally deleted before posting...

Okay, it starts with smoking but where does it end?

I've never been a big fan of the "where does it end" argument? The question for me is whether or not the smoking ban is a good thing, instead of trying to forecast its implications and deciding on that basis.

The answer to that question is blaringly obvious; it does NOT end.

Cultural prohibitions have an extremely mottled history... at best. And the quote below from a recent article will give you a glance at one of the highlighted targets of the cultural prohibition advocates.

Never say "never". These are powerful activists who will not be content until you live, eat, breathe, and think exactly like they do. And they will NOT stop with a ban on smoking. The way I hear it, the movement for a smoking ban in Lexington was founded by a prohibition advocacy group based in Massachusetts... then they came to Louisville, a tougher target.

"The foundation has contributed more than $265 million in the past five years to notable anti-alcohol organizations which have used that money to fund studies, seminars, fellowships and community outreach programs that attack adult beverage consumption in various ways. These multimillion-dollar checks have financed an army of like-minded advocacy, activist, grass-roots and "research" organizations -- all aimed at reducing even responsible consumption.

"The collective result is a simultaneous, multi-pronged offensive on the way adult beverages are perceived, distributed, sold and consumed -- an assault designed not to address product abuse but simply to get everyone to drink less.

"At the recent "Alcohol Policy Conference XIII," a modern prohibitionist conference underwritten by the foundation, activists endorsed an alcohol rationing system, a government monopoly on adult beverage distribution, a total advertising ban, and zoning ordinances to restrict the number and location of "alcohol outlets" -- which are redefined to include restaurants."

You might consider preparing yourself for situations like, "We just got in a very nice Cabernet Sauvinon... would you like a half-ounce glass with your filet tonight?" That is, IF you can find a restaurant that still legally serves alcohol.

Again, never say "never"... they're out there, and they want to control YOU.

Kent: Your first point seemed well reasoned and rational even though I disagreed with it. Now, you are starting to sound a bit over the top. The laws in Kentucky are becoming more tolerant of alcohol, not less.

"Where does it end?" arguments are the hail mary of the opposition's playbook. You go to it when nothing else is working or makes sense.

I have no problem with opposing the smoking ban because you think smoking is a good thing. That's your opinion. But, to make the assertion that such a ban is illegal or wrong on moral, economic, or political grounds is simply deceitful. There are dozens of dry counties in this state. I don't agree with that, so I don't live there. But, the people who do live there (the majority of them) do agree with it. What they have done is not unconsitutional, unethical or immoral, and the "where does it end" argument doesn't hold water with them either. It ended with alcohol, just like it should.

I've asked this question repeatedly and have yet to hear a coherent answer from anybody on the <i>laissez faire</i> side: Do you feel the same way about restaurant sanitation inspection or fire codes?

Yes, although probably not in the way you might have meant it.

Restaurant sanitation and fire codes are necessary in that they protect people from circumstances that they can not reasonably be aware of.

Do you oppose laws barring racial segregation or denying women entry to the bar?

..

The answer is, of course, I do. Racial segregation and denying women entry to bars places an artificial

For the record I would appreciate it if we could refrain from bringing topics like racism and misogyny into conversations that don't directly involve them.

After all, if a restaurant chooses to run an unsanitary kitchen, people will get sick and won't return, so the free market will soon put the nasty place out of business. No need for regulation there!

In this situation you are talking about circumstances that a customer may have no reasonable knowledge of. Which is entirely different from a restaurant that allows smoking. Not to mention you are citing a case wherein conditions pose an immediate threat to the health of the people eatting there. Not a possible threat sometime down the road due to continued exposure over a number of years. I really don't think there's any need for sarcasm and eye rolling here.

So, the standard should be that government should only regulate conduct that I cannot see, but should not regulate conduct I can see? i.e. I can't see how they store their mayo, but I can see if they allow smoking? Is that right? and, the other condition is that the harm must be immediate and not delayed?

I don't think that the government is acting unilaterally here. The government is made up of people who we elected to office, and their votes reflect the position of the majority of their constituents. That's how a representative democracy works. The smoking ban has the support of the majority of voters, hence it's enactment.

While I understand that the argument is "don't take a job there" you really aren't understanding the flip side of it. During the last few decades there were no venues for musicians that were smoke free. Jazz Factory broke the mold, bless them, but for other artists, performing music meant sucking up the carcinogens. I don't know of any other job I could have taken while I went to college...I worked nights at the Rodeway and The Terrace while finishing school. Many bartenders were working on their graduate degrees or were in beauty school. Some were Moms holding a second job or people who were laid off from jobs. There are few jobs for people who need evening work that pay enough to help with tuition, child care, etc.

You're right, I don't understand the "flip-side" of it. If you can't find work in a field where you feel the conditions are safe, then do something else. On my first co-op I worked in a plant that manufactured sodium cyanide. Right across the road was the plant that supplied the hydrogen cyanide for the process. After graduating, instead of going back to the industrial chemical production jobs, I moved into environmental regulation instead.

You say you don't know of any other job you could have taken while you went to college. You're right. I really don't understand that. Because I know plenty of people who worked in college in smoke-free environments. I know I did...

Asserting that something is "glaringly obvious" does not make it so.

If you can't find work in a field where you feel the conditions are safe, then do something else.

There is another option in this country because we are democracy. If the conditions in your place of work are not safe, you can do something to make them safe. OSHA has drastically reduced the number of deaths in coal mines, construction sites, and assembly lines. OSHA was created because the majority of americans wanted it, instead of just doing something else.

Asserting that something is "glaringly obvious" does not make it so.

Terms like "glaringly obvious" and "abundantly clear" are most often used by those who are advocating a position that is neither.

So, the standard should be that government should only regulate conduct that I cannot see, but should not regulate conduct I can see? i.e. I can't see how they store their mayo, but I can see if they allow smoking? Is that right? and, the other condition is that the harm must be immediate and not delayed?

I think those should play a part in it, yes. Although the distinction wasn't immediate/delayed, it was an immediate threat versus a possible threat sometime down the road.

If I can protect myself from it in a reasonably easy manner, then I don't need the government to do it for me. And in the meantime, my needs aren't imposed on anyone else's desires. From my perspective, everyone wins.

I don't think that the government is acting unilaterally here. The government is made up of people who we elected to office, and their votes reflect the position of the majority of their constituents. That's how a representative democracy works. The smoking ban has the support of the majority of voters, hence it's enactment.

On that issue I can't make an argument either way. I don't know that the smoking ban was actually part of the platform that the various council members were elected upon.

I can remember 30 years ago when MADD came about and all the drinkers got their panties in a bunch because the laws were infringing on their right to drink and drive while intoxicated. I thought that was a poo too. There is little reasoning with addicts.