How well do restaurant patios and smoking coexist?

[Robin Garr]

the hive mind's attempt to spread disinformation, and disguising personal preference as an infringement of rights.

Really? Overdosing on Ayn Rand?

without aid of epidemiological studies, since they are inherently unreliable, or so I'm told.

I'm guessing this is a dig at me, so maybe I just explain myself a little more.

My cynicism around "science" has been growing for over 15 years. Before that, I thought we could trust scientists and scientific research. Credulous is the word, I think.

I'm a trained engineer, so I'm not afraid of math. And after years of experience I understand how systems work and how they fail. At some point I started noticing things that absolutely make zero sense being trumpeted as scientific truth. Then over time, I started looking closer and the illusion was shattered.

Most "science" is validated using statistical recipes that the practitioners really don't understand and just blindly reuse. This seems especially true in the social sciences and epidemiological population studies, where it's very easy to confirm preconceived notions. This and the "publish or perish" imperitive lead to a lot of poor "science" being published. Any research that relies on statistics and involves the evaluation of human activities or behavior is very susceptible to bias and preconceptions every step of the way. Sadly, you can't assume that the "scientists" really understand statistics. The safer assumption might actually be that they do not.

Government funded science is probably the worst. There are huge selection biases to fund research that confirms the opinions and preconceptions of the bureaucrats who control the funding. It amuses me when folks say that government studies are unbiased. Remember these are the people who've tried to tell us for decades that transfats are better for you, that salt, butter and eggs are bad, and there's no problems eating all the sugar and fructose that you want. How many "never minds" do you have to witness before you let a little skepticism creep into you thinking?

And it's not just that. The whole system has incentives to generate untrustworthy results.

So, let's consider smoking. Smoking usually takes 30-40 years for disease to manifest. That's inhaling it directly into your lungs. Can't we say that cigarette smoke can just barely be considered toxic? It might be about as bad for you as chronic long distance running. If you can do it for 30 years with little ill effects, then how bad is it, really? Extend this to second hand smoke. Would it take double the amount of time? Maybe triple?

Peoples' freedom to associate with other smokers has been infringed to limit second hand smoke exposure that might not have any ill effects for most people throughout their whole lives. They can't open a smoking bar to go smoke. In fact, they have been forced outside to patios to do their smoking. And in some places like UofL, they can't even do it outside. So, now that Al Fresco dining is a growing thing, we are seeing pressure to take one more refuge away from them.

Yes, I think it's rude to smoke around diners and nonsmokers. I don't like it either. But, it's not like they have anywhere else to go. All their options have been taken away. If I could say, "why don't you go across the street to the restaurant that allows smoking", it would be different. But I can't, because the "know it alls" have made that illegal. So, I try to be sympathetic and do my part - in their last place of refuge - to accommodate smokers the best I can.

And now the same "know it alls" are going after electronic cigarettes which have zero negative health effects to bystanders and little to none for the users. So, I think we should be allowed a little cynicism after having watched this all play out.

the hive mind's attempt to spread disinformation, and disguising personal preference as an infringement of rights.

Really? Overdosing on Ayn Rand?

You do realize that freedom was a thing before Ayn Rand, right? I'm guessing that Gary might not even know who she is. For you, she's like the monster under the bed.

[Robin Garr]

the monster under the bed.

AIYEEEE! CLOSET OF ANXIETIES!!!

the hive mind's attempt to spread disinformation, and disguising personal preference as an infringement of rights.

Really? Overdosing on Ayn Rand?

You do realize that freedom was a thing before Ayn Rand, right? I'm guessing that Gary might not even know who she is. For you, she's like the monster under the bed.

Actually, I tried three separate times to read Atlas Shrugged. Tried and failed

Really? Overdosing on Ayn Rand?

You do realize that freedom was a thing before Ayn Rand, right? I'm guessing that Gary might not even know who she is. For you, she's like the monster under the bed.

Actually, I tried three separate times to read Atlas Shrugged. Tried and failed

I've not noticed any diminished aspects in my live from not having read Ayn Rand. Just start with the Federalist papers and go from there.

I dig the big thread, and like that we are discussing things. Some ad hominem here and there but I think it's among food friends. It's good, clean fun! And yes Ronnie you know how much I love murderin'! It was exposure to that devil music as a child that did it, or was it comic books with their violent sexual themes?

For me I see all the passion here and I think it's awesome even if I disagree. I am with Ronnie and Carla that the thing that make this so sticky is the notion that someone could be harming you with their actions in a public place. That I totally agree is not moral. That's a no go. You shouldn't be doing something to people in places that the two of you co-own. Not right, not cool, no.

I see the differentiation is that a restaurant patio is not "public", it is a private space open to the public. That means it's someone's patio, and it's your free choice to go or not go. At Mag Bar it's Beanie's patio. If he wants smoking on it, then you can smoke, or not up to you. You can't walk in and tell Beanie what to do, he will tell you to beat feet. And rightly so. It's his joint. You don't want smoke in your face, or the chance of getting second handed to death, then don't go out back. It's Mag, so going out back even if everyone is a non smoker may be a dicey undertaking. But there it is, patios are private, like a living room. Easy peasy.

I just solved this seven pages of arguing. Now tell me how wrong I am. Big hug.

[Robin Garr]

I see the differentiation is that a restaurant patio is not "public", it is a private space open to the public. That means it's someone's patio, and it's your free choice to go or not go.

Well, sort of. But legally, Adriel, that's not quite correct. When you as an entrepreneur run a place of public accommodation, things change. You are bound by several generations of civil-rights law to accommodate protected classes, from race to gender to disability, whether you like it or not. The law in its majestic wisdom has concluded that, sadly, sometimes people need to be nudged to do the right thing.

No, smoking isn't there yet. But once you open the doors of your place of business to the public in general, then you give up some of the right to discriminate that you may still retain in the privacy of your own household.

Other than that, though ...

I just solved this seven pages of arguing. Now tell me how wrong I am. Big hug.

Yeah! Good job!!

Well, sort of. But legally, Adriel, that's not quite correct. When you as an entrepreneur run a place of public accommodation, things change. You are bound by several generations of civil-rights law to accommodate protected classes, from race to gender to disability, whether you like it or not.

Go ahead Robin, sadly remind me that the government got out of the defense of private ownership as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution.

But you can still exercise the respect you have for Beanie's property rights by refusing to push for unnecessary laws through the ideas you promote and support! (wishful glimmer in eyes)

[Robin Garr]

Go ahead Robin, sadly remind me that the government got out of the defense of private ownership as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution.

But you can still exercise the respect you have for Beanie's property rights by refusing to push for unnecessary laws through the ideas you promote and support! (wishful glimmer in eyes)

The problem here, Adriel - I'm being serious - is that I was a little kid during the civil rights struggle and watched Sheriff Bull Connors and his billy sticks, and the cops at Selma with their dogs, and Dr King on the balcony, and I internalized the idea that we join in community to govern ourselves through mutual consent. Even if that sometimes means that through our elected representatives we choose to put constraints on human behavior. And this is true whether we're talking about laws against murder, or speeding, or serving unsanitary food in your restaurant or refusing to serve someone in your restaurant because you are a bigot.

Again, when you CHOOSE to serve the public, you ACCEPT constraints on your right to be as evil as you may wish about serving them.

And here's where I start making fun of Randian objectivism, because it's really naive to argue that private property is so sacrosanct that you can be as evil as you wish until the free market eventually turns you down. The free market took too long to get there in Selma and Birmingham; and listening to Tea Party politicians and the Obama-haters, I'm quite certain that absent legislation, the old South still wouldn't be there now.

Robin for the win.

And here's where I start making fun of Randian objectivism, because it's really naive to argue that private property is so sacrosanct that you can be as evil as you wish until the free market eventually turns you down. The free market took too long to get there in Selma and Birmingham; and listening to Tea Party politicians and the Obama-haters, I'm quite certain that absent legislation, the old South still wouldn't be there now.

I hear you Robin, my mom marched on Washington and as I'm sure you can imagine from my occupation I grew up in a family loaded with communal hippies, rural-kooks, gun toting libertarians, and anti-establishment yellow dog democrats from way back. Free thinkers, everyone. Rand was/is a statist of a stripe that never appealed to me. She was so angry with communism, she never saw why anyone would ever be drawn to it, and never got the nature of what altruism was all about. Her reaction to one single ideology was so strong that it forced her into another extreme, and I think she missed things.

For me the problem with segregation was social control created by and enforced by governments. Segregation was the law, passed by a majority of people, and we know what is on the menu when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner... The Federal government wasn't much better having the legislature loaded with segregationists of both parties. The civil rights movement was/is an anti-authoritarian movement, bucking laws, toppling tyrants, and resting control from the hands of power. Malcolm, MLK, Huey P. Newton etc, were revolutionaries. They fought the law, societal trends, and the use of force that it brought with it. When we use force to violate rights it's wrong. Voluntary action is the only way in my mind to have a happy society. Nudging people at the point of a gun, no matter if it is wielded by a state appointed duly elected authority or not, is a win/lose situation. The ends never justify means when they violate the principles of non-aggressive action. Or at least that is how I've always seen it.

So this is just where I'm coming from on the matter. I know that is not a popular opinion, but it is a cogent viable philosophy. I have a lot of respect for your way of thinking Robin, I'm just tossing two cents in from the lunatic fringe.

Help me clarify here, Adriel. We should have let the racists kill people of color until they just decided not to? It was wrong to force them to treat all people as humans with basic human rights? We should have just waited around until they came to their senses? (I'm fighting the urge to invoke the big "H" in this example, I want you to know ) I think that's what I'm reading in what you've said, but I want to be clear.

Sometimes things are so very wrong, you have to take immediate, sometimes forceful, action to prevent harm to many.

I think this is a bit extreme in a discussion about second hand smoke, but I can say that if you choose to inhale a known carcinogenic substance into your lungs taking the risk of death, have at it, but don't expect me to inhale the same substance involuntarily just because I want a pizza.

Not smoking hurts no one. Smoking is a known killer. Why don't we err on the side of caution and take strides to keep everyone healthy and safe?

Honestly, if a business owner is not concerned for my safety in their establishment, that says a lot about how much they respect my business and where their priorities are.

[Robin Garr]

Segregation was the law, passed by a majority of people, and we know what is on the menu when two wolves and a sheep vote on dinner...

Good stuff, Adriel!

I'll make an important distinction here, though, although I see that it could be argued on either side of this debate: Segregation was the law, but it was the law in spite of the majority. Whites were the minority in the Jim Crow South, as they were in apartheid South Africa. But they had property (ha, Ayn!) and they had power, and they abused it to keep the majority under control and keep them away from the ballot box.

In this case, while the oppressors are still smug white people, the oppressed minority are the smokers. It's almost a perfect analogy, except it's even worse. Blacks could at least own businesses catering to other blacks during the worst of Jim Crow. Smoker's aren't even allowed that small bit of freedom.