Smoking Bans (In New Albany and and the great beyond)

And just to add another wrinkle on the Hoosier side: Our state government, led oddly enough by a Republican administration, has pretty much declared jihad on local governments under the banner of reform, spending the past few years attempting to usurp power from them and centralize it at the state level while doing little to nothing to reform themselves.

The point is that it's not always about smokers vs. non-smokers or governments vs. private interests. The battle between state and municipal governments over local control is much larger than smoking.

Good point and well said. I personally like to believe that municipal governments are better at staying in touch with their constituents than the state or the federal government. I'll have to look up some news articles about the problems Indiana is having with the Republican 'jihad' and find out more about it. Nevertheless, I agree that is very disturbing news.

Finally, the fact that you're so willing say that any discussion about 'rights' and 'liberties' is inane speaks of a profound jadedness that saddens me to my very core. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the protection of their property. If you don't believe in those basic tenets, then there's absolutely no way that you can understand where I'm coming from. Society and the government shouldn't be able to dictate what we do, provided we don't cause harm to others against their will.

(As something of an aside on that last statement, are you likewise opposed to boxing, wrestling, and some aspects of BDSM? These all cause harm to people, but they've decided that the benefits outweigh the risks. Likewise, a non-smoker who enters a smoking restaurant has made a conscious decision and therefore is not being harmed against their will.)

Ultimately, it comes down to this: smoking harms non-smokers as well as smokers, and the once-agreed-upon notion of having a smoking section was not only untenable for non-smoking patrons, but for workers as well (as has been stated previously, of course). The decision to ban smoking rests in the interest of public health and safety, which for some is as important as rights. Indeed, some might say that having clean air to breathe is as important as the ability to speak freely -- certainly there's been a number of environmental movements and litigation based on that idea.

Additionally, the reason I posted about the Commerce Clause is because the property issues that you bring up have been relatively settled for over a half-century now, and even the more constructionist Supreme Court justices on the bench now are not changing the principle that government can and should regulate business and commerce, especially in the case of the public good. You've written about rights, but you're still missing the point that smoking does harm others, and it's not simply a question of dining or working at another establishment. Furthermore, that you stated this:

In regards to your point about the workers and the possible harm of smoking, in the end no one is forcing them to work there. My roommate is a vegetarian, and finds meat (especially raw meat) to be disgusting. Ergo, she doesn't work in a butcher shop. Simple problem, simple solution.

particularly the bit about "no one is forcing them to work there" is extremely offensive and remarkably tone-deaf to the time we're living in. Hell, that notion would be offensive to me even if our economy (and subsequently the labor market) wasn't in the shitter right now. Not everyone in the world has the same education, rights, background and privilege as yourself, so for you to assume that restaurant workers, or any worker for that matter, can just up and quit their job without consequence is the height of sophomoric arrogance. And I say that while really, really trying to be polite. It's already hard enough since you seem to want to compare that poor, oppressed minority known as "smokers" to Jews, African-Americans, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Which, of course, is also incredibly, deeply, inanely offensive.

(That said even if I'm offended by what you say, you have every right to say it. And I have every right to tell you I'm offended, too.)

Additionally, the reason I posted about the Commerce Clause is because the property issues that you bring up have been relatively settled for over a half-century now, and even the more constructionist Supreme Court justices on the bench now are not changing the principle that government can and should regulate business and commerce, especially in the case of the public good. You've written about rights, but you're still missing the point that smoking does harm others, and it's not simply a question of dining or working at another establishment.

Particularly the bit about "no one is forcing them to work there" is extremely offensive and remarkably tone-deaf to the time we're living in. Hell, that notion would be offensive to me even if our economy (and subsequently the labor market) wasn't in the shitter right now. Not everyone in the world has the same education, rights, background and privilege as yourself, so for you to assume that restaurant workers, or any worker for that matter, can just up and quit their job without consequence is the height of sophomoric arrogance. And I say that while really, really trying to be polite. It's already hard enough since you seem to want to compare that poor, oppressed minority known as "smokers" to Jews, African-Americans, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Which, of course, is also incredibly, deeply, inanely offensive.

(That said even if I'm offended by what you say, you have every right to say it. And I have every right to tell you I'm offended, too.)

As for the Supreme Court's decisions, just because a decision has been decreed by the courts or passed by a legislature doesn't mean I have to agree it. You keep wielding judicial rulings like some sort barbaric cudgel, daring anyone to disagree with. Additionally, you can't get past the 'smoking harms others' point that I've put down time and again. Boxing harms others, yet it is legal because people agree to the terms when they enter the ring. Smoking in a restaurant should be legal, provided the smoking status in known to potential customers, because they agree to the terms when they enter the premises.

As to your second point, I still fail to see how anyone is forcing them to work there. Oh yes, you jumped on your high horse and invoked the plight of the poor and accused me of 'sophomoric arrogance,' yet you still never pointed out what exactly was forcing them to work in a smoking establishment. In a city without a smoking ban, it is perfectly feasible to assume that some restaurants will have non-smoking policies while others allow smoking. So why then shouldn't we assume that non-smokers will prefer to work in non-smoking restaurants and smokers will find it easier to find employment in smoking restaurants. As for your comment about 'education, rights, background, and privelege,' the first two are inane points and you have no way of knowing about the latter two. As for my education, its merely the product of my work ethic, my genetics, and the slightly screwed up public school system that spawned me. As for my rights, they're no greater or less than the rights that every human being is entitled to. As for my 'background and privilege,' how can you even have the vaguest idea of those things considering I've never discussed them on here before and I've never met you in person. If you must know, my father was a police officer who now works as a security guard at the uranium enrichment plant, and my mother is a nurse. They never paid for a single dime of my college education or my living expenses because I had a job and relied upon scholarships to finance it.

Back on track, I seem to remember something about coal mines being dangerous as well. We'd best hurry up and shut those down. Don't even get me started on king crab fishing, which has the highest fatality rate of any job in America, all to put a delicacy on our table. Oh, and construction has the largest number of fatalities. Best stop those awful construction companies from putting their workers in such dangerous situations right now. And finally, lets not forget about my personal favorite--the fast food industry. If you've ever worked in the fast food industry, you know that the pay is extremely low and the primary way people get to eat on the job is by buying their own store's wares at large discounts. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in America, so lets wipe out the fast food chains as well.

As for your last point that my metaphors were offensive, its your prerogative to be offended but my point was still a valid one. Oppression is oppression, no matter the guise or how acceptable at the time. In this case, its the business owners who are trampled upon. History is rife with examples of government strong-arming and discrimination by the populous. Just because I picked some poignant examples doesn't mean they are any less applicable.

As for the Supreme Court's decisions, just because a decision has been decreed by the courts or passed by a legislature doesn't mean I have to agree it.

I never said you had to agree with it. But the reality of the situation is that it's unlikely to be changed anytime soon, if ever.

You keep wielding judicial rulings like some sort barbaric cudgel, daring anyone to disagree with.

Well, we are discussing politics, no?

Additionally, you can't get past the 'smoking harms others' point that I've put down time and again.

If I "can't get past" it, it's because you have yet to make any sort of convincing argument. Case in point:

Boxing harms others, yet it is legal because people agree to the terms when they enter the ring. Smoking in a restaurant should be legal, provided the smoking status in known to potential customers, because they agree to the terms when they enter the premises.

This analogy is very poor, as you don't seem to understand that boxing is heavily regulated by the state. Most states have their own boxing commissions (Kentucky is no exception). Additionally, what about non-smoking minors whose parents may take them to a smoking restaurant? What about workers?

As to your second point, I still fail to see how anyone is forcing them to work there. Oh yes, you jumped on your high horse and invoked the plight of the poor and accused me of 'sophomoric arrogance,' yet you still never pointed out what exactly was forcing them to work in a smoking establishment.

I've observed over the course of my that people who live in the real world tend to take jobs where they can find them. You're young, but I do not doubt that you will find this the same at some point. Perhaps you may even one day take a job you don't particularly like, or one that might put your health at risk, out of economic necessity.

In a city without a smoking ban, it is perfectly feasible to assume that some restaurants will have non-smoking policies while others allow smoking. So why then shouldn't we assume that non-smokers will prefer to work in non-smoking restaurants and smokers will find it easier to find employment in smoking restaurants.

That again ignores the reality that if the smoking restaurant is hiring and the non-smoking one isn't, and you need a job, you will take anything you can get. Additionally, employers are bound by law to protect employees from hazardous conditions while at work. How is exposure to second-hand smoke, which may cause cancer, not a hazardous condition?

As for your comment about 'education, rights, background, and privelege,' the first two are inane points and you have no way of knowing about the latter two. As for my education, its merely the product of my work ethic, my genetics, and the slightly screwed up public school system that spawned me. As for my rights, they're no greater or less than the rights that every human being is entitled to. As for my 'background and privilege,' how can you even have the vaguest idea of those things considering I've never discussed them on here before and I've never met you in person. If you must know, my father was a police officer who now works as a security guard at the uranium enrichment plant, and my mother is a nurse. They never paid for a single dime of my college education or my living expenses because I had a job and relied upon scholarships to finance it.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but your writing reveals a complete lack of understanding how the world works, typical of those who are in a position of some privilege. That includes the privilege of being able to find and hold a job. Many people in this world "survive" on $1 a day or less. Too bad they're not as free to find work as you and I are.

Back on track, I seem to remember something about coal mines being dangerous as well. We'd best hurry up and shut those down.

Mining is also heavily regulated by the federal and state governments, or at least is supposed to be. Indeed, if you have been paying attention, you'd know that mine safety was yet another concern ignored by the outgoing administration. I suppose you think miners working in mines with safety violations should just up and get another job, perhaps they can be...

Don't even get me started on king crab fishing, which has the highest fatality rate of any job in America, all to put a delicacy on our table.

King crab fishermen! Kind of a niche industry, don't you think?

Oh, and construction has the largest number of fatalities. Best stop those awful construction companies from putting their workers in such dangerous situations right now.

Again, construction is a pretty highly regulated industry, or it's supposed to be. You might want to read about that, too.

And finally, lets not forget about my personal favorite--the fast food industry. If you've ever worked in the fast food industry, you know that the pay is extremely low and the primary way people get to eat on the job is by buying their own store's wares at large discounts. Cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in America, so lets wipe out the fast food chains as well.

I've got no problem with that! Fast food culture destroyed slow food culture in America. You're right, it doesn't pay a living wage, encourages waste and over-consumption, makes us all fat and unhealthy... wait, why are you trying to defend it, again?

As for your last point that my metaphors were offensive, its your prerogative to be offended but my point was still a valid one. Oppression is oppression, no matter the guise or how acceptable at the time. In this case, its the business owners who are trampled upon. History is rife with examples of government strong-arming and discrimination by the populous. Just because I picked some poignant examples doesn't mean they are any less applicable.

Again, asking someone to walk 15 feet outside a bar to go smoke is not in any way "oppression," and it's incredibly stupid and offensive to label it as such.

I will say, the "majority speaks" is not always the way to go - just ask Rosa Parks. But yes, it's different.

I think I'm an "oh no, that slope is slippery as an eel" person.

Well I think the point has been made several times now that it's precisely not the point that the majority gets the voice in all things. And although that's the way committee meetings, or business settings, and electing people works, and although it's the way legislation gets passed, it's also one of our defining political ethics in this country that the minority is protected against the majority, which is why we have workplace laws and child support laws and laws to protect the powerless in the face of people with power and money. And that's precisely what people who were continually having to endure other people's crappy manners and addictions and dangerous personal habits finally decided to buck. THEY were the minority.

I think it's pretty much been proven by now that business hasn't suffered by asking people not to smoke in enclosed public places.

We have a representative government, obviously. Their legislative votes generally reflect our mood on how paternalistic government will be in any particular case. That's our system. Won't change, for better or worse. And apparently a majority of us want our breathing space and clothing protected from smoke in bars, restaurants, and other public places. Only government can make that happen in all public places. Letting individual establishments decide what to do didn't work.