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

Since I'm not very up to date on New Albanian politics, I'm not entirely certain about the potential smoking ban that people are talking about in the restaurants forum. However, the discussion did make me curious about how everyone feels about smoking bans in general, and specifically in our fair city of Louisville. My two cents follow.

For a society that has tried to move away from paternalism in medicine, it strikes me odd that we're willing to accept paternalism from the government. If medical doctors no longer have the (implicit) power to tell us what we can and can't do to ourselves, then why should we allow the government to do so when they are immensely less qualified. If the government is paying for everyone's health care, then I suppose they would have a vested interest in keeping people from smoking regularly, but that's a whole other discussion that we should probably avoid for the sake of this thread.

Second, I think that any government ban on smoking in private institutions such as restaurants is a gross violation of civil liberties. In the end, the proprietors of the establishment own the property and the building, and therefore should set rules regarding smoking. As far as government offices are concerned, I'm fine with smoking bans because in the end its their property. This isn't to say that people should be forced to inhale the second hand smoke generated by others. If they are averse to being around smokers, they should avoid restaurants without smoking bans. In my mind, this creates a market for restaurants to either have smoke-free nights for their abstaining customers, or simply choose to go smoke free. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for you in the long term, and I wouldn't be surprised to find a number of health-conscious eateries ban it outright.

Finally, I deplore the plight of both smokers and tobacco farmers in today's society. Tobacco farmers are being treated like drug dealers (which technically they are from a libertarian standpoint, but I'm utilizing the most negative connotation of the term and not its strict denotation) in their own country. For a nation that laments the loss of the American farmer, the government sure is doing everything in its power to push these people out of business. Not only that, but it is now trendy to disparage smokers, just like it was disparaging Jews was acceptable in pre-WWII Europe and those who wanted to drink were ostracized during prohibition. In the end, smokers make a decision about their own body that harms no one else provided they are courteous with choice of pastime.

I suppose my central thesis would have to be that government has no right to tell people what to do with their own property and their own bodies provided it doesn't hurt other people.

As a last note, I must laud Roger for his choice to put the smoking situation in the Bank Street location up for a vote. Whether you smoke or not, that is exactly the kind of self-regulation that makes the government's meddling in such matters completely unnecessary.

I'm not ducking this thread, but I have a lot to do today, so parhaps later tonight or Sunday I can provide testimony.

Still haven't watched the film ...

Paul, good thread. Unfortunately I think I am going to pick up on some of the topics you tried to keep out of the thread.

First, I would argue that one of the major jobs of the government is paternalism. Now I'm not saying everyone has to agree that should be the job, but currently it is. The government decides how fast we can drive, where we can park, how loud we can play our music, where we can and cannot congregate, etc. The danger I see in your use of paternalism is that you are separating government as an entity removed from the people who construct it. Government is not some big, bad "thing" removed from the people of this country. Government, when operated correctly, is the people of this country. In that sense, government does not decide to be paternal against the people of this country. The people of this country decide to be paternal toward themselves. [This obviously opens up a debate regarding representation, power, voting influence, etc. I will stay away from that topic.]

We, as the government, can be paternal for many reasons. To keep people from doing what we, as a society, have decided is "wrong." [Now who defines wrong and for what reasons is also another issue.] There is a declared punishment for drinking and driving because we have recognized the danger associated with this action and, therefore, have deemed it as wrong. We can also be paternal for issues of order and control. Those paternal restrictions tend to influence, for example, where and how we can congregate.

The question then is why has the government (we the people) decided to be paternal in regards to smoking. The most simple answer is the Bush answer: the majority of people have spoken. I'm EXTREMELY leery of "the majority does what the majority wants to" approach, because such an approach is limited in sight and excluded from historical context. So, I'm not going to buy that argument. I think the more probable reason why such smoking bans have been supported is a result of people buying into the vision of a progressive society that recognizes the dangers associated with smoking. I disagree with your point regarding the relationship between government paying people's medical bills and having the right to regulate smoking. I think there is a very reasonable argument that people have realized that reducing smoking has an incredible number of tangible benefits: reduced medical costs (in regards to both government supported medicine and private insurance premiums), a healthier citizenry, cleaner air in public establishments, less litter, etc. Many many people are very, very motivated by the idea that they will not have to smell like smoke for the rest of the evening if smoking is banned in certain places. In this sense, the people are doing what merely is in their best interest.

The question of whether banning smoking is a violation of civil liberties is up to the people to decide. And, really, this is not the type of question where people will say "yes, it is a violation," and then automatically decide to act against the measure. Take the Patriot Act for example - that's a great example of enough people deciding they are OK with certain violations of civil liberties. People don't act merely in the name of what is right or what is ethical/moral/legal. People act out in the name of selfish interests and accept civil violations as long as they don't impede on these selfish interests. It seems that smoking bans - even if they violate civil liberties - are being accepted by enough people. People will take the payoff over any violation that may or may not be occurring. Let me be clear: I'm not saying such actions are fair. That's just the system that is in place.

Personally, I'm all for letting individual owners decide. But that's traditionally not the system we have in place. We have a system in which wide-spanning decisions are made by people (the same thing as the government) in regards to selfish interests (whose interest is another topic). Although I'm for letting individual owners decide, I support the smoking bans. I am for positive progress in society, and, having seen the evidence that links smoking with all kinds of medical issues, I'm all for the government of the United States, we the people, working to tackle these issues by ostracizing the act of smoking. For what it's worth, I (as an educator) also support the Governor's cigarette tax hike. While I recognize the plight of individual farmers, I can't move to the point where I oppose cigarette taxes merely because of this plight. We, as a nation, seem to have spoken on our view of smoking - and in that sense, change is coming. Although possibly difficult, it is up to these farmers to respond to the changing nature of society and the market [Whether they deserve government support in making such changes is another issue as well].

Note: As I wrote this, I realized I don't like the word paternalism in this context. But I stuck with it to connect this thread with Paul's.

I definitely have to agree with you in regards to general sense of leeriness I get from the majority deciding something simply because they have more votes. However, when you say that "we as a nation seem to have spoken on our view of smoking," that is exactly what you're advocating. I personally don't believe that we as a nation can speak on any subject that lies firmly within another person's individual rights, whether or not it is healthier for them. There is never a reason the majority of people should be allowed to tell a person what they can and can't do with their own business, providing it isn't directly harming other people. One could argue that smoking constitutes harm, but I contend that those who choose to enter the restaurant knowing that smoking is allowed have decided to be there because the risk is outweighed by their desire to dine there. If enough people decide to boycott an establishment because of their smoking status, then either the business will change its practices or it will fail. We don't need the heavy hand of the government enforcing the will of the majority when they can enforce it themselves through civil action.

I also have to contend that your point about drinking and driving isn't necessarily related to smoking laws. Driving under the influence represents a real and immediate threat to other people's lives. The one thing that I am in favor of the government doing is protecting us from others actions that seek to infringe upon our personal rights or deprive us of life or property. As an example, the government should have power to prosecute rapists,and prevent rape from occurring, but they shouldn't regulate prostitution or any other kind of consensual sexual act because all of the involved parties made a personal decision about their own bodies. Similarly, driving while under the influence should be prosecuted because it endangers other, but the ingestion of alcohol or other substances shouldn't be as long as the imbiber doesn't do anything (like driving) to potentially cause harm to others.

I will also have to agree with you that abuses of civil liberties like the Patriot Act aren't fair. However, I refuse to be apathetic about that fact. Civil change has never been built upon inaction; it is built upon action. When our founding fathers decided that the taxes being levied against them weren't just because they didn't have a say in their creation, they stood up and did something to change that fact. When women decided that their biological sex shouldn't exclude them from voting, they didn't sit around and lament the fact that it wasn't fair. They worked together to make the government more fair. When Americans realized that the color of someone's skin doesn't make someone less of a person, they marched on Washington and demanded equality under the law. As soon as we're willing to sit back and let the government, then the government wins and the people lose. To illustrate this, I'll quote something Benjamin Franklin said over 200 years ago: "Any society willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Finally, the tax on tobacco products is just another gimmick by the government to generate more revenue without arousing too many complainers. Because they hide behind promises to make the people as a whole healthier, and because public opinion lies against smokers, they realize that they can get away with it. One thing we can always count on the government to do effectively is find a way to generate new sources of revenue. If you have any questions about that, just look up the origins of social security. It was never actually meant to be paid out, because the retirement age was set above the mean life expectancy. All it did was funnel money into the system to fund New Deal programs while giving people the false hope of a retirement.

I agree Paul-let people decide! I started smoking at 20 while working in Orlando at a Dinner Theatre and never stopped until recently. I have now been smoke free for almost 9 months and it has been the challenge of a lifetime. Many friends still smoke, but that is their choice. I may make some suggestionns to help them but never PREACH-I understand how important that smoke was for me and how it was my friend...

.

In regards to your first contention, I never claimed that democracy was perfect. At its best, its a social contract among people to not infringe upon each others rights and ensure that everyone has mutual and equal protection. At its worst, it is nothing more than tyranny by majority. Democracy is a flawed system, but its the best thing we've got at the moment, and therefore it must be suffered. I could expound indefinitely upon the various abuses of democracy, but frankly I think many of them are obvious and there are other issues to address.

Concerning your second point about smoking and harm, I never claimed that smoking doesn't have negative health effects for both those who smoke and those who inhale the secondhand smoke. I personally take offense to your insinuations concerning both the quality of my education and my knowledge of 'real science and everything,' whatever it is that the appended 'everything' was meant to signify. This was meant to be a polite discussion, so could you please refrain from personal attacks in the future.

Continuing on, your argument concerning smoking in public could just as easily be applied to the consumption of fossil fuels. If you drive a car, or even take most forms of public transportation, you're polluting everyone's air. If you don't endeavor to be a locavore and consume as much local food as possible, then you're greatly magnifying your carbon footprint and thereby sullying good, clean air. In fact, one might argue that the damage caused when your food is shipped to you from hundreds of miles away has a much more widespread impact than the smoker sitting next to you in a bar.

Also, your assertion that smokers shouldn't ask for any government money, while other people are entitled to it, is a bit flawed. Personally, I'm not a fan of the government paying for healthcare, but if we start disqualifying anyone who makes unhealthy decisions, then we eliminate many of the people who can't afford private insurance and would therefore be reliant upon the government in such a system. If you've ever smoked a cigarette, then you're out. Do you drink? Sorry, no healthcare for you either. What about fast food? Many of the working poor rely upon cheap fast food because it is convenient, and this is quite possibly a more damaging behavior than smoking. if you want to talk about science, then look at the fact that the real, demonstrated number one killer in this nation is heart disease, caused in part by one too many Big Macs. Alas, not even we foodies are exempt. Foie Gras? Fattening cheeses? Well marbled steaks? Simply put, if you start denying healthcare to people because of their habits, you could never find a spot to draw the line.

As for your final point of contention regarding the employees of restaurants, perhaps you didn't read my first post. I gave great kudos to Roger for his decision to discuss smoking policies with his employees and reach a decision together. There are businesses out there who would cultivate a smoke free environment. As for the people who work in an establishment that allows smoking, in the end no one is forcing them to stay there. If it bothers them that much, they could find a job elsewhere. Its not their business, its the proprietors business. This isn't to say that some working environments aren't patently unsafe. Take the Chicago meat packaging industry around the turn of the century. The practices Sinclair described were not only appalling, but represented an immediate threat to the well-being of the workers. Smoking on the other hand does not constitute the same kind of immediate threat in a court of law.

As for the ADA, assuming you're speaking of the Americans with Disabilities act, it is my belief that this isn't something that the government should have to legislate. When it comes to government buildings, they should absolutely be handicap accessible, so that everyone can have access to their government. However, I don't believe that other businesses should be forced to comply, provided their actions don't pose a risk to people. If the people of a city have a problem with a business not being handicap accessible, they will react accordingly. Once again, boycotts and civil protests should be the force of change, not the government. Once one or two businesses have been boycotted, I'm certain most of the others will fall in line. Not only that, but being handicap accessible makes good business sense. The wider your customer base, the wider your profit margin.

.

That's true, I wasn't around the forums when all of that went down. I imagine it was quite the blow out then. Nevertheless, good debate, no hard feelings, and I wish you all the best. I agree to disagree.

After watching the WHAS clip that Roger was in, it appears that the Indiana legislature is debating a state wide smoking ban. Obviously the casinos are less than pleased, as are a number of businesses. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter?

That's true, I wasn't around the forums when all of that went down. I imagine it was quite the blow out then. Nevertheless, good debate, no hard feelings, and I wish you all the best. I agree to disagree.

After watching the WHAS clip that Roger was in, it appears that the Indiana legislature is debating a state wide smoking ban. Obviously the casinos are less than pleased, as are a number of businesses. Does anyone else have an opinion on the matter?

Sure. I consider it an offense when I have to endure other people's smoking in public places. It stinks. It makes me stink. When I go out to enjoy a nice a meal or some entertainment in a public place, it seems rude that someone else's dangerous and smelly habits have to ruin the experience. I'd rather not have to go home and take a shower and wash my hair and my clothes all over again within the space of just a few short hours only because I've been subjected to somebody's smoking. I understand that people who smoke don't get that their habit is really that offensive. As an ex-smoker, I get that maybe more than others.

Also, the denial smokers are in regarding the health implications is sort of astonishing. But that's how addictions and denial have always worked. I've been witness to one too many deaths related to smoking (emphysema and lung cancer), including the death of my father's wife who wasn't a smoker but who endured my father's chain smoking for 25 years. He blamed himself. He was right.

And for employees it's absolutely a civil liberties issue and a safe work environment issue. Employees should be able to work without having to endure... well all of the above.

Done now....

Alas though, no one forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking. Take the NABC for instance. People who don't want to be around smoke can stay on the public house side. Its really as simple as that. Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean that business owners should have to bow to your will. That is of course, unless they want your business. As most of them do, they'll make accommodations.

In the end, you're a guest on someone's property. You can't expect people to stop smoking in their homes in case they ever entertain non-smokers, so why should you expect other property owners to do that?

Alas though, no one forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking. Take the NABC for instance. People who don't want to be around smoke can stay on the public house side. Its really as simple as that. Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean that business owners should have to bow to your will. That is of course, unless they want your business. As most of them do, they'll make accommodations.

In the end, you're a guest on someone's property. You can't expect people to stop smoking in their homes in case they ever entertain non-smokers, so why should you expect other property owners to do that?

Please read up on the Commerce Clause. The argument you're making seems awfully close to the argument made by the Heart of Atlanta Motel in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States.

Additionally, the "tyranny of the majority" doesn't really apply to smokers. Civil rights exist to protect legitimate minority groups, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., not based on a consumer preference.

[Robin Garr]

Please read up on the Commerce Clause. The argument you're making seems awfully close to the argument made by the Heart of Atlanta Motel in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States.

Additionally, the "tyranny of the majority" doesn't really apply to smokers. Civil rights exist to protect legitimate minority groups, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., not based on a consumer preference.

Perfect. Thanks, Joel.

I now slither back out, not really wanting to be personally involved in another of these smoking-ban debates again.

Alas though, no one forces you to patronize a business that allows smoking. Take the NABC for instance. People who don't want to be around smoke can stay on the public house side. Its really as simple as that. Just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean that business owners should have to bow to your will. That is of course, unless they want your business. As most of them do, they'll make accommodations.

In the end, you're a guest on someone's property. You can't expect people to stop smoking in their homes in case they ever entertain non-smokers, so why should you expect other property owners to do that?

Sure, and I suppose for awhile businesses might decide that losing a fairly sizeable percentage of their business is worth their while.

But that doesn't address the work safety issues. For workers, they can't simply restrict their movement to "the public house side." And that seems pretty simple to understand.

And to take your own argument to a couple of logical conclusions, you might just as well suggest we have to allow folks to have sex in public places as well. After all, people have sex in their own homes, and so clearly it's infringing on our rights if we can't have sex wherever the heck we want. I hear tell many folks even allow their *guests* to have sex in their homes. And clearly it's infringing on people's civil liberties if we're not able to walk out on a restaurant patio or porch and pee in the bushes. Surely it should be our right to be able to pee anywhere we want, yeah? I mean it's perfectly legal to do it on your own property. Whose right is it to stop you from peeing in your own rose bushes, right? So why in the world should my civil liberties be restricted from peeing or whatever in a public place or outside a restaurant? After all, it's natural. We all do it, right?

To suggest this is strictly a private property issue and that a place of business is absolutely equal to a private home is specious. I'm absolutely certain you know that's not how business actually works and that the two aren't the same at all. And because I'm absolutely sure you *do* know that, I'm also pretty sure you're just arguing that position for the sake of argument. But it's a totally fallacious argument. Which of course you already know.

Because here's how it would work, then, if they're both equal. If you make the case that we should allow actual private property to function in exactly the same as public property or places of business, then we'd have to make sure they're equal in every way. That would mean that we'd have to have exactly the same rights in a public place as we do at home, that we should be able to do everything we do at home in a public place or a place of business as well. Apart from the absolute silliness of that suggestion, it's not actually how businesses and actual private property laws work. They're already different. And the laws that pertain to those separate entities are already different.

We all know that, right? So you're gonna have to come up with another argument.

And to take your own argument to a couple of logical conclusions, you might just as well suggest we have to allow folks to have sex in public places as well. After all, people have sex in their own homes, and so clearly it's infringing on our rights if we can't have sex wherever the heck we want. I hear tell many folks even allow their *guests* to have sex in their homes. And clearly it's infringing on people's civil liberties if we're not able to walk out on a restaurant patio or porch and pee in the bushes. Surely it should be our right to be able to pee anywhere we want, yeah? I mean it's perfectly legal to do it on your own property. Whose right is it to stop you from peeing in your own rose bushes, right? So why in the world should my civil liberties be restricted from peeing or whatever in a public place or outside a restaurant? After all, it's natural.

Well Im glad you stopped short of having sex in the rose bushes. Just the thought of all those thorns....