Am I the only non-smoker who thinks "smoking bans" are a bunch of BS?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is nanny state thinking at its apex. Employees are too stupid to choose where they work, a smokey bar or a smoke free environment.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply using slogans to make your point. Employees simply don't have the choice you think they have. There stupidity, as you call it, may extend to putting them at risk to support their families.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the point several in this thread are neglecting. Employees cannot change jobs as easily as they can change what they're having for dinner tonight. Also, what people may not realize is that there used to be NO CHOICE, since before the bans came along, smoking was everywhere: inessentially every bar, restaurant, workplace, office building, etcetera. They presume that since today there exist choices, that it was always like that, or would be like that absent the bans. Having experienced an era of smoking being nearly omnipresent, I have less faith that if the bans were lifted today, that consumers and workers would have the degree of choice that they seem to suppose would exist absent the bans. My guess is that HeavilyArmed, too, is too young to have experienced or to remember what it was like in the USA before any smoking bans came into effect.

Today, it might be that even absent the bans, there would be more choices due to greater public awareness and preferences. I doubt there be nearly as much choice as the advocates of non-bans would suppose, though.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
towns don't have to pass ordinances against smoking in bars and restaurants either, yet some towns do so. I think that is entirely within their rights and purview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments have no rights.

[ QUOTE ]
After all, rights which not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may want to go read Amendment X again.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but it's not that simple (or at least it didn't used to be that simple, before non-smoking became a popular policy). A relative handful of smokers, scattered around a restaurant, or a town, or a city, or a state, or a country, possessed the capability to make life unpleasant and unhealthful for every non-smoker in every place of public accomodation everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've brought up the point that it "used to" be difficult to avoid smoking. So what? The bans in question are for TODAY. Not 1950. The fact that you have to go back in time says a lot about your position from a practical standpoint. There are already LOTS of places that voluntarily ban smoking.

[ QUOTE ]
When there is wide choice, as today, between Smoking and Non-Smoking, it isn't so bad: but before the laws banning smoking started, the rule was basically: Smoking Everywhere. I don't know if you're old enough to have experienced that or to remember it. It wouldn't have done you any good to move to another town to get another job because every job had people who smoked in the workplace; it wasn't just in bars and restaurants.

[/ QUOTE ]

And at the time, the overwhelming majority of people didn't care. Now some people care, and some places voluntarily limit smoking.

[ QUOTE ]
smoking in places of public accomodation

[/ QUOTE ]

Define this, please.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand something: under AC, you have the moral right to do anything if it does not harm or coerce others, is that correct? Well, smoking around others indoors does not fit into that category because it does harm others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you force them to breathe your smoke. Since nobody is forcibly required to be present in a bar, nobody there can be said to be harmed involuntarily.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it's so dangerous for those who work there! Don't you care that they risk life and limb every time they go out? Why aren't we putting a stop to such needless deaths and prohibiting everyone but the boat captains from going out there?



[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t feel sorry for the Bering Sea fisher man making $80,000 in 3 months, I don’t feel sorry for the pretty poker dealer making $200 a night nor do I feel sorry for the pretty female, asian Pai Gow dealer making $800 a night. These people have jobs that require skills or other qualifications and they are compensated for working in the hostile environment of their choosing.

I say that low income, unskilled, unattractive workers have less choice. Obviously you don't and we simply are going to disagree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so it's a matter of how much money one makes? If the waitress is paid enough, it would be OK to smoke in a bar?

How much, then, is "enough?" And why isn't the waitress capable of determining that for herself, even though the "skilled" pai gow dealer *is* capable of determining that?

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding bars - I’d be more sympathetic to your arguments if everyone involved didn’t benefit so much - the customers, the employees, and the owners. If the owners were losing money, that would be one thing, but they aren’t ( in aggregate ), they are making more money since the ban went into effect. I did see a study where tobacco companies lost money due to the ban, but, oh well, we were discussing bars. Evidently, when people are smoking less, they are drinking more. Ironically, by forcing all bars to comply, the State forced all bars to make more money. If the State hadn’t enacted these laws, it would have been tough for bar owners to cartelize in so efficient a manner.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it all comes down to money for you? Greed is usually the mud thrown at those opposing such bans.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
towns don't have to pass ordinances against smoking in bars and restaurants either, yet some towns do so. I think that is entirely within their rights and purview.

[/ QUOTE ]

Governments have no rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws.

[ QUOTE ]
After all, rights which not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You may want to go read Amendment X again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amendment 10: "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
banning smoking in bars what next?...banning on-line gambling as well...oh wait

[/ QUOTE ]

Online gambling doesn't affect others... smoking surely does!

[/ QUOTE ]



you just said:

[ QUOTE ]
There stupidity, as you call it, may extend to putting them at risk to support their families.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't gambling the rent money away "affect others"? You're concerned about families, aren't you???

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

A town is not an actor. A town doesn't "pass ordinances". A group of people certainly has a right to agree upon some rules for interactions.

They don't have any right to impose those rules on other people who don't agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many times does the word "right" appear in there? This is not a semantical quibble. The words were chosen *very* carefully.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but it's not that simple (or at least it didn't used to be that simple, before non-smoking became a popular policy). A relative handful of smokers, scattered around a restaurant, or a town, or a city, or a state, or a country, possessed the capability to make life unpleasant and unhealthful for every non-smoker in every place of public accomodation everywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've brought up the point that it "used to" be difficult to avoid smoking. So what? The bans in question are for TODAY. Not 1950. The fact that you have to go back in time says a lot about your position from a practical standpoint. There are already LOTS of places that voluntarily ban smoking.

[ QUOTE ]
When there is wide choice, as today, between Smoking and Non-Smoking, it isn't so bad: but before the laws banning smoking started, the rule was basically: Smoking Everywhere. I don't know if you're old enough to have experienced that or to remember it. It wouldn't have done you any good to move to another town to get another job because every job had people who smoked in the workplace; it wasn't just in bars and restaurants.

[/ QUOTE ]

And at the time, the overwhelming majority of people didn't care. Now some people care, and some places voluntarily limit smoking.

[ QUOTE ]
smoking in places of public accomodation

[/ QUOTE ]

Define this, please.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me see if I understand something: under AC, you have the moral right to do anything if it does not harm or coerce others, is that correct? Well, smoking around others indoors does not fit into that category because it does harm others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you force them to breathe your smoke. Since nobody is forcibly required to be present in a bar, nobody there can be said to be harmed involuntarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

If bans were not in effect today, it is unclear how many establishments would voluntarily ban smoking. I agree it would be a greater number than it was 50 years ago.

I know you think that ownership and voluntaryism constitute the essence of political morality, but I think that smokers making an establishment unhealthily off-limits to most of the public who would otherwise frequent it, are overstepping their moral and ethical bounds. They are also harming employees.

You will argue that nobody has to go there or work there, but I see something wrong with a standard which enables a minority of the population to exclude others from places of public accomodation (definition: it means exactly what it says) by virtue of severely polluting the air indoors. If smoking did not directly and adversely affect others, I wouldn't care, but it directly does. If a business is going to open its doors to the public, I don't think a minority of smokers should be able to, in effect, coercively exclude the majority of non-smokers from that establishment.

Thanks for your responses.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So say you. I think a town, with support of majority voters, has the right to pass some ordinances. Similarly, the several states have the right to create laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

A town is not an actor. A town doesn't "pass ordinances". A group of people certainly has a right to agree upon some rules for interactions.

They don't have any right to impose those rules on other people who don't agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?

[/ QUOTE ]

How many times does the word "right" appear in there? This is not a semantical quibble. The words were chosen *very* carefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to elaborate? And do you disagree that the states and the people have the right to create laws through local government?

EDIT: are we mixing quotes from our different posts by mistake? My saying this: "Are we quibbling about the usage of "given" versus "reserved", or do we disagree regarding the people having the right to create laws and ordinances through state and local governments?" was intended only for response to your response about the Amendment X. This can become a problem when multiple responses are present in one thread, I think. I'm already getting lost in the maze.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only if you force them to breathe your smoke. Since nobody is forcibly required to be present in a bar, nobody there can be said to be harmed involuntarily.

[/ QUOTE ]

If bans were not in effect today, it is unclear how many establishments would voluntarily ban smoking. I agree it would be a greater number than it was 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

So will you drop this pointless sideshow?

[ QUOTE ]
I know you think that ownership and voluntaryism constitute the essence of political morality, but I think that smokers making an establishment unhealthily off-limits to most of the public who would otherwise frequent it, are overstepping their moral and ethical bounds. They are also harming employees.

[/ QUOTE ]

But "the public" has no right to frequent any particular establishment. The bar down the street doesn't put their TVs on the weather channel. I might "otherwise frequent" it if they did. They don't serve organic milk, only sodas (which are unhealthy, of course). I might otherwise frequent it if they did.

[ QUOTE ]
You will argue that nobody has to go there or work there, but I see something wrong with a standard which enables a minority of the population to exclude others from places of public accomodation (definition: it means exactly what it says) by virtue of severely polluting the air indoors. If smoking did not directly and adversely affect others, I wouldn't care, but it directly does. If a business is going to open its doors to the public, I don't think a minority of smokers should be able to, in effect, coercively exclude the majority of non-smokers from that establishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "minority of smokers" are NOT able to exclude anyone - UNLESS THE OWNER ALLOWS IT.

I open an establishment. Some people come in, and get punched. They find this objectionable. Should punching be banned?

Oh, BTW, my establishment is a boxing ring.

And you still haven't defined "public accomodation".

If I have a cookout at my house, and invite the entire neighborhood over for burgers, is my house a "public accomodation"?

What if I charge admission (i.e. a cover charge)? Now what if I call that admission a "membership fee"? How does charging a "membership fee" (usually a defining feature of private clubs) change things?

I live in Little Rock, but I work in Conway (30 miles north of Little Rock), which is in a dry county. A new restaurant has opened up in Downtown Conway which serves alcohol. How do they do it? They charge a $5 "membership fee" (and the membership includes a $5 food voucher). They advertise (the ads have a tiny little "attention members and guests" disclaimer in them). Is this a "public accomodation"?