The Nanny Police in the Michigan state capitol and governor's mansion who want to run our lives are now proposing to ban all smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants. The bill has already passed the House and the governor says she'll sign it if and when the Senate approves it. As of this writing, it hasn't been approved. The ban would encompass almost all workplaces, including restaurants and bars. Proponents cite public health reasons for backing the ban, while opponents point to the rights of private business owners as a reason to oppose it.

The ban is supposedly to protect the general public, as well as employees of public establishments, from second-hand smoke. However, there is no scientific documentation that breathing second-hand tobacco smoke is any more dangerous than breathing the diesel fumes of city busses. Tobacco is a legal substance and smoking it is a legal practice and one of choice. Smoking in bars is something to be expected. It can be assumed very few people go to bars with the expectation of being healthier when they leave.

Of course casinos, horse tracks, bingo halls, cigar bars and smoke shops would by exempt from the smoking ban. Why? A good question to which the advocates of this bill cannot reasonably answer. Aren't the employees of these establishments and the general public that frequent them good enough to be protected from the "insidious health hazards" of second-hand smoke? Or is it because a lot of gamblers smoke and the state doesn’t want to discourage their contributions to casino taxes. Smoking for dollars. Most of the arguments of the proponents of this bill fall apart when laid out in the light of day and analyzed logically.

The hypocrisy of all this never ceases to amaze me. The government, which wants to ban all smoking just about everywhere, collects billions of dollars in taxes on tobacco. The government says it wants to protect everybody's health by taxing tobacco out of existence and banning all public smoking but it would lose billions if everybody did quit smoking which would mean a huge tax boost for everybody. Every time there's a cash crisis, Lansing wants to raise the tax on tobacco products. Most of the defeated SCHIP bill for children's health would have been paid for with higher taxes on tobacco products. Think of it...using the taxes from smokers to pay for children's health! If we want to keep our children healthy, we must encourage a larger share of the population to continue to ruin their health by smoking more. Smoking for dollars.

We are getting closer to a "police state" when the government starts controlling our lives with ridiculous laws like this one that makes no sense and has little justification. Chipping away at the people's legal rights is nothing short of tyranny. Those who choose to smoke are engaging in a legal activity and their rights should enjoy the same protection and due process as everybody else's. Let the private property owners decide if they want to ban all smoking or designate smoking-only areas. Government has no business interfering with the legal rights of its citizens! The last time it did this, we got Prohibition and Al Capone.

quote:

there is no scientific documentation that breathing second-hand tobacco smoke is any more dangerous than breathing the diesel fumes of city busses.

Don't believe that for a moment. First, the people that are claiming there's "no evidence" that second-hand smoke is harmful -- namely, big tobacco lobbyists -- are couching their argument in deliberately deceptive terms, and are choosing to ignore several epidemiological studies showing the opposite. While it's likely true that moderate, infrequent exposure to second hand smoke presents a low (but not non-existent) cancer and heart disease risk to non-smokers, that risk increases exponentially and rapidly for prolonged exposure environments where cigarette smoke is prevalent. The risk of coronary disease rises even more quickly.

quote:

Those who choose to smoke are engaging in a legal activity and their rights should enjoy the same protection and due process as everybody else's.

It seems I need to keep pointing out this simple fact: smoking is not a right. Smokers are not a protected group. Smoking is not a legal right of a citizen. Just like driving a car, smoking is only a legal activity when it's engaged in under circumstances allowed by state and local law.

quote:

Let the private property owners decide if they want to ban all smoking or designate smoking-only areas.

Property owners are not allowed to decide on matters of public health policy. Public health always trumps the individual rights of property owners; the rights of property owners do not include the right to cause harm to others.

While I agree they go too far in many instances, and make it too difficult to obtain common-sense exceptions, no-smoking regulations are clearly good public health policy.

They've had that law in NY for years now. It sucks since I have to go outside of my friends bar if I want to have cigar. Downside is that 1) my drink gets warm and 2) I lose my barstool.

Personally, I can understand a restaurant banning smoking. However, a bar should allow it if it chooses so and notify it's patrons that the estabilishment is a smoke-friendly place. The customer at that point has been warned and if they want a smoke free place to drink, to find a differnt place to drink.

I know for a while the Anti-smoking Nazi's were trying to get smoking banned in all outdoor public places in NYC (stadiums, parks, streets, etc...) but it was shot down. Score one for us!!!

quote:

It sucks since I have to go outside of my friends bar if I want to have cigar. Downside is that 1) my drink gets warm and 2) I lose my barstool.

Yup. The Michigan law, as oldstogie describes it, would be a lot more relaxed and less restrictive than we have here in Massachusetts.

quote:

However, a bar should allow it if it chooses so and notify it's patrons that the estabilishment is a smoke-friendly place. The customer at that point has been warned and if they want a smoke free place to drink, to find a differnt place to drink.

Sounds reasonable at first, but lawmakers respond that they're concerned about the severe health hazards to the bar's employees, who don't have the option of leaving the premises.

Having been born and raised in MI, I'm sad to see what's happening in that state, and not just with nanny state-type legislation.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

However, a bar should allow it if it chooses so and notify it's patrons that the estabilishment is a smoke-friendly place. The customer at that point has been warned and if they want a smoke free place to drink, to find a differnt place to drink.

Sounds reasonable at first, but lawmakers respond that they're concerned about the severe health hazards to the bar's employees, who don't have the option of leaving the premises.

They have the option of not working there and finding a non-smoking place to work. Besides, if you think you're not going to be subjected to smoke in a bar by working there, you've got a lot more problems than 2nd hand smoke. What's next...I can't swear in a bar because it'll cause mental anquish on my waitress who has to listen to it and is now "emotional scared and suffering distress"????

quote:

Originally posted by The EVP:
They have the option of not working there and finding a non-smoking place to work. Besides, if you think you're not going to be subjected to smoke in a bar by working there, you've got a lot more problems than 2nd hand smoke. What's next...I can't swear in a bar because it'll cause mental anquish on my waitress who has to listen to it and is now "emotional scared and suffering distress"????

This is exactly right.

Furthermore, I deeply resent the way American society is trying to build in state-sponsored protections against every tiny danger, be it our exposure to second hand smoke or Janet Jackson's nipple.

In any case, if I owned a bar, I would resent the hell out of these people with the respiratory fortitude of orchids dictating what I can do in my place.

This is no ordinary public health provision mandating, say, that I can't allow rats to crap in the salad. This is regulating a threat that should be patently obvious to anyone walking through the door.

I could spend all day writing philosophical treatises on the moral vacuity of smoking bans, but the core of all them would be: if you don't like it, leave.

I feel that they did it right in Georgia. They enacted the no smoking inside laws here as well, but they gave exclusions. Bars that do not allow anyone under the age of 18 can allow smoking. As a father of a toddler, I wouldn't want to sit and eat at a restaurant with a smoker at the next table. But as an adult who loves cigars, I enjoy smoking in my favorite bar while playing darts. They got it right here IMO.

quote:

In any case, if I owned a bar, I would resent the hell out of these people with the respiratory fortitude of orchids dictating what I can do in my place.

Sorry, guys. I feel your pain. But those are arguments that just don't cut it -- you're making comparisons that clearly don't exist and are intellectually dishonest.

If you owned a bar, you may well resent being regulated. Well, unfortunate for you. The public health is way more important. You may not cause harm to others, and you can't say, "If being in this place causes you harm, then leave". Your philosphical treatises to that effect would be in error ... true moral vacuity would be giving more consideration to a bar owner than to the public health. No employee should be forced to make a choice between keeping his or her job or not getting cancer (even if they possess, as Scott says so contemptuously, 'the respiratory fortitude of orchids'). Few people have the option of just "finding another job", as you so casually aver.

I'm not sure why you think there's no law against allowing rat droppings in the salad. Of course there is. There are many regulations to which Health Department inspectors require restaurant or tavern owners to adhere ... sanitation, meat storage, rodent excrement, temperature of the water dishes are washed in, and others.

As for the 'swearing in a bar' question, that's clearly specious, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Second-hand smoke is a well-established clear and present danger. You don't advance your argument with silly "what's next" speculatons.

IMO, you guys believe in the sanctity of individual 'rights' only if they're yours. Not mine. I stand by my statement ... smoking bans in public places are simply good public health policy.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jack White:
Sorry, guys. I feel your pain. But those are arguments that just don't cut it -- you're making comparisons that clearly don't exist and are intellectually dishonest.[/qoute]

They don't cut it if you're a liberal I agree.

Still, I feel there could be accomodations that would allow a middle ground. Maybe there are rooms set aside, with proper (read regulated) smoke eaters to clean and purify the air. These rooms could be self serve (i.e. anyone wanting anything goes to the bar/service area and gets it themselves) so that no employee and no one unwilling to subject themselves to smoke (be it first or second hand) is forced to do so.

But Big Government doesn't believe we can monitor ourselves - and to be fair why should they when morons can scald themselves on McDonald's coffee, sue and win.

No Jack, I disagree. Big Government will not be truly satisfied until every aspect of our lives is monitored, regulated, codified and adjusted. That is unless we are able to elect representatives with a backbone, who are not afraid to pursue legislation that doesn't cater to the 10% of the feeble minded and politically correct, but instead begins to once again acknowledge the individual rights our fore fathers fought and died for!

Not at all, Jack. I, for one, favor everyone's individual rights - yours included. However, you - or your proxies in the legislature - do not have the right to dictate the terms by which I serve drinks to my customers in the place I paid for. That simple, really.

As to the status of my employees, why do you have such a low opinion of their abilities that you think they can't find work elsewhere? In places where there are no smoking bans, smoke-free venues abound. Likewise, they are not indentured servants sentenced to a smoky, short life of penury in my bar, or any other bar. Like many, I worked my fair share of stints in bars and smoky restaurants. When the work became unsatisfying, I moved on.

Risks are present in many professions - firefighter, cab driver, nurse. Why is schlepping cocktails any different?

The state senate voted the bill down yesterday, so for right now all is for nought.

Does anybody remember Prohibition? You know, a bunch of high minded, well-intentioned citizens driving the politicians to ban booze. We all know how that worked out. Not only driving the populace to become underground drinkers, it also set in motion in uniting a loose confederation criminals into criminal force that has yet to be destroyed. The profits from bootlegging, and establishing speakeasies,were so immense, not even cops could resist, thus turning a blind eye. As we fast forward to the 21st century, our politicians, and assorted do-gooders, have begun to encroach on our personal liberties. Yes tobacco is a legal product, therefore, we have that right to smoke,and we usually don't foist our desire for a peaceful place to enjoy a cigar upon others. May I also remind some of you folks that the governmental nannies have now focused on what we eat, what we wear, and even with what we say. If were not careful, we will soon be staring down the blackhole and observing what once was an exploding star of our liberties. Finally, don't you find it ironic that the same generation that stuffed towels into the cracks of their dormroom doors to hide the scent the dubes they were smoking,(which of course was and still illegal), are the same folks that want to ban legal smoking?

quote:

and to be fair why should they when morons can scald themselves on McDonald's coffee, sue and win.

That moron was an 81 year old woman and the coffee was 20 degrees higher than it was supposed to be served. Also, the jury deducted 20% from the verdict because she spilled the coffee on herself.The expert coffe guy said coffee is best at 175 degree, the coffee was about 195. That temparture is hot enough to cause serious burns very quickly. The woman had third degree burns and needed skin grafts and spent seven days in the hospital. The verdict was fine.

Prior to the case, the Shriner's Burn Institute in Cincinnati published that resturants shouldn't serve beverages above 130 degrees. McDonalds knew of these findings and blew them off so they could keep their coffee hot longer and serve more. Therefore, what they did was unlawful.

quote:

No Jack, I disagree. Big Government will not be truly satisfied until every aspect of our lives is monitored, regulated, codified and adjusted.

SubChop, you'll be surprised to know how close your opinion on nanny government is to mine. I'm totally and unalterably against legislation enacted for the sole reason that it's good for me. I'm against laws that forbid me to eat a burger with transfats, if I want to. I'm against laws that make me wear seatbelts when I drive my car, or a helmet when I ride my bike. But none of those things affects anyone else. That's not the case with smoking in public places because that causes harm to others.

I believe completely in Mill's take on human rights, which I've quoted in earlier posts (italics mine):

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

In other words, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

quote:

Still, I feel there could be accomodations that would allow a middle ground. Maybe there are rooms set aside, with proper (read regulated) smoke eaters to clean and purify the air.

Yes, I agree completely. Though I think smoking bans are good policy, I've stated here before that I think they overreach, are too all-encompassing and make it too difficult to obtain common-sense exceptions.

The job I have CHOSEN(i wish to make it clear that this was a choice) is Extremely dangerous. It invariably falls into the top 5 most dangerous jobs in the USA for Deaths per 100,000 workers. If they ban smoking in a privately owned establishment(I know they have already) then why doesn't the government tell the local Utility that the Power must be out before I can trim those lines. 7200+ volts has been proven to be Fatal in Many cases. yet I'm forced to work in the vicinity with no nanny state to protect me. Now I feel disenfranchised. who will take care of me? <sob> People have the free will to move on to another restaurant or bar.
I'm just really sick of the powers that be telling us all how to live. too bad we can't seem to get anyone elected that believes in the Constitution.

quote:

tobacco is a legal product, therefore, we have that right to smoke

For the ninetieth time, no we don't. There is no such thing as the right to smoke. Cars are a legal product, but we don't have a right to drive them; state law permits us to drive them, within parameters set by the legislature. Alcohol the same. And cigarettes, pipes and cigars.

quote:

Originally posted by Jack White:

quote:

No Jack, I disagree. Big Government will not be truly satisfied until every aspect of our lives is monitored, regulated, codified and adjusted.

SubChop, you'll be surprised to know how close your opinion on nanny government is to mine. I'm totally and unalterably against legislation enacted for the sole reason that it's good for me. I'm against laws that forbid me to eat a burger with transfats, if I want to. I'm against laws that make me wear seatbelts when I drive my car, or a helmet when I ride my bike. But none of those things affects anyone else. That's not the case with smoking in public places because that causes harm to others.

I believe completely in Mill's take on human rights, which I've quoted in earlier posts (italics mine):

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

In other words, your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.

quote:

Still, I feel there could be accomodations that would allow a middle ground. Maybe there are rooms set aside, with proper (read regulated) smoke eaters to clean and purify the air.

Yes, I agree completely. Though I think smoking bans are good policy, I've stated here before that I think they overreach, are too all-encompassing and make it too difficult to obtain common-sense exceptions.

You mean Bentham.

What if by using the harm principal you end up causing more harm than good, this would make the action immoral. We can't really say what the end result of banning smoking will be. Maybe a loss of business? Loss of Income for families?

How can we say not smoking makes the majority happy? We're not talking about numbers we talking about happiness. What if my enjoyment of my cigar is more than all the customers of the establishment? Then your little buddy Mill would be fine with it. Lets quantify happiness based on smoking, this needs to be done through years of research. If all our happiness is higher than non-smokers, it's fine. Oh wait, we can't quantify it, that's when Mill's philosophy gets completely impractical.



Felicific calculus doesn't work, Jack.



Sorry, I'm being a devil's advocate.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jms2788,