milford88

j_999_9,

Well said! .... and well defended!

In case you were wondering, you're not the only one who sees this issue from your perspective. Freedom and property rights have enjoyed more defenders in prior similar threads. I can only assume that others felt that there wasn't much value to re-igniting the debate. Although I would agree with them, I didn't want you to think that you were a lone voice for your position.

Stephanie

Probably the only reason beachtowns ban smoking on the beach is that the nasty smokers love to stick their cigarette butts in the sand and use the beach as their personal ashtry vs. having some manners and class and bringing a cup or tray with them to dispose of the ashes and butts.

cd

Just read in today's Akron Beacon Journal that the City of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio will not hire smokers. They cite higher health costs and have been NOT hiring smokers since 2005. Also, Summa, Anthem Health Care Agency and about 20% of Industry have gone to not hiring smokers.

Emucom

cd,

You should tune into the Howie Chizek show on WNIR 100.1. He is talking about the smoking ban. By the way, there is a smoking ban in Franklin County (Columbus) and no loss of business in the restaurants down there since it passed.

budget4me

j wrote:

"If a bar or restaurant owner decides to allow smoking in his own place, that should be his decision."

I don't usually reply to "troll" posts (as he admitted he was doing), but I'll take a stab at this one.

Personal freedoms are not absolute. Owners of businesses have many restrictions that they must operate under--restrictions on zoning, restrictions on hours of operation, restrictions on ages of employees (child labor laws), restrictions on advertising signs/colors/heights, etc. Restrictions on smoking are no different than any of the other myriad rules in effect.

To see the illogic of such an argument, take the sentence "People have the right to smoke in a bar if the owner allows it and customers can always go elsewhere if they don't like it." Now remove the word "smoke" and replace it with "blow spitballs through straws at others." Why not? It's that person's personal expression of freedom, and nobody is forcing those customers to stay there.

People's freedom to do (fill in the blank here) is contingent upon other people's freedom to avoid harm from those actions. Since smoke does not contain itself within a four inch boundary from the human tobacco tomb, the actions of a smoker do, in fact, affect the freedoms of others to enjoy clean breathing air, clean clothes, and non-bloodshot eyes.

That having been said, it's been my experience that most smokers ignore the restrictions anyway, so I really don't see what difference such a law would make. I've admonished smokers in elevators, locker rooms, churches, swimming pools, libraries, buses, classrooms, airplanes, etc. and a variety of other places where smoking is almost always prohibited. None of them seemed particularly interested in my personal freedom to avoid tobacco smoke, even though the law stated so.

j_999_9

Well, I didn't stay I was a "troll," but let's not quibble about semantics. Oh, wait, let's quibble.

Again, budget, you make an argument about whether people should follow the law. Again, that's not the argument; it's about whether there should be a such law.

Your spitball comparison doesn't hold water (ahem) and in fact supports my argument: There is no law against shooting spitballs in a bar. However, an owner certainly can bar such behavior if he chooses. Same with smoking. If the owner thinks customers find it offensive, he can bar customers who engage in the behavior.

Or should we have a law against spitballs?

And in my experience, I have found 99% of smokers comply with laws and regs about smoking. The problem is that when one doesn't, it seems so rude that we want to condemn all smokers.

And again, I don't smoke, and I don't like to be around smoke, but I guess the libertarian streak in me just rises up against such rules.

cd

Emu
All of Ohio is now a non-smoking state in all public places as of December 1.

MerryTravel

I think a better comparison than spitballs is alcohol. A person can drink as much as they like as long as their behavior does not affect others. As soon as it can, laws kick in to regulate it. You're welcome to smoke as much as you want in your own home, but when you're in public and your smoke can harm others, it is now regulated in many areas.

Emucom

Cd,

There was a smoking ban passed in Franklin County (Columbus) two years ago.

budget4me

There seems to be some amnesia here.
Let's go back and review.

First there was this posting:

"Author: j_999_9 <threadselect.jsp?screen_name=j_999_9&fid=1>
Date: 11/10/2006, 02:59 pm
I sort of knew my response would be trolling for trouble, but I'll try to reply."

My reply stated:

"I don't usually reply to "troll" posts (as he admitted he was doing), but I'll take a stab at this one."

Then he responded:

"Author: j_999_9 <threadselect.jsp?screen_name=j_999_9&fid=1>
Date: 11/14/2006, 10:13 am
Well, I didn't stay I was a "troll," but let's not quibble about semantics. Oh, wait, let's quibble."

Since we're quibbling, I didn't say you were a troll either. I DID say I don't usually reply to troll posts, and you had stated that you were "trolling," so the term originated with you.

It's all well and good to be a libertarian, but we needs laws to protect us. In this instance, the law protects our health. It's not a matter of individual rights or freedoms being abridged. Somehow people often have a mistaken notion that the price we pay to live in a democratic society means that we can do whatever we want, wherever we want, whenever we want. That is a fallacy.

Think of laws as seat belts. Many people complain that they are uncomfortable, and that they rub against--nay, perhaps even chafe--their necks. The alternative to using them, though, is a lack of protection in an accident. Think of laws the same way. While they may "chafe," they provide protections that outweigh the chafing.

sylvia3

In Colorado, a pair of smokers, condo owners, were just told they couldn't smoke in their own home, because the smoke was bothering a neighbor. The HOA, it seems, will win this one. (Maybe they should just give up and quit, anyway?)

Gekko

"We the People" have spoken.

directions

Washington state has a no smoking in public places law. Workers have to be at least 25 feet from their business in order to smoke. Smoking is terrible and second hand smoke is also pretty disgusting and all this coming from an ex-smoker.

I just came back from a Turkey and Greece trip where it seems most everyone smokes, we'd go back to the hotel room reeking of cigarette smoke, yuk!

milford88

I'm sure this won't make anyone reconsider their position, but I can't allow budget4me's arguments to go unchallenged.

We need laws to protect us from others. I don't need laws to protect me from myself, or from those with whom I willingly associate in private establishments.

(To clarify, ... "Private" is not a description of the atmosphere, but rather it is a description of ownership. City Hall is a public building....Denny's is a private one.)

I can make decisions about the consequences that I realize from my behavior for myself. Obviously, some people will make bad decisions, but it isn't the government's role to keep us from making bad decisions for ourselves, but rather to prevent the invasion of our rights by others.

With Thanksgiving now a few minutes away, I must also respond to Gekko's "'We the People' have spoken." If I understand Gekko's point, the suggestion is that the majority's decision has been made, and the smokers' side lost.

One thing that I'm perpetually thankful for is the brilliance of our Forefathers, and the freedom that is acknowledged by the system of government they founded. That system, of course, was (and in theory is) a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. They were afraid that pure democracy would quickly degenerate into mob rule. That is to say that the majority could impose its will on the minority, without Constitutional justification. Hmmm...that sounds a bit like the current treatment of smokers, and business owners who wish to cater to them.

budget4me

Milford wrote:

"I can make decisions about the consequences that I realize from my behavior for myself. Obviously, some people will make bad decisions, but it isn't the government's role to keep us from making bad decisions for ourselves, but rather to prevent the invasion of our rights by others."

I am glad to see that you agree with me, Milton. It is indeed the government's role to prevent the invasion of our rights by others, and the government is acting to protect the right of nonsmokers, especially employees in these establishments, from breathing carcinogenic tobacco smoke. Since it has taken 2,006 years for the pendulum to swing this way, you'll understand if nonsmokers aren't in a hurry to have it swing back the other way any time soon.

There is a problem with your first statement, however. People always are very insistent that they can make their own decisions on matters such as smoking, but then they are the first ones to put their hands out for government funding for their health related illnesses that inevitably follow. Of course it's not just smokers--another common example are motorcyclists who fiercely proclaim their rights not to wear a helmet, then shrug when their medical bills are $50K and say "I can't pay that," leaving the bill to the public to pay.

bgans

The rationale for extending the smoking ban to restaurants and bars was for the protection of the employees. Smoking had been banned in offices for years (although I had one boss who would close the door to his office and hang his head out the window to have a cigarette before he would go stand on the curb and freeze with everyone else). The logic was that smoking had been banned in workplaces to protect the health of non-smoking employees and it was unfair not to extend the same protection to restaurant/bar employees. There has been no appreciable decline in patronage of restaurants or bars in NYC since the ban went into place and it has, in fact, made them much more pleasant places to be. I hated coming home from a night out and needing to wash my hair as soon as I walked in the door because of the stench of cigarette smoke.

Gekko

In New York City, I'm quite sure the dry cleaners have lost some business -- I know that I use their services less now that I don't stink like a dirty ashtray when I come home from bars & restaurants.

Yes, smokers, you STINK.

wyatt92

Milford, you said, "We need laws to protect us from others." Exactly. We need the law to protect us from others who may expose us to deadly cigarette smoke.

Bet you didn't think you were arguing for the other side did you?

bjboothman

Yeah, but when there are big bucks to be made (the casinos which are for the most part, highly smoke filled environments), the government you trust to protect you from the actions of others no longer gives a rat's patootie about you. Isn't that SPECIAL?

Curt

Agree with bjbooth. I always found it interesting that casinos are usually exempted from the bans - makes no sense except for the $$$ the local governments rake in from the casinos. However, I bet that those addicted to gambling will continue to go to the casinos even if they can not smoke.

As an interesting aside, a local suburban city here passed a no-smoking law that stated it applied to "public" areas so several bars promptly declared themselves "private clubs" and sold memberships for a token amount so the "members" can continue to smoke. Only "members" will be allowed in. Gets around the ban, keeps their patrons happy and coughing, and anyone going in knows up front what to expect. May be a solution that can be used other places.