There has been some concern that I haven’t been critical enough of the anti-smoking-ban statistics coming out of Springfield. So, for those who would like to hear the other side of the story, Knight in Dragonland has a well-written pro-smoking-ban post here.
As I said in my comments on an earlier post, I’m willing to concede that the statistics could be invalid. It wouldn’t be the first time stats were used that way. However, I still maintain that the main issue — trampling on private property rights in order to impose this smoking ban — is a devil’s pact. Once you start setting these kinds of legal precedents, you’re asking for trouble down the road. If non-smokers want to outlaw smoking, I’m not opposed to that; I’m just opposed to further eroding private property rights to do it.
smoking is a digusting, filthy and unhealthy habit. I don’t like to be around smokers, and I’m not shy about saying so, BUT, CJ has a valid point here. Those of us (me included) who stand to benefit from this government dictate will be sorry when the next government dictate comes after us for, say, eating something the health police don’t like. It’s coming. The State is already dictating what schools can offer. Soon they are going to be telling fast food joints what they can put on their menu, and the next thing you know they will be telling you what you can buy at the grocery store. Laugh now. You won’t be laughing later, I guarantee it. The elitists know what’s good for us little mice.
I understand your concerns regarding private property rights, C.J. I certainly have big problems with the abuse of eminent domain, and I’ve also made clear my distaste for the crippling of basic civil rights by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. However, when it comes to public health and the evidence is good, I think individual rights sometimes need to take a backseat. Tobacco smoke is the number one cause of preventable premature death & disability in this country. As a physician, that makes it my public enemy number one.
Re: the Mouse
I think it’s perfectly proper for the state to mandate that PUBLIC schools actually provide HEALTHY food for the students that go there and restrict access to unhealthy junk like soda & candy. I don’t see them mandating the menus of privately owned restaurants – that’s a logical leap across the Grand Canyon, IMO. I don’t think the “slippery slope” could build up enough momentum to make that jump.
Note – What’s the #2 cause of preventable premature death & disability in this country? The combination of obesity and sedentary lifestyle. Public enemy #2.
As with my public enemy #1, the key for me in this fight is always education. I only advocate restrictions on personal freedoms when they endanger OTHER people (i.e. exposing people to secondhand tobacco smoke). Unhealthy eating and not exercising only endangers yourself.
Well said CJ!
“Advocate restrictions on personal freedoms when they endanger other people”
Makes sense…..if we were forcing other people to enter bars, etc where smoking is ‘legal!’ It may sound like nit-picking, but if people freely choose to go into a public place where smoking is allowed, then so be it. The risk is on them. My family and I have eaten dinner in restaurants where smoking was kept to a different part of the building, and very well ventilated. I doubt we will all drop dead from 2nd hand smoke. We could not even tell there was a smoking section. Maybe Springfield bar owner could have made her bar a ‘smokers-only’ bar?!?!?
This is getting ridiculous — what happened to agency? You do not want to experience smoke, second hand smoke, then do patronize those establishments. Target is being sued because blind people cannot access their website using a translating software named JAWS. Then shop somewhere else. Hot coffee, McD’s, a lawsuit, money? CJ you are correct further erosion of private property rights and Knight — Military Commissions Act of 2006 — troubling for America and its citizenry.
Want to spend less at the pump? Lose some weight. That’s the implication of a new study that says Americans are burning nearly 1 billion more gallons of gasoline each year than they did in 1960 because of their expanding waistlines. Simply put, more weight in the car means lower gas mileage.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_re_us/obesity_gas_consumption
Perhaps the legislators will target people at certain weight thresholds because their poundage is using more fossil fuel so this must somehow infringe on someone else’s rights? Right ???
Correction to above post — DO NOT patronize these establishments….
Regarding ventilation systems – one, they’re not effective. I’m sorry, but unless you have an airlock between the sections, the smoke drifts out. Like one of my colleagues in St. Louis would say – smoking in a different room in the same building is like peeing in the corner of a swimming pool. Appleby’s in Pekin told me that they have a ventilation system to protect the non-smoking section. Yeah, that worked well (gag, choke, sputter). I’m not going back there!
Two, would it be better to require that restaurants install an expensive special ventilation system (that probably doesn’t work anyway) vs. simply hanging up a sign that says “no smoking”? Thousands of dollars vs. a couple dollars. I say just ban it.
Karrie – I don’t patronize establishments that allow smoking, assuming I know that beforehand. Let me tell you … it’s a huge pain in the butt and severely restricts my dining options. I’m tired of having my restaurant choices dictated by the smoking minority.
I am not a fan of smoking. I do think second hand smoke is very problematic. But… the public needs to be careful that this steady progression of limiting where one can smoke is not a prelude to prohibition. Prohibition won’t work. Frankly, I think people have the right to poison, injure or commit sin of themselves. If someone wants to smoke, let them. The idea that the government has an obligation to protect us from ourselves is absurd.
The flip side of this is the case for decriminalizing some drugs, like Marijuana, Cocaine, maybe Heroin on a controlled basis. If smokers are allowed to smoke anywhere, are does that extend to deciminalized substances? I don’t think the public would have much tolerance for decimriminalized heroin addicts freebasing at applebees.
Isn’t the problem really the method of delivery. Smoking bans don’t prevent nicotine addicts from using chew, snuff, nic gum, or loading up on nic patches. You can still get your fix.
@Knight
–ban smoking.. but let the private business owner decide his/her smoking policy.
The government has decided to ban smoking in government buildings. Chicago prohibits smoking on public sidewalks within 30 feet of a public entrance of any buildings. Let consumers vote for the health, comfort, and smells with their wallet. Lots of McDonalds and such have smoking bans. Surprisingly, their business hasn’t suffered. Again, it’s a private business decision.
Knight — I am not trying to be flip or disrespectful. I believe that you provide insightful commentary on blogs and at your own site.
I believe there are other options — you could: cook you own meals; buy prepared meals from a dinner preparation service; call ahead to see if a dining establishment is truly non-smoking; …. I realize that this is more effort on your part, inconvenient et al — at the same time, it remains concerning that private property owners continue to have their rights chipped away. Troubling too was the Supreme Court decision regarding taking private property for developers. Where is all of this leading our country and its citizenry?
Dragon: I grew up in a house where both my parents chain smoked, and all of my relatives smoked. In those days, I didn’t think much about it because everyone around me smoked. Isn’t that a bigger danger than someone of their own free will who spends an hour or two occasionally in a bar where smoking exists? I didn’t have a choice until I went to college at 18. Would you impose restrictions in the home? If not, why not? Is it not still public enemy #1?
I reiterate my position: Let bars and restaurants buy smoking LICENSES, the same way they have to buy liquor licenses. The licenses will bring much-needed moolah into city coffers while allowing owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking. Is there enough increased revenue from smoking to make it worth paying for a license? They can make their own decisions.
Meanwhile, the licensing scheme will provide a monetary penalty for smoking establishments and an economic incentive to be non-smoking, thus furthering a public health goal of reducing second-hand smoke exposure (and incentivizing people to help reduce it, while penalizing those who allow it) without trampling on private property rights or the ability of people to engage in an activity that is, after all, still legal.
EM: Brilliant. Is this being done anywhere?
McGee seems to be on to something.
To Knight,
I am thinking you have a very sensative nose. I agree, a non-smoker can smell a cig a mile away. Ventilation or no vent, I do notice that restaraunts with a separate smoking room do not seem to be hurting for business at all. Both sides are usually packed [at least the places we go]. Hardcore smokers will refuse to go to places that are smoke-free…as hardcore non-smokers refuse to step foot in smoking establishments.
Is the real debate over smoking in restaraunts or bars/taverns?
One last question for Mr. Knight.
Was the last bar-fight you got into because some guy blew smoke in your face, or was it because he was drunk and obnoxious, looking for a fight? Did he drive home in that condition?
EM … wow … I think that’s a great idea, actually. That gets around a lot of the property rights issues. Of course the fee would have to be steep enough to really make it a disincentive. I’m sure RJR and PhilipMorris would still wield their monetary and political clout against the idea, and some would still spin the plan as evil big government taxation policy oppressing small business.
For myself and my family, secondhand smoke is an issue with restaurants – usually places like Applebee’s that have an attached bar. Karrie – you’re right, and we do those things that you mentioned – but again, it’s a huge pain to readjust our lifestyle so that a minority of people in this country can participate in a personal luxury during their mealtime (it’s just like eating M&Ms according to Big Tobacco). These bans are an inconvenience to smokers … nothing more. It’s not like I’m advocating that we take away the 800 year old right of habeas corpus like SOME people I know …
I really don’t go to bars too often. Uhhhhhh … (thinking) … I think I went twice in the last year to attend celebrations for people I worked with. Man, I’m getting old .. (sigh). For Mr. Creedy – I’m a father of four. I don’t do bar fights.
Finally, for JustAnObserver and also Mahkno – smoking in the home is a HUGE problem, and it’s absolutely a bigger problem than the intermittent exposure one would receive as a guest in a restaurant or bar (except for the employees of that establishment – they get megadoses daily). However, prohibition is not an option. We tried that experiment with alcohol in the 1920’s and ended up creating more problems than we solved. The same case can be made for the modern drug war.
That leaves education and treatment as the best options available. That’s what the states SHOULD be using their tobacco settlement money for … but virtually none of them are doing that. Most states acted like they won the lottery and just shunted it into their general funds to be carved up with the rest of the pork.
I’ve always tried to educate my smoking parents that the best thing they can do for the health of their children (and their own health, of course) is to quit, and I offer them resources to help them do that. I have two main reasons – one, the direct adverse health consequences to their children by exposing them to tobacco smoke (outlined on my blog and in discussions on Scott Janz’s blog and Chef Kevin’s It Just Slays Me blog), and two – actually the more important reason to me – children of smoking parents are much more likely to become smokers themselves. Preventing my patients from becoming smokers is a big priority – other than immunizations, that’s probably the biggest thing I can do to keep them healthy in the long run.
Knight,
The ‘bar fight’ bit was only poking fun. Just being mindful of the dangers of alcohol!
“These bans are an inconvenience to smokers…nothing more.”
Most restaraunts, even with attached bars are non-smoking anymore. The only people readjusting their lifestyles ARE smokers.
The arguments go back and forth, but in the end it is VERY difficult to argue against the health problems caused by smoking.
Yeah, I can’t leave this alone.
1. A smoking permit. How many more permits are you going to force restaurant owners to buy? I spent countless thousands a year on permits, licenses, etc. to state, local and federal government. Do you know that if you serve alcohol, you need an extra (read more money) for having live music? You need a permit (read more money) if you want to serve patrons outdoors. Oh, and if you cater, you need a permit for that, too. All in the name of attracting business, giving customers more options to make them happy and come back. And it seems a bit backward to pay for a permit that is now currently free and OK. So, if I get my smoking permit does it cover just the inside of the building or do I need one for outside, too. I’m sure the non smokers will complain then that people are smoking next to them outside. I hear people complain all the time that Peoria has so many chain restaurants and not enough “local” flair. Slap a steep “smoking tax” on and your percentage of chains just went up as the little independent guy closes down.
2. We consume things of our own free will everyday that could have far more reaching consequences that a bit of second smoke. How was that sushi, medium rare hamburger or over easy eggs you just had? I think people are more offended by the smell of smoke than its side effects…even some smokers will tell you that.
3. Not to promote myself, but my thoughts are here: http://chefkevin.blogspot.com/2006/10/smoking-issue-part-3.html
4. Once again, nobody is forcing anyone to eat or drink anywhere.
And the “I can go there because I can because there is no smoking” argument doesn’t cut it for me vs. the rights, investment and personal initiative of the private property owner.
And all this really sounds strange coming from a guy who is a non smoker who has never smoked 🙂
Dallas (a slightly bigger city than Springfield) has been smoke-free in all restaurants and bars for a couple of years. They have not had a number of establishments going broke because of this. I go to Dallas frequently and have not noticed any drop in the number of people in bars. In some bars that were notorious for the high levels of smokers, there are now even more people in them – not smoking. Taking stats from the 1st month or 2 after the ban is not a fair reporting. Many people are slow to react and the business comes back.
Once again, Dallas has a population of over 1 million people. How far does one have to drive to have dinner\drinks & a cigarette? It probably isn’t worth the drive to some people. Give me a statistic of a city as big as Peoria banning cigarette smoking but having cities as close as Peoria Heights, West Peoria, Norwood, Bartonville & East Peoria not banning smoking and tell me no bars went out of business. Compare apples to apples.