Post by: alan on December 10, 2006, 07:06:21 PM
While the subject of smoking bans has likely already been discussed here, readers might wish to consider this aspect too.
Liberty Goes Up in Smoke
"When the District goes smoke-free Jan. 2, at least one nicotine haven will remain: the U.S. Capitol. Lawmakers, several of whom enjoy a good cigar, have exempted themselves from the city's smoking ban, not to mention rules that forbid lighting up in federal buildings across the country. But winds of change may be blowing on the Hill," The Washington Post reports. "Pelosi, the Democrat from smoke-free California and the next speaker of the House, is thinking of banishing tobacco from the most popular smoking spot in the building: the Speaker's Lobby outside the House chamber."
In "Smoking Bans are Dangerous to a Free Society's Health," Tom Firey, managing editor of Cato's Regulation magazine, writes: "Liberal societies have market economies in part because the pursuit of profit and the threat of competition force the marketplace to provide choices for people with many different preferences. This should include the choice of smoking-allowed and smoke-free bars and restaurants."
The short article follows.
December 13, 2006
Smoking Bans Are Dangerous to a Free Society's Health
by Thomas A. Firey
Thomas A. Firey is managing editor of the Cato Institute's Regulation magazine.
Early next year, the Baltimore City Council and the Maryland General Assembly will likely vote on legislation to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. If passed, these laws would end the nuisance and clothes-fouling stench of tobacco smoke in public places and reduce the health risks of secondhand smoke.
And yet, the city and state would be wrong to pass them.
Proponents justify a ban by arguing that secondhand smoke is a health risk. But all sorts of human activities are risky - from contact sports to rock climbing, from skiing to swimming, from riding a bike to having sex. Yet many people swim, bike and play football because they take pleasure in doing so, and that's their choice. In a liberal society, people are free to make their own risk and lifestyle choices - including whether to smoke.
Ban supporters respond that smokers inflict harm on other people, including bar and restaurant employees and other patrons. But again, all sorts of activities impose risks on others, and again, those people bear those risks willingly. Rock climbers endanger rescue workers, pool owners endanger lifeguards and patrons, fishing boat captains endanger their crews, and so on. We grant people the choice to be rangers or lifeguards or commercial fishermen. Why shouldn't we allow people to choose to patronize or work in smoking bars and restaurants?
Ban supporters may dispute this, arguing that our society has health and safety regulations to protect people from risk. Smoking bans, they say, are no different than those regulations. But their reasoning is wrong. Most health and safety regulations are justified because they protect people from hidden risks. For instance, government inspects restaurant kitchens because patrons can't. Bars where smoking is permitted are hardly hidden risks.
In fairness, some safety regulations do involve recognized risks, but few of them are outright bans. Coal mining, farming and commercial fishing are all extremely risky jobs and heavily regulated, yet there is no push to ban them. We respect the entrepreneurs' choice to own these businesses and the workers' choice to operate them. If smokers want to smoke in a bar, and an entrepreneur wants to provide that bar, and workers are willing to work there, why shouldn't we accept their choices?
Liberal societies have market economies in part because the pursuit of profit and the threat of competition force the marketplace to provide choices for people with many different preferences. This should include the choice of smoking-allowed and smoke-free bars and restaurants.
The City Council and General Assembly can nurture that choice by requiring all bars and restaurants to determine their own smoking policies. Smoking-allowed establishments can then choose whether to be all-smoking or to have separate smoking and nonsmoking sections. To help consumers identify which establishments cater to their preferences, bars and restaurants could be required to post their smoking policies at their entrances, and they could be penalized for violating them.
A law like that would allow smokers and nonsmokers to enjoy the environments they choose. If most customers prefer a nonsmoking environment, many bars and restaurants will follow the money and prohibit smoking. But other establishments will cater to smokers and allow tobacco use.
Free societies allow people to make decisions that others don't like. That includes allowing smokers to have bars and restaurants to cater to their preferences, just as nonsmokers should have establishments that cater to theirs. Baltimore and Annapolis should stand by the ideals of a free society instead of opting to force smokers to live by the preferences of some nonsmokers.
This article appeared in The Baltimore Sun on December 6, 2006.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2006, 03:25:08 AM
Post by: alan on December 11, 2006, 06:10:00 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2006, 06:29:27 AM
Quote
"When the District goes smoke-free Jan. 2, at least one nicotine haven will remain: the U.S. Capitol. Lawmakers, several of whom enjoy a good cigar, have exempted themselves from the city's smoking ban, not to mention rules that forbid lighting up in federal buildings across the country. But winds of change may be blowing on the Hill," The Washington Post reports. "Pelosi, the Democrat from smoke-free California and the next speaker of the House, is thinking of banishing tobacco from the most popular smoking spot in the building: the Speaker's Lobby outside the House chamber."
I'm no fan of smoking bans, but where they exist, they should apply equally.
Post by: meinbruder on December 11, 2006, 06:53:45 AM
Good for Pelosi.
You might want to re-consider that opinion. I realize the precedent has been set in other locations already but the more prevalent it becomes, the more likely it will spread to other areas of societal interaction. After all, it's the end result of a numbers game. I don't recall the exact number but something between 20 and 25 percent of Americans smoke, which leaves a lot of people to vote in favor of a ban if it comes to a referendum; if our elected representatives dont put it in place. The concept has spread already, to San Francisco; where a judge struck down the ban passed as being in conflict with state law. I dont think enough people understand the blessing of living in a republic yet. My biggest fear is the democrat party may try to change that.
Tossing aside the rights <privileges?> of 25% by the majority sounds familiar. At least it should to the members of this forum. Anyone?
}:)>
Post by: Chris on December 11, 2006, 10:16:09 AM
Not a smoker, but I do respect the rights of others to do so. That said, I've got to admit I like the restaurant scene more without the second hand smoke. And, that said, I'll admit that it is very strange to go to a bar, bowling alley, etc., and not have smoking going on.
Post by: alan on December 11, 2006, 12:43:55 PM
I submit that interested parties might do well to consider the possible, referenced "unexpected places", and or the "broad implications" mentioned. Re firearms, for instance, and the hue cry concerned "doing it for the children", and or the "common sense regulations" one hears about.
It might simply be my own tendency, a by-product of just a bit of Russian blood in me, that causes me to view the darker sides of issues, but they do come to mind, for those Social Engineers seem always with us.
Post by: doczinn on December 11, 2006, 12:56:08 PM
Quote
In my home, if I call in a repairman to fix my dishwasher, is not my home now a workplace, and thus it would be illegal to smoke in my home?
SHHHHH! Don't give them any ideas!
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 11, 2006, 01:05:39 PM
(2) In my home, if I call in a repairman to fix my dishwasher, is not my home now a workplace, and thus it would be illegal to smoke in my home? Just a thought.
If I were the workman, and came to your home, and you were blowing second hand smoke on me, I'd leave you ass out having to find another repairman.....
Post by: Standing Wolf on December 11, 2006, 04:10:53 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2006, 04:30:59 PM
Good for Pelosi.
You might want to re-consider that opinion. Post by: meinbruder on December 11, 2006, 06:57:56 PM
Did you see my second post or where Pelosi came into the story?
Yes, I did. I will even agree that any smoking ban imposed on the serfs of DC should also extend to the congress critters. I've heard there is a list of petty criminal activity on the part of our elected elite which should be addressed, not just making sure they observe a smoking ban.
Alan didn't post the article to discuss a smoking ban, he wanted to bring up the unintended consequences of the precedent. I suppose my response was a bit too obtuse.
Life is like a box of chocolates.
}:)>
Post by: alan on December 11, 2006, 07:10:24 PM
Some of the congressional criminality you reference is rather far removed from "petty".
As to your closing, "Alan didn't post the article to discuss a smoking ban, he wanted to bring up the unintended consequences of the precedent.", TOUCHEE, JUST SO.
Post by: meinbruder on December 11, 2006, 07:14:04 PM
meinbruder:
Some of the congressional criminality you reference is rather far removed from "petty".
Some of the congressional criminality you reference is rather far removed from "petty".
Alan, how could you! I made no mention of the Senior Senator from Massachusetts. :)
}:)>
Post by: alan on December 16, 2006, 12:55:08 PM
If I had been referencing Senator Kennedy of Mass, I would not likely have mentioned "petty crimes", vehicular homicide would have been more appropriate, I think.
Post by: meinbruder on December 16, 2006, 03:46:26 PM
If I had been referencing Senator Kennedy of Mass, I would not likely have mentioned "petty crimes", vehicular homicide would have been more appropriate, I think.
Very true. We should all take a moment to reflect on Saint Kopeckne (sp?), who should be revered for keeping the worst of the Kennedys from ascending to the lofty seat of power in Washington. I have seen a laundry list of crimes, petty to felonious, perpetuated by various congress critters, not to mention a list of special accommodations given to their offspring. Given some of the rumored complaints filed against him its a surprise hes still in office.
}:)>
Post by: alan on December 16, 2006, 06:10:16 PM
Re your comment, mine too on Kennedy of Mass., might I tell readers a little story. In Boston Town there was once a man named Curly, who happened to be The Mayor.
Mayor Curly happened to become involved in a spot of trouble, he was charged with criminal acts, fraud of sorts, was indicted, tried and convicted. Eventually it was off to jail with him.
Believe it or not, "Mayor Curly", while in jail, sought and obtained reelection to the office of Mayor of Boston. I kid readers not. Given this, is anyone really surprised at Edward Kennedy's staying power in the United States Senate, from Mass.?
While we are at it, please consider if you will, the following. I cannot offhand name the town where this might take place, but there might be one in this country, where having the name Goldberg or Schwartz or Cohen would prove sufficient to see one elected to public office, and retained therein, without regard to the egregious nature of hijinks our office holder might be guilty of.
Funny but there isn't a whole lot of difference between the longevity of a Kennedy in Mass., a Curly in Boston or a Cohen in that other place. By the way, Congressman John Conyers, from the Detroit area in MI. is I believe, the only Member of Congress to have voted for the Gun Control Act of 1968 still remining in office. Members of The House run revery two years, meaning that he has won quite a few elections. One wonders why, for he is neither a Kennedy nor is he a Cohen, yet he remains in office, which perhaps is an interesting comment on the nature of the electorate.
Post by: meinbruder on December 16, 2006, 06:58:42 PM
Re your comment, mine too on Kennedy of Mass., might I tell readers a little story. In Boston Town there was once a man named Curly, who happened to be The Mayor.
Mayor Curly happened to become involved in a spot of trouble, he was charged with criminal acts, fraud of sorts, was indicted, tried and convicted. Eventually it was off to jail with him.
Mayor Curly happened to become involved in a spot of trouble, he was charged with criminal acts, fraud of sorts, was indicted, tried and convicted. Eventually it was off to jail with him.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!?! Curly went to Jail?? Ahhhhh, he was always my favorite stooge. :)
Conyers longevity, along with the lesser Kennedy, doesnt surprise me in the least. When one is completely removed from the real world, considers one self to be a superior intellect, AND assumes that the rest of the world owes allegiance to ones viewpoint; its easy to pull the support of the rest of the elitist members of society.
}:)>
Post by: Cosmoline on December 16, 2006, 11:33:10 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 17, 2006, 03:28:34 AM
Post by: gyp_c2 on December 17, 2006, 04:47:58 AM
well maybe not compare, how about just they are all supposed to be for the common good...I'm pretty common, and I still smoke...
...quacks like a duck, looks like a duck?
OBTW, good morning...
Post by: Otherguy Overby on December 17, 2006, 08:22:33 AM
I was once a smoker about 3.5 decades ago. Later, I did find others smoking to be annoying, especially when spending a winter in someplace like Minnesota where they can't afford the energy to let too much -20 f air in to freshen things up. However, in my wildest imagination, could I ever imagine that the smell of tobacco smoke would now smell like freedom...
Post by: Stand_watie on December 17, 2006, 03:01:42 PM
I was once a smoker about 3.5 decades ago. Later, I did find others smoking to be annoying, especially when spending a winter in someplace like Minnesota where they can't afford the energy to let too much -20 f air in to freshen things up. However, in my wildest imagination, could I ever imagine that the smell of tobacco smoke would now smell like freedom...
on my first visit to Mexico, about 12 years ago, I asked a federale in the Cancun airport where I could smoke and he looked at me like I was nuts. In good English he said "smoke anywhere you want, eets a free country". That cracked me up. I thought the expression was entirely (US) American.
Post by: meinbruder on December 17, 2006, 03:15:34 PM
This is part of the same Puritanical blue-haired tradition that brought us Prohibition, the war on (some) drugs, and has been after our iron for a century now. All these movements are branches from the same rotten tree. They come from a desire to use the tools of government to MAKE PEOPLE BETTER.
I will agree with that statement completely. It's impossible to legislate morality but that doesn't stop people from trying.
}:)>
Post by: meinbruder on December 17, 2006, 03:19:38 PM
I don't think you can compare smoking bans or alcohol prohibition to gun control or drug laws. The first two are vice issues. The last two at least give an appearance of being efforts to reduce real malum inse crimes. If I mis-spelled that, it is because I ain't no lawyer nor linguist.
I dont agree, on several points. Weve all seen the futility of a ban on alcohol; prohibition simply drove it underground and gave organized crime a lever to make money. It is now taxed and regulated, as in the government makes a profit without ever being involved in the creation of the product. Tobacco went down a similar path with taxes steadily rising to penalize the user. The idea is that the higher tax will encourage people to stop by making the product more and more expensive. Google gas taxes and youll be surprised by what you find.
True, gun bans and drug laws do claim to reduce Malum In Se crime, at least that is the reason for implementing them. The result of drug laws is to simply drive it underground and give organized, and un-organized, crime a lever to make money. Sounds familiar, doesnt it. Gun bans simply drive up prices; NFA weapons are a perfect example.
What do guns, drugs, alcohol, and tobacco all have in common? &other than a couple of highly specialized government agencies we support with taxes. Most of them werent controlled or regulated for about the first hundred and fifty years of US history. Alcohol was taxed by the infant FedGov to support itself; study the Whiskey Rebellion to see which President was the first to betray the principles of the Revolution. The answer will shock you.
Use, possession, or trade in any of the four items is not wrong in itself, Malum In Se. They are all declared to be evil by a percentage of the population and regulated, taxed, or banned to prevent their use. Malum Prohibitum. Being declared illegal by decree, laws which are passed by voters for the public good and benefit .
Back to comparing them from the standpoint of bans; once the precedent of allowing the public to decree a ban on one, it makes it easier to justify a ban on another. It also makes it easier to get the public to accept the ban, sort of an any reasonable man would agree principle. (Study the North Korean Peace negotiations for a stunning example.) Once people accept the for the public good argument, the rights of the minority are swept aside without notice. Bans, controls, and regulations have very little to do with the item in question, just about controlling the people involved.
Consider this, eighty million gun owners in the U.S. out of a total population of about 300 million. If one third are in-eligible to vote, that leaves a 60/40 split in a public referendum on a gun ban, its for the children you see! Non gun-owners are increasing so an actual vote might be a bigger spread.
Justifying a smoking ban is equivalent to justifying a drug ban or gun ban.
}:)>
Post by: Modifiedbrowning on December 17, 2006, 04:27:14 PM
While I absolutely disagree with any sort of smoking ban, if the peons of DC have one so should the congresscritters.