8-19-06
Originally uploaded by chrismaverick.
I was going to wait til after work to rant on this when I could sit down and really think it through to get down a good 1000 words of free flowing hostility, but since I’ve already addressed it a few times in sonbanon‘s post and its the superhot topic of discussion of the moment in my office, I figured I might as well take a break and jot down my thoughts.
Today, the Allgheny County Council voted to ban smoking in all bars, restaurants and similar establishments. This sucks. And not just because I am a smokter. It sucks because it is a complete denial of rights of the establishment. It is the same as Prohibition. This is not an issue of second hand smoke. People like to write it up like it is. But it isn’t. Its an issue of where the public has a right to enforce its will. Is my local bar a public place or not? I say it isn’t. It is a private establishment owned by a private owner. Not owned by the people. The owner makes the decision to allow me to come in and buy alcolhol from him. He should be able to decide whether he wants to allow me to smoke or not. The problem is that non-smokers like to say that they have the right to go to the bar and not be exposed to smoke. They do not. They have the right to go somewhere that is smoke free. The bar doesn’t belong to them.
If someone wanted to propose a bill that banned smoking in outdoor public parks, I’d actually be all for it. Do I believe second hand smoke is harmful? Honestly, I do. I don’t know that it is. But I’m willing to make the assumption that it probably isn’t good for you, so you shouldn’t have to be exposed to it. But there is no reason you shouldn’t be able to open a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. And there is no reason you shouldn’t be able to open a bar that does. Do I think explicit rap lyrics are harmful? Not at all, but I support Walmart’s decision to not sell them. Similarly, I support Target’s decision to not sell cigarrettes. But I don’t think we should stop Target from selling Eminem’s CDs and I don’t think we should stop Walmart from selling Marlboros. They each made their decision, and I think the world has dealt with it just fine. I know plenty of people who won’t shop at Walmart because they have a problem with some policy of theirs or another. And I think that’s a fine way to feel. The Squirell Hill Cafe (or the Cage, as its Patrons like to call it) exists for one reason and one reason only. Its a place where people can go and have a beer, a coffee and a cigarette. If you take any of that away, its not the same place and I don’t want to be there anymore.
As one of the bar owners who was interviewed about this pointed out, its really sad because this is going to cost people jobs. Smoking is an indulgance. As is drinking. And if the 18th Ammendment taught us anything, its that people aren’t going to stop doing something they want to do just because you made it inconvenient. They’re just going to do it somewhere where you can’t see it, and things are going to get bad.
Unilateral banning is just stupid. If someone really wanted to solve the problem, then why not suggest this solution. 50% (or 40 or 60 or whatever seems right) of Allegheny County licquor licenses must be awarded to non-smoking establishments. If that were the case, then there is suddenly no issue at all. If we did this then one of two things would happen. Either everyone would have what they wanted, or you’d have a whole bunch of really popular smoking bars and some lame non-smoking bars (or vice versa). But isn’t having choice always good?
My big problem with this is that its an obvious slippery slope problem. If you’re a non-smoker, its easy to say “oh wow, this will be great.” But then what happens if someone wants to ban pro-wrestling because watching it might be harmful to children. Or they want to ban Howard Stern. Or abortion. They are all exactly the same issue. Do I like that there are country clubs that don’t allow black people, or golf clubs that don’t allow women? No, but I also don’t like that there are all black fraternities or all women gyms. But I acknowledge that without those places being allowed to exist then we also can’t have all jewish houses of worship or rated R movies, and that’s what I think we’re dealing with here.
Ok, there’s my two cents. Let me know where you fall on this?
not terribly interesting, but I completely agree. Choice is good; unilateral banning is bad.
similarly, New York city considers banning trans fat.
wtf?
Yeah, I can’t get behind the banning of trans fats. It’s not like there’s such a thing as second-hand trans fats. I’m all about requiring the nutritional information on food to be readily available.
Some things just gotta be cooked in lard to be good. Yup they do.
yep… and I’m against that too.
Well WA state passed a similar smoking ban, and I’m as happy as a clam. As a non-smoker, whenever I went out to nightclubs and watched live shows I’d dread the aftermath: the clothes stinking, the inhalents of crappy smoke, the coughing up of the phlegmn, I think you see where I’m going with this.
Sure, the downside is that the business owner doesn’t get to set certain rules in his/her establishment, but I dunno, so what? There’s plenty of things that are restricted in businesses. People can’t smoke in movie theatres either, but no one complains about that.
Lastly, the real winners are the people who work in these establishments, their health bill just took a dramatic drop. Kudos to Seattle!
the bug issue is your “so what” claim. So what is that its a loss of personal choice. Removal of rights always starts small and then it gets big. First you fine Howard Stern and everyone says “who cares, Howard Stern is an ass” but the same people who issued the complaints against Stern also issued complaints against WIll & Grace for homosexuality on the air. First you have to take your shoes off to get on the airplane, then you aren’t allowed to bring on babyfood or bottle water. I do complain that you can’t smoke in movie theaters. i think its wrong. And people used to complain. Same thing with planes. Same thing with bars in California. There were huge complaints. Yes people got over it. But that isn’t the point. I will get over it when they make abortion illegal. That doesn’t make it right.
See here’s how I see it: I have more choice now. I can choose where I to go out at night w/o having my senses assaulted by smoke. I actually have more freedom, and the benefits to my (and people around me) health is fantastic.
yes… but at the cost that I as a smoker have less choices. Like I said, if we were talking about a bill where 50% of bars had to be smoke free, I’d be the first person to be in line signing it. But we’re not. Its just like arguing that all country clubs should have to allow minorities. You have a choice to play golf at the white club or the desgregated club. Your lot in life doesn’t improve by forcing the other white people to have to play with the niggers, spics and kikes.
But how would you legislate something like 1/2 the bars being smoke free? That would be some fucked up shit.
its actually quite simple. In order to be a bar you have to apply for a licquor license. The state of PA only gives out so many. And they regulate that based on plenty of factors. Including “how many other licquor licenses are in the immediate area?” That way they keep all of their finite number of licenses distributed among where the people are instead of say 998 of them being Pittsburgh, two in Philly and none anywhere else. it would be quite trivial to say “sorry, Pittsburgh 250 licquor licenses. 125 of the smoking ones are in use and 124 of the non-smoking ones. If you want the 125th non-smoking license, its yours but there’s no smoking ones left.”
Someone else made this other point: “Why are 20% of the population (smokers) deciding, through their habit, where the other 80% of the population (non-smokers) can comfortably go?”
Now regionalism and percentages aside, I think its a good question.
They’re not. That’s the point. Your figures make the mistake that the entire 80% cares. They don’t. If 80% of people aggressively hated being in bars where you could smoke then you know what we’d have? We’d have a bunch of bars where you couldn’t smoke and a small select few which looked like an old fashioned Pittsburgh steel mill. And I’d be fine with that. That’s free enterprise and its fine.
But that’s not the case because in reality 20% of the population smoke. 10% are aggressively against it, and the other 70% just don’t give a damn and are perfectly happy to go to whichever type of establishment is convenient. (percentages adn regionalism aside, again, of course).
In yesterday’s world, both of these options were ok. In tomorrow’s world, only the 10% get their way. Granted the the 10% are great and the 70% are still ambivalent. But not the 20% are fucked as they are without option, whereas before the 10% weren’t without option, they were simply with limited options.
In my idea where we force half the bars to be one way and the other half to be the other, no one has any problems or reason to complain. But I actually expect that in practice what you would have is the bars which allowed smoking would have 55+% of the bargoers and the bars that didn’t would have 45-% because the 70% who don’t care are just going to go whereever their friends who do care want to go. And again, I’m ok with that.
The argument from the customer standpoint is bullshit. Action from non-smokers who aren’t willing to suck it up and not patronize smoking establishments that they otherwise enjoy, till market pressure works on thier side.
On the other hand, there’s a lot to said about the employee angle. Some consideratin has to be made for the fact that there are people who are stuck working in that environment (and opting out of whatever employment you can get, for most people that would be working hhere is just plain dumb)
On the whole, I think it’s an overstep of legislative power. If anything Id be happy to see direct licensing, just like alcohol. Your plan is good to.
I’ve heard one claim that a not well publicized exemption is establishments that do less than 20% of their business in food- so your regular bar is exempt, only ones that are more pub/restaurant style are affected. A touch more reasonable, but even so, it’s not the right way to acheive the end, I think.
It’s probably worth qualifying that I’m saying this as a complete non-smoker. I’ll definitely appreciate the results, but I think that this wasn’t the right way to achieve them.
yeah… see, I don’t see anyone saying exactly what’s wrong with my plan other than the fact that it potentially makes both sides happy instead of just “winning” for one side or the other.
But that would be compromise. We can’t have that. Conservation of Misery must be enforced.
Hang on… I know that I have the little tiny violin around here somewhere…
the problem with apathy is that its all well and good until they get to an issue you care about. When someone starts banning bald people from bars because the glare off their foreheads is annoying, you’ll say “that unfair, I have just as much right to be here as anyone else” and they’ll say “hey, we banned the smokers, we cab ban you. If you really want to be here, you’ll grow hair or wear a toupe”
Your comparison is poor.
no its not… its intentionally ludicrous… which was the point all along. If I wanted to make a logical one I would have pointed out what I pointed out elsewhere. Its the same as banning gay people. You say “the gay people aren’t hurting anyone.” But the religious right says they’re as dangerous as the smokers. Same with abortions. Or rap music. Or black people not being slaves. Or the blinding glare from your forehead.
Yes, but none of those comparisons have science on their side. A ban on smoking does.
sure they have science. its just christian science instead of your crazy
pagan alchemybiology. 🙂But ok, let’s say homosexuality. Western science certainly tells us that if we allow legalized sodomy the rate of HIV transmission for the public goes up even among those not engaging in the practice themselves since they can’t know for sure that their monogomous partners or their partners former partners never engaged in the practice. But I can’t support a ban on that either.
It’s also my choice to engage in sodomy of it’s related activites. Hell, you can have anal sex on a table right in front of me and it isn’t going to do a thing to me. However, you can’t have a cigarette at that same table and expect me not to breath in your exhaust.
right… but assuming Laura decides to have anal sex, she has now put you at risk. The solution isn’t to outlaw her from having anal sex. The solution is that if you don’t want to be at risk, you shouldn’t fuck her.
But the point is that inhaling someone elses smoke is not a choice that I’ve made. Choosing to be sexually active is a choice that I have personally made for myself.
Yes, but you chose to walk in to Mav’s Bar and Grill where smoking is accepted. If it really bothered you, you could go to Jameel’s Bar and Grill where it is not. The only time its a problem is when you want to go Jameel’s Bar and Grill and Laura wants to go to Mav’s Bar and Grill. Then you simply have to make a choice. One of you sucks it up or you go to separate places.
The smoking is just a red herring. It would be the same problem if my bar played country western and Jameel’s bar played jazz. Its just that its easy to single smoking out because “of course it caused a health risk and country western music doesn’t.” But that’s my point. Plenty of so called people would also say “of course sodomy causes a public health risk” or “of course abortion causes a public (moral) health risk.”
“Western science certainly tells us that if we allow legalized sodomy the rate of HIV transmission for the public goes up even among those not engaging in the practice themselves”
Can you direct me to a reference supporting this? I don’t think I’ve ever seen this particular claim made before.
Oh, pretty much all HIV literature states that its more easily transmitted through anal sex than vaginal. Therefore, in theory, if we outlaw anal sex, HIV transmission goes down. The reason it affects those who don’t engage in it is because raising the chance of infection on any given person raises the chance of infection among all of their partners.
Similarly, I could have just as easily pointed to polyamory, or shared needle use. If we suddenly magically force people to be lifetime monogomous then HIV infection goes WAY down regardless of the sexual practices of any given lifetime pair as the means of infection for any lifetime pair who doesn’t already have the virus present in one partner or the other is now severely limited without the option of sexual transmission.
And my claim is pretty much false if you assume that the legality or illegality of sodomy doesn’t affect the number of people who engage in it. But we don’t have a way of magically stopping any practice.
That said, its a load of hooey, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I brought it up as an easily torn down strawman akin to the theory that aborting all black babies will lower the crime rate.
Oh, and hi there… nice to see you commenting again. 🙂
“They’re just going to do it somewhere where you can’t see it, and things are going to get bad.”
How would that be bad? That’s kind of what we were aiming for in the first place.
Because prohibition caused a huge deathtoll as suddenly the only ways to drink were the illegal ways to do so. The same reason that the illegalization of drugs and prostitution make things millions of times more dangerous from those who want to do them than just decriminalizing them would in the first place.
And that’s not what “we’re aiming for” if we were then we would accept my solution instead of a total ban.
Fuck smokers. If they can ban public nudity, then they can sure as hell ban smoking in public establishments. After all, if I’m smoking and walk by someone, they get to inhale second-hand smoke. If I’m naked and walk by someone, they don’t get second-hand nudity like their pants flying off or someshit.
I’ll answer everyone else’s comments later…. but yours is easy, so i’ll do it now.
Ummm, I am also against the banning of “public nudity” along similar lines. If they want to say you can’t be naked in the park, museum or library, fine. But I totally think there should be clothing optional bars, restuarants, bowling alleys, etc.
The government is doing its job, part of which is supporting the health of the citizenry. I, for one, welcome our new non-smoker overlords.
no, the governments job isn’t to support the health of the citizenry. If it was, there’d be universal health care. The governments job is to give you an occasional nugget to feel good about yourself while they fuck you up the ass in the name of special interest groups.
second-hand nudity like their pants flying off or someshit.
That would so rock. 🙂
I love that that’s what you got from all of this. 🙂
Wouldn’t it, though?
What happened to my pants?
DAMN YOU JAMEEL!
As a non-smoker, I have to say I do thoroughly and selfishly enjoy being able to go to any establishment in NY State and not be overwhelmed with smoke.
As someone who believes in human rights, I do agree that if you want to clog your lungs with cancer, you should be able to do so wherever you please.
In NY state, bar owners can apply for a license that allows them to have smoking in their bar. I’m sure it’s more expensive. But at least it’s an option.
I do like that the government would like everyone to think that they are “making the air cleaner and keeping everyone healthy”, but really it’s just something to distract the people from more important issues.
🙂
As I have stated years ago, anyone who wants dance clubs to be smoke free has never been in a smoke free dance club. I’ve never been in a place so full of B.O. in my life.
If there were smoking lincenses for clubs, I’d be fine with that too. But why should it be reduced to that? How come I don’t have to get a license to allow black people or gay people or heavy metal music? Separate but equal is inherantly unequal.
I’m a lifelong non-smoker. California has banned smoking in restaurants and bars for some time now. In principle I think this is in fact a case of the government overstepping its proper sphere. It is entirely possible for a restaurant to set a no-smoking policy on its own and for customers to vote for or against that with their dollars. I eat out a lot and I appreciate nonsmoking establishments, but a guarantee that all restaurants will be smoke-free doesn’t exactly rank as a fundamental human right.
That said, at least in California some of the doomsday predictions about what would happen if a smoking ban went into effect simply haven’t, to my knowledge, turned out to be true. Restaurants, bars, and clubs are still as busy as ever, not shutting down en masse as some people predicted.
I’m actually more sympathetic to the argument for banning smoking in restaurants because of the harm to employee health. A waiter who breathes secondhand smoke for many hours a week will experience a far greater negative impact on health that a customer who eats out for a few hours each week. Of course, you can still make the same argument that the waiter should simply choose to work elsewhere.
Sure… I’m not really predicting doom. I’m saying its an unfair law. To pick something closer to home for you, I can ban homosexuality and abortion for the same reasons, and the world won’t fall apart. But that doesn’t make it right.
Right, as a utilitarian I was just pointing out that the smoking ban has been both beneficial to me and not evidently detrimental to the establishments involved. As a libertarian I still think the establishments should be able to set rules for themselves.
I am somewhat inclined to think that questions that are mostly about morality (like homosexuality and abortion) occupy a somewhat different sphere than questions that are mostly about public health, although I think we should be cautious about allowing too much government involvement in any sphere. And of course, some people certainly do like to disguise moral campaigns as public health campaigns.
To me, a more comparable issue is something like the ban on asbestos, or the involvement of OSHA in workplace safety. What is your stance there?
if there were people clammering for the right to hang out in bars that use asbestos insulation, then I’d say that they should have the right to do so, but I am unaware of anyone who has ever begged for it.
as for moral issues vs. physical ones, I don’t think you can make the distinction because its unclear who gets to do so. Our wonderful president would say that abortion rights cause a very real concern to the health of our pre-birth citizens. And without a doubt it is clear that the allowance of sodomy and polyamory certainly raise the public risk of STD contraction, but the solution isn’t to outlaw those practices, the solution is education and personal responsibility.
I’m slightly torn on this. I’m a (small l) libertarian. I am in favor of businesses being able to do what they want – if people don’t want to breath in noxious choking fumes, they can take their business elsewhere. On the other hand, I am going to enjoy going to a bar and not coming home feeling like I drank from the ashtray.
Was there a public vote on this? If there is to be one, I’d vote against it. But if it passes, I’ll enjoy the benefits.
There was no vote of which I am aware. There was a county hearing where people were allowed to come and speak for and against. They did and then there was a vote by the 15 council members. The vote was 14-1.
Well, it appears that despite the 14-1 vote, Onorato is going to veto it, since special-interest groups got their claws into it – it appears that casinos are exempt. Good for him – I’m happy he isn’t going to let a piece of legislation through that makes some businesses more equal than others. I’m still in favor of your plan, though – making some fraction of liquor licences smoking, and some non-smoking.
Yeah, and good for him. The only problem is, can’t they override a veto by a high enough vote? I don’t know if its 2/3rds or 3/4ths or what, but I would think that 14-1 would be good enough
I’m not sure what the requirements are in county council, but the report I read said that the legislation was basically dead. That says to me that the veto isn’t going to be overridden – or that the reporter doesn’t know what he’s talking about. 🙂
Like the other non-smokers who have posted comments, I’m quite happy to be able to go to a bar these days and not inhale second-hand smoke. It used to be a shock for me to return from my non-smoking haven of New York to smoky Pittsburgh. Though Pittsburgh without the smoke seems a little less Pittsburgh to me, like Pittsburgh without “yinz” or with “to be” inserted in the middle of “needs exterminated.” I remember coming home from the Beehive on a Thursday night and dumping all my clothes into the basement, not wanting the cigarette smell in my bedroom. I was willing to put up with the smoke, because dammit it was the Beehive on a Thursday night!
The problem is that “you can smoke in bars and restaurants” or “you can not smoke in bars and restaurants” both amount to the same thing in terms of individual rights. They are both extremes. So the solution of awarding 50% of liquor/restaurant/boob-display licenses to each camp is reasonable if problematic. Ultimately, where is the cool new local band going to hold their show? What if all the non-smoking bars suck? Solution: complain to the owner or buy one and make it not suck.
What I really want is a law about how far away smokers have to stand from the doors of non-smoking establishments. Because that’s the real problem here. Not the fact that they can’t smoke inside but the fact that they stand right in front of the effing door and I get my second-hand smoke that way.
Alternately restaurants could have real smoking/non-smoking sections with walls and adequate ventilation rather than just different sides of the room, like the smoke is going to stay on one side.
the answer to the band question is simple. The band chooses which venue’s they want to perform in. If the band doesn’t care, they go to both venues. If the band does care they choose the one they like. This is totally not an issue. A hip hop band plays clubs with lots of black patrons, a metal band plays clubs with lots of white people.
The point is, allowing both smoking and non-smoking establishments allows for choice. Yesterday in Pittsburgh, a patron had the choice of going to a non-smoking establishment or a smoking one. It was not the case that bars were FORCED to allow smoking. Tomorrow that choice is gone. Bars CANNOT allow smoking. That is the difference. If we leave it completely up to the bar, then maybe they’ll all allow smoking. Well, tough shit. That’s called free enterprise. If there are so many people who are so against being around smoke, then someone should have opened up a bar where they didn’t allow it and made a fortune. Sort of like when you open a bar that markets to gay people or white people or whatever. But in reality what happens is when you open a club like that, it does poorly because none of the smokers go, and most people don’t care and would rather go to the place that allows choice, so the non-smoking places fail. If there were a really awesome bar that didn’t allow smoking, guess what, I’d go and not smoke while I was there. Or I’d say, I want to smoke, so I guess I just miss out. Its like saying Hooters shouldn’t be allowed to hire busty waitresses, because its offensive. If you really want greasy wings and deep fried everything and are offended by boobies, then go to TGIFridays and leave the rest of us alone.
Do you really know of any bands that survey their fans to find out if a smoking or non-smoking venue is preferable? I’ve never heard of it.
The fallacy with your argument, that restaurants, bars, and boob establishments had the option of not allowing smoking, is that I know of no restaurant, bar, or boob establishment in a smoking-allowed city that has chosen “don’t smoke here at all.” (Maybe there are/were and I never heard of them, because, they sucked or went out of business quickly.) Just because in theory they had that option, doesn’t mean that in practice there was anywhere serving booze, food, or breasts, that one could go to enjoy those things without smoke. Sure one can go to the library, but there’s no booze there. So “go places without smoking” is only a useful argument if there are actual options and not theoretical ones.
that’s not a fallacy in the argument at all. Its evidence of the very free enterprise I am debating with above.
The problem is that despite the public outcry one way or the other, most people just don’t care, so its up to the establishment to decide which way they want to lean, and it turns out that its more economical to lean towards the smokers in this case. And that should be ok. Smoking is a red herring. It is prime for argument because of the health risk, but really we’re just talking about personal preference. Are you really arguing that I should be forced to open country western clubs just because there’s no good places to go for country music and hip hop, techno, salsa and rock offend you? Why aren’t there any good aboriginal music establishments? If it is so important to non-smokers to have non-smoking clubs, then for HOVA’s sake, someone open one. I swear, if it’s cool, I’ll deal with not smoking for a night, just so I can go. The fact that there aren’t enough people who care to do the right thing through enterprise doesn’t mean that there should be laws forcing the wrong thing to happen for everyone from the other camp who does care enough to do the right thing through enterprise to go the other way.
And for the record, the Rex doesn’t allow smoking. And there was a non-smoking bowling alley in Pgh I went to. And there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants and coffee houses. I’m betting there are bars out there too, I just never went out of my way to find one because I’ve always either been a smoker, or in times where I wasn’t, I was among the 70% who just didn’t care.
I’m not arguing that anyone should be forced to open any establishment. I’m saying if the establishment isn’t actually in existence, it’s silly to tell me that I have the option of going there.
But my point is that if there is enough of a public demand for such an establishment, then it would exist. The reason you don’t have a ton of smoke free bars is that most people don’t care enough for there to be one. As I pointed out, the Rex is (or at least was, I don’t want to say for sure) one.
That’s why I brought up the aboriginal music scene. If you’re offended by salsa music but love aboriginal, you can’t just demand that all the salsa clubs switch. You just have to seek out a good aboriginal club. The fact that there aren’t any isn’t the responsibility of the county.
The free market doesn’t have the general health of the population in mind, and it shouldn’t. That’s what the government is for.
Casino
You do know, of course, that the state passed or is in the midst of passing a law that all casinos are exempt from any local smoking bans? Unless the gaming board decides to vote to let the local law prevail, which they probably won’t.
I guess the health of the casino employees isn’t important.
Re: Casino
Hello, Mr. Anonymous person. Yeah, that’s because as I was telling, it isn’t about public health, its about bowing to special interest groups. I hate freedom.
Re: Casino
It’s a compromise. The council knew that this would never pass without the exceptions for cigar bars and casinos.
Since there’s already been a lot of argument on this topic I’m not going to rehash things from above, just make a couple of points:
– I agree that this is a further restriction by the state that in a perfect world would be bropught about by market pressures. However its also well within the realm of what precedent allows the state to do. Bar owners certainly don’t choose to stop selling liquor at 2AM (or whatever it is in PA).
– Additionally, market pressure has been ineffective at producing change while most studies (a couple links were posted to DPB last time this came up) of pre/post ban business show flat or increased profits after the ban. From the view point of the business owner this is logical, in that their current smoking customers will be highly against a ban and the increase revenue would primarily come from new customers.
Anyway, I love the lack of smoke and stinking clothes at CA night clubs…
I’ll address the issues in turn:
1) I agree that its well within precedent. For instance, other states, like say California or New York or Washington have made similar bans. The point being I disagree with those as well. And to take this outside the artificial pigeon hole of smoking, I also disagree with laws that stop the bar from selling alcohol at 2am or bans against selling alcohol on Sundays.
2) My argument isn’t really based on finances, hence my suggestion of the 50-50 split among liquor licenses. That said, California is a different state than PA. Gore would argue that increase reliance on public transportation and raising the price of gas would be good for us too as it works in other countries, but we aren’t other countries, we’re the United States. The point is a matter of personal freedom. Yesterday, I had the option, if I so desired, of opening a non-smoking bar and capitalizing on the aggressively anti-smoking clientele. Tomorrow I do not have the option of opening a bar and capitalizing on the aggressive smoker clientele. That market is simply lost. Furthermore, as I stated several other places. If tomorrow we illegalize abortion, it won’t be the end of the world (despite what the pro-choice camps might say). People will adjust. For the most part people adjusted to the 18th ammendment. I have adjusted to living in PA and not being able to buy beer at the grocery store. That doesn’t make it right, and that doesn’t mean I agree with it.
3) And see, that’s fine, as a personal choice you are welcome to go to non-smoking clubs. I for one (even when I was a non-smoker) hate the aggressive B.O. smell that came from dance clubs where no one was smoking and welcomed the tobacco-esque incense that cigarettes provided. My solution allows both of us options. A ban only allows you one.
I’ve read what you’ve written and I totally agree. We should ban pro-wrestling!
hey… at least that opinion is consistent. Fascist, but consistent.
A big part of the problem is that most people don’t decide what they want: They’re influenced (brainwashed) by things like advertising, which with wide dissemination is enhanced by societial pressure. A clear example of this is the marketing campaign that introduced the diamond engagement ring. Given this, what is a responsible government supposed to do to protect the welfare of its citizens, when a company (tobacco companies) have successfully marketed something bad for people? There are many problems with an outright ban, but influencing the public in similar ways (making smoking less cool, easy to do, etc.) can encourage people in healthier ways (especially children). I see this ALL THE TIME in restaurants. People who wouldn’t otherwise have or want a cigarette, smoking up because other people are.
See, you probably think I am going to disagree here. I don’t. I agree with everything you said except for the usage of the word “problem”.
The tobacco companies should have just as much a right to make a living and run a successful business as anyone else. Your diamond engagement ring example is excellent. Yes, the De Beers diamond cartel invented that tradition, but I would be just as against the government stepping in and stopping the diamond cartel from sucessfully selling advertising. I don’t want the government to protect my welfare, because if they can decide that I can’t kill myself by smoking then they also can decide that I can’t bind myself for eternal damnation by having an abortion or entering a monogomus relationship with a homosexual partner. Its just not their place. On the other hand, I am all for advertising against the dangers of smoking by private parties or even government subsidized ones. The fact that the cigarette manufactuers are better at advertising than The Truth is, is just tough shit. There are a lot of social pressures. And you’re right, one of the hardest things to block out when I want to quit smoking is other smokers. But social pressure also makes me interested in pro-wrestling, video games, comic books and sex with hot women, and it would be immoral to want to ban me from liking those as well.
In general, I agree with you. However, you’re not making a distinction between “things the government shouldn’t control” and “things the government should”. This discussion has been around forever. It’s why we explicitly separated church and state in the constitution, because we know government have this tendency to overstep the meaning of “for the public good”. However, public health *IS* one of those narrow areas where I take exception. It’s just like the exceptions of monopolies and collusion to free enterprise theory. At some point, the freedom becomes detrimental. When it does and ONLY when it does so I advocate a government response.
This is a health issue. This one is not a moral issue, or to maintain power, or to impose a utopian view. This will help prevent a whole lot of people from becoming sick. As such, it’s MUCH closer to preventing shootings than to banning wrestling. People do not have the freedom to market clearly and INHERENTLY dangerous substances. Guns, used properly, are safe. Drinking, in moderation, is safe. Smoking, simply isn’t for the public as a whole. Its addictive nature makes sure of that. Marketing + addictive nature + social pressure = loss of choice and freedom. If the percentage of alcoholics (5-10% of people who drink) was anywhere near the percentage of people who become addicted to smoking (80%-90%) then I’d say it meets this same threshold, but it doesn’t.
ok… see I really like the argument you’re posing now. Because you’re boiling it down to the real issue instead of the side issues (like how your clothes smell or what is and isn’t a public place or whether second hand smoke is harmful).
So the real issue is does the government have a right to regulate my health. And while I respect your argument, I disagree with it. I do not agree that the government has the right to save me from my choice to risk cancer. Is smoking a risk to my health? Absolutely. But your argument hinges on the theory that it provides no real benefit. First of all it does, there are many studies that show that nicotene combats alzheimers and several other neurogical problems. And it certainly does a lot to keep my stress level down and combat depression. That said, it comes with a very real problem of added susceptibilty to cancer and lung problems. But if I allow the government to protect me from voluntary exposure to this dangerous activity, then they are can absolutely protect me from voluntary exposure to heart disease by drinking alcohol (and in fact, they did just this some 80 years ago). And they can stop me from voluntary exposure to viral immunodeficiency disease by limited my promiscuity or sexual preference. Hell, they’d be able to protect me from blunt force trauma to the head by stopping me from white water rafting or sky diving. Sky diving is never “safe” it never provides any real benefit. Its simply recreation. And telling me I can’t do it is wrong. Even though there’s a very real possibility that I could go splat and die. In fact, there’s a very real possibility that I might happen to go splat on you as you happen to be walking across and open field and you die. I do not approve of the government’s right to infringe upon any of my personal freedoms unless there is a very real, immediate and unavoidable danger to others. You can for the most part avoid the dangers of second hand smoke simply by not hanging out in bars that smokers frequent. I already said that I support banning smoking in public parks.
Now as for the marketing being a loss of freedom. That’s simply not true. Its a myth perpetuated by anti-smokers and smokers trying to pass the buck. I assure you that when I smoked my first cigarette I knew full well the risks and I knew full well what I was doing. I am also quite willing to bet that 9 out of 10 smokers today will tell you the same. When’s the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Exactly. While I will acknowledge the addictive nature of tobacco, I will not pass the buck on the tobacco industry anymore than I will lend any credence to the idiots trying to sue McDonalds for making them fat. Yes, McDonald’s is unhealthy. Yes it is addictive. But personal responsibility means that you deal with that or you don’t.
Two disagreements:
“But if I allow the government to protect me from voluntary exposure to
this dangerous activity, then they are can absolutely protect me from
voluntary exposure to heart disease by drinking alcohol”
This is an assertion that you do not back up. This ‘slippery slope’ is exactly what we need to put government controls on. I think it is possible to put a very high threshold on how dangerous something has to be before givernment intervention is allowed. We can debate IF smoking meets this threshold seperately from if there should be a threshold (as I’m arguing now). Incidentally, skydiving causes the death of far, far fewer people year, and again, can be conducted safely.
“I assure you that when I smoked my first cigarette I knew full well
the risks and I knew full well what I was doing. I am also quite willing
to bet that 9 out of 10 smokers today will tell you the same.”
Two replies, sure, you took your first puff knowingly, but not everyone is like you. 70% of smoking addicts want to quit, and cannot, also polls on teenage smoking suggest that peer pressure is the reason for nearly a third of teens to start smoking, and 20% is for coolness/image reasons. Therefore, you’d likely lose that bet (assuming you meant that the decision was a wholly independent one).
1) sure its possible. I (or you or Bush, or whoever) can simply say “no slippery slope, smoking is within our rights to ban abortion is not.” or “abortion is within our rights to ban, guns are not” or “guns are within our right and fuck it, so is everything else.” But that is by definition what a slippery slope is. I do not trust anyone to make those decisions for me, and I shouldn’t have to. I believe in a minimalist government which does what it needs to in order to ensure the public safety and the day to day running of society. At the end of the day, no matter how much the non smokers bitch and moan, your safety is not infringed upon by the existence of smoking bars. You are well within your rights to not go. But you need to understand something, the very fact that we are even having this conversation is pure evidence of the fact that you among others are discriminatory against smokers. You are saying I don’t have the right to go somewhere and be left alone to my dirty filthy habit. And that’s all that I am asking for. I’m not asking the government to give me a place to smoke. I’m not asking them to force a non-smoking place to give me a smoking area. I’m simply asking them to stay the fuck away from the Cage, a bar that pretty much only exists for people to come in and relax and have cigarettes and beers in peace and not be judged by the non-smoking world around us. Please understand, and this isn’t personal, but if you look below at the comments of, another Cage patron, you’ll see. And I assure you that every other regular patron of the tiny little bar feels the same way. We don’t want you at the cage. Not you personally, but we don’t want non-smokers there. The Cage doesn’t want non-smokers there. We don’t want bands. We don’t want dancing. We don’t special consideration. We just want to be left to our coffee, tobacco, beer, pinball, poetry, sketching and misery. You can go into any of the other 20 restaurants on Forbes Avenue between murrary and shady and breathe clean air all you want to. But all anyone in that bar wants is one place where they can go and smoke in peace. And until yesterday, we had that. Now tell me how that’s fair. And tell me how tomorrow the government can’t make the same decision about gay bars. And the next day about black ones? The fact that smoking isn’t healthy is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that you are trying to determine when its ok to discriminate against someone. The answer is, it never is.
2) Why I started smoking isn’t relevant. Nor is whether or not I want to quit. Yes, actually, I do. Yes, its hard. Yes I am an addict. None of that has anything to do with whether or not its my personal responsibility or why this law was passed. It is not the government’s job to help me. And for the same reasons I detailed before. If my addiction to nicotene is a flaw that the government should seek to eradicate, then why shouldn’t they do the same thing with an alternative sexual preference, or with african american culture. At the end of the day, you know what, people who smoke are cooler than people who don’t. You know why? Consensus reality. But that’s subjective. If you don’t like smoking, you’re going to say we’re not cool. And you know what else? It totally doesn’t matter. Because you know who else is cool? People who wear leather jackets. But the government doesn’t owe PeTA a damn thing.
Amen to all that.
A point that’s being missed in this thread: this isn’t at all a question of the government protecting the health of smokers. If they wanted to do that, they’d ban cigarettes (oh, but what would happen to all the tax revenue? bastards). Smokers will still smoke, just never again in comfort. (Remind me to thank county council for watching out for my health in January when I’m freezing to death becaue it’s illegal to smoke indoors).
I wholly agree with you that it’s not fair. I agree that the Cage and similar places should be able to continue on as they are. The fact that such places will be affected is evidence that this particular solution to the issue is not optimal. This ban, in my view, is a large hammer. Wielding the power in this way will help “the problem”, but it will do so with many casualties. This impingment on individual rights is lamentable and tragic. I wish better solutions existed, but frankly, this one is DAMN effective. I see it much like chemotherapy for cancer. A Phillop Morris study in 1960 concluded this about bans: “Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11% to 15% less smoking products than average and quit smoking at a rate that is 84% higher than average.”
You and other smokers like you are a victim to the government in that they can’t come up with a better solution that doesn’t violate individual rights to such a large degree. This is a right you’re giving up for the benefit of your idiot fellow man who was hoodwinked into smoking. In any society we give up rights for protection in various forms. Some loss of privacy is necessary to prevent crime. Similarly, some rights of tobacco use are given up for the health welfare of all. We can do better, but no one has figured out how, yet.
“If my addiction to nicotene is a flaw that the government should seek to eradicate, then why shouldn’t they do the same thing with an alternative sexual preference”
GLBT men and women aren’t killing people. On this point, there is no disagreement, and it’s central to why this is an exception. My views are otherwise almost wholly libertarian. Unfettered capitalism in a truly free market doesn’t lead to the best welfare for all, it leads to monopolies, a stifling of innovation, and exploitation. Everything, even freedom and choice, has a level that is TOO MUCH that it becomes harmful. One can die of of dehydration, but also of hyperhydration. There is much new research showing that our society’s nearly unlimited choice of consumer products is making us miserable. Any society with no socially acceptable way to divorce one’s spouse has a high suicide rate, but one where divorce is ubiquitious has low rates of happy marriages. Everything has a compromise, a sweet spot, even personal freedom.
A personal anecdote: I’ve personally witness someone who was trying to quit, fall off the wagon. It was in response to someone else at another table lighting up. Without that trigger and stimulus, she might not be smoking today. These are her views, not my judgements. I know many people who like going to a place (e.g. the Cage) where they know people, feel comfortable, and fit in. I also know many people who freely say the “Have to” smoke when people around them are.
I’m willing to bet that you will continue to haunt the Cage, and that a year from now, by any objective measurement, you’ll be having just as much fun there as you do now. It’s regrettable that you have to adapt, but you will, and hey, maybe it’ll help you quit, which is what you say you want to do, so there’s be a little benefit to it for you after all.
I’m a non-smoker (tried it once. Hated it entirely). I generally hate cigarettes with every fiber of my being. I think they smell bad, they make me cough, and I find guys who smoke completely unkissable because they taste like a warm, wet ashtray.
That said, I don’t like this ban. If I don’t want to be exposed to cigarette smoke, I don’t go to places in which I’ll be exposed. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think any of us has a specific, given right to go everywhere and anywhere we please with the assurance that nothing will ever bother/annoy/offend us. If I decide to go into a smoking establishment, and come out coughing and smelling like cigarettes, I’m not a victim. I went in knowing there would be smoke, and chose to deal with it. The only time it might be “forced” on me is if someone is deliberately blowing the smoke in my face. But that has less to do with the person being a smoker, and more to do with them being an asshole.
And it seems people have lost the backbone to, if they don’t like the way an establishment runs things, just not support that establishment. I know people who complain frequently about how Wal-Mart is “taking over” everything in this area and , but shop there anyway because they get better prices there than other retailers. I don’t think many people really “boycott” anything anymore.
I think your idea for distributing licenses between smoking and non-smoking establishments.
However, I have to admit that the argument for the employees of an establishment is a worthy one. Many people don’t have the means to get out of their shitty jobs when they’d like to, so it blurs the line on “choice” a bit. Though, most occupations come with known health and safety hazards. As a cashier, it is not unlikely that I could be shot in a robbery at work. I don’t like the fact that I could be shot at work, but I take the risk so I can pay the bills.
Overall, I still think the ban is a stupid idea.
“I think your idea for distributing licenses between smoking and non-smoking establishments.”
I’m pretty sure I meant to type “like” instead of “think”.
that’s an excellent point. Every job has risks. I risk carpal tunnel every day. And I don’t HAVE to work where I do, and so I can’t force them to provide me with an ergonomic keyboard. It would be nice if they did, but I can’t force it.
An aside
I got my manager to provide me with a trackball because the mouse was fucking with my joints. Your employer might provide you with an ergonomic keyboard if you ask for it.
Re: An aside
right, but if the manager says “no, I’m not buying that for you” you either buy your own, deal with not having one, or work somewhere else. You don’t get to change the law forcing employers to provide trackballs. And you certainly don’t get to pass a law banning the mouse.
Re: An aside
That comment was entirely detached from the discussion as a whole, BTW.
Although most of the discussions seem to center around the pro/con of any smoking ban for patrons and owners of establishments, I think the biggest beneficiaries will be the people that work there. Although I do not like being told what I can and can not do, I have to think that the bans have the saving graces of being at least ostensibly pro-worker. Which is quite remarkable, in the era of rampant deregulation.
Maybe I just feel this way because I live in Texas, where health problems and work-related injuries are considered character flaws.
Granted, anyone working at an establishment that goes out of business will suffer, those too are character flaws which can be overcome.
Another anonymous person. Hello there.
As I was saying to above, I do acknowledge that part, but I still can’t get behind that kind of regulation. Yes there are risks, as there are with many jobs, but at the end of the day, we’re essentially saying that if I want to have an all smoking bar, I want to run it, I accept the risks of working there, and my staff feels the same way, I still don’t have that right. If I want to have a racist all white, all male country club though, well, no problem at all.
Big surprise here, I agree with you completely*. And I think your 50% of liquor licenses idea is a very good one, though maybe the politics of who gets said licenses might get nasty…so it’s still inferior to the idea of the government staying the hell out of it.
I have no desire to offend people with my smoke…that’s WHY I go to the cage, duh. I don’t mind if 99% of the world is smoking-forbidden…I just want one place where I can go, sit down, have a cup of coffee and a cigarette without freezing my ass off. That’s apparently too much to ask. Anti-smoking fanatics, you guys suck.
*You’re still off your rocker regarding robodragons, though.
and that’s what the issue really comes down to. This law doesn’t create options for non smokers it removes all options for smokers and that is wrong. Freeing the slaves did not entail enslaving the whites.
I just realized that I mentioned this elsewhere but neglected to mention it here. I admit that my motivations for being for the ban are selfish.
And as I just posted on DPB. That’s my big problem with it. The reason laws like this are passed isn’t for my health. As Max pointed out, if it were they’d make smoking illegal, or they’d think about the fact that now we’re going to be forced to stand outside and smoke in the middle of January. The reason this law was passed was because its really easy to get non-smokers selfishly behind it. And then once you are, we now have precedent to create prejudicial laws that you might not be behind.
Why can’t we invade Iraq? We invaded Afghanistan.
Why can’t we censor cable and the internet? We censored broadcast and print.
Why can’t we fine Will & Grace? We fined Howard Stern and the Superbowl.
I’m just not buying the slippery slope argument here.
well duh. that’s why they’re doing it. Because you will say “oh it doesn’t matter, its just the smokers.” And next time it’ll just be the faggots. Then it’ll just be the niggers. That’s what a slippery slope is. The entire point is to start with something you’re ok with and then slowly move the line to other things.
And slippery slope aside, you still haven’t addressed the very real issue. Why do you care? Forget about slippery slopes for a second. How is my ability to smoke at the Cage affecting your life in any way, shape or form? You don’t hang out at the Cage. Do you want to? Why? There’s absolutely nothing to do there other than drink beer and coffee and smoke. That’s its purpose in the world. Is my ability to smoke in my basement affecting you? What about my ability to invite Max over to smoke in my basement with me? What about if I give him beer and a sandwich while he’s there? What about if I charge him a $5 bucks to defray my cost of beer buying? What about if I’m too lazy to carry the beer over to him and so I offer Steph $2 out of the $5 to walk it over for me. Oh wait, I just became a bar. Now its illegal. So let’s just make it illegal to smoke and the problem goes away.
Ok, now how about violent video games. I can’t have a violent video game in the mall arcade because little kids might play it. Playing violent video games breeds violence. There is just as much evidence supporting that as there are of the dangers of second hand smoke. (Ask Steph, she’ll give you a million references) Ok, that’s fine, no fighting games in public places. So I buy a Playstation for my kid. My kid wants games and I want to teach him the value of buying things, so I tell him that in order to play the video game he has to put a quarter in this jar everytime he plays. The money will go towards buying his next game (my mom did this with us when I was a kid, I think we only had to pay a penny, but hey, inflation). My kid is smart because he’s got that healthy Maverick DNA. So he figures out he can get more money for more games by inviting the other neighborhood kids over to play Def Jam Fight for NY with him and charging them a quarter each. Crap, I just became an arcade. That’s illegal. Lets just making fighting games illegal and the problem goes away.
Now hip hop music. Now gay marriage. Now vegetarianism.
Not responding because I can’t cut and paste through this program, and I’d really need to in order to respond properly.
First, I am a kinda-smoker, I only have a cigar about one a month or so, I don’t smoke ciggs, but my wife does, so I am at least always exposed to something. I do not like the ban for a few reasons.
1. This ban wasn’t put forth as a majority vote. While the coucil members are supposed to be representing their constituients. Something as far reaching as this ban for the whole county should really have been put through at election time. Probably the biggest reason to get people to go to the polls then.
2. It does take a away from the store owners about what they can and can’t do with their property…They pay for that property they should have every say on what goes on there for as much as everyone is taxed. The best example is that Trans fat thing up in NY. The new oil cost more, so all stores have to adjust for that cost then…all I want is some fries, but the real message is that I can’t make a healthy decision so the government has to step in to make sure that the fries I choose to eat don’t kill me too quickly.
3. The true implemantation of this ban and it’s affects will be seen post hast by the numbers that Bars in Westmoreland, Washington, Beaver, Butler from people leaving aside Allegheny bars to go watch the steelers game where they can smoke. I would say that anybar that would go out of business because of lost patronship becasue of the ban should be able to sue the council over the decision…but that’s just me
Yeah, the transfat one is the one that really bothers me, and is proof pure and simple of the slippery slope thing that I keep talking about. Sometimes I don’t WANT to eat healhy. I should have that option.
I’m so glad more places are enacting the bans, especially places I’m likely to visit like Pittsburgh. Even compared to Chicago, where there wasn’t a ban in place until after I moved to California, lots of places in Pittsburgh were pretty fucking foul with cigarette smoke. It will definitely be nice to be able to breathe at bars and restaurants the next time I’m in town. Some people don’t get to poison the air that others breathe? Boo hoo. There are much bigger battles to fight.
None of your personal preferences have anything to do with it. That’s my biggest problem with this. People who might otherwise be against a prejudicial ban supported it out of self-interest. After all, its “just the smokers.” But it could have just as easily been the gays. Or the blacks. Your very comment shows this.
In any case, the county comissioner and the state stepped in and the bill is dead.