However, the fact remains that the liberties of private property owners and the liberties of folks who made the informed decision to smoke should trump the desire of the State to restrict the free choice of others. Whether smoking should be allowed in public places is a business decision that the owners of those establishments should make. If the demand for smoke free bars was strong, there would be smoke free bars, without a smoking ban. Some such establishments did pop up, like
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Smokin’ in the boys room…or not
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I agree. Businesses should be able to decide which 100% avoidable health hazards they can expose customers and employees to. No fire escapes? No health codes? Hey, it's an individual choice!
I disagree. Government should be able to make all our decisions for us: where to go to church, where to go to school, what we can and can’t say in public, who can vote, etc. Government intervention works really well. After all, the people clearly are incapable of making their own responsible decisions.
I don't know why smoking is legal, period. It is proven- smoking kills. Period. If the FDA is so concerned for our welfare that it will pull drugs off the market for possibly contributing to the death of one sick individual, while the same drug has saved 50,000 lives. Why oh why are cigarettes still on the market?
What is interesting is the FDA is specifically not allowed to take any regulatory action on tobacco.
Governmental regulations may be helpful in regards to fire codes, as such information about buildings may not be as readily available to the public (when is the last time you have taken notice of a fire escape). Although, I would bet that if a study were done, the market would make buildings safer than governmental regulations require. Furthermore, smoking is a predictable event unlike the spontaneity of a fire. Patrons can plan to avoid smoking, not so with fires. At any rate, comparing fire codes to smoking regulations is not valid. On the other hand, everyone knows when they walk into a bar if it allows smoking or not. There are quite a few non-smoking establishments popping up in Baltimore City for those who do not care to smoke. Why regulate what the market is doing efficiently?
Anon 8:23 - Smoking kills other people, not just the smoker. That is the key difference between smoking and other bad examples like:
"where to go to church"
"who can vote"
A responsible decision would be to not allow smokers to pollute the air of others.
If you are such an addict that you need to smoke, step outside. The exercise and fresh air will do you some good.
Instead of regulating the activities of others that annoy you, why don’t you let your money talk and take your business elsewhere? No one is forcing you to breathe smoke.
Under that same rationale, why have any government regulations at all?
Vote with your pocketbook!
Why do the smokers rights folks always make the free market argument on smoking, but not on anything else?
It's an addiction and you need help. It is clouding your judgment.
Stripping away your slippery slopes and misrepresentations, you are arguing that the government should become involved in the consensual activities that others engage in to protect the public health. Not everyone is comfortable with that proposition. There are bars that cater to smokers and there are bars that cater to non-smokers. I suggest you stay away from smoking bars. It’s not that my judgment is clouded, I simply disagree with you.
Just as there are cars that have air bags, the customer should be able to decide whether they
want airbags in their cars.
The flaw in your reasoning is that your smokers' rights view fails to consider the well-being of the employees. Or the taxpayers who subsidize the smokers' addiction.
How is smoking different than any other government regulation?
BTW, slippery slopes are the refuge of the smokers' rights crowd that equate smokers' rights with voting rights.
So if clean air laws pass, soon will be the end of our democracy? Give us a break!
If taxpayers are subsidizing smokers addictions, that is a problem with the government, not the smoker. Similarly with employees, there are other bars and restaurants where work can be had in a smoke free environment. Listen to your reasoning. You want to limit democracy, not smokers.
There are restaurants that have fire exits and wheelchair ramps. Why make all restaurants have them?
If you want to work or eat somewhere else with wheelchair ramps/fire exits, you have a choice.
Seriously, is it that hard to step outside for a smoke or wait an hour between cigarettes? That someone would get so spun up over this (and not about more intrusive regulations) seems to indicate an addiction.
How is smoking different than all of the other examples of government regulation mentioned?
Oh, and "limiting democracy" would be catering to the 10% of the population who smokes, rather than the substantial majority of people who favor clean air laws. "Limiting autonomy" maybe, but democracy no.
You are trying to regulate conformity without unanimity. The market allows unanimity without conformity. Not everyone wants to hang out in a smoking bar, just as not everyone wants to hang out in a non-smoking bar. The market is working, as evidenced by the rising popularity of smoke free bars. Sure many people are addicted to cigarettes, just as there are many who are addicted to caffeine, sex, drugs and a myriad of other things. Have some respect for the liberties of others.
Funny, I didn't realize that we needed a unanimous vote for a democracy to function. So, if one person disagrees, it is unfair? Sounds more like tyranny of the minority...
What is this "liberty" you refer to? The freedom to smoke? Or is it the more general freedom to do whatever you want on your own property?
You haven't answered the question:
How are clean air laws different than any other government regulation of private property?
What are you talking about? No one said that Democracy requires a unanimous vote. Where did you get that from? Are you trying to misrepresent my argument? The market allows people with differing preferences to enjoy different goods. Regulation enforces the will of some upon all. I don’t see what clean air laws have to do with an indoor facility. Are you against smoking for environmental reasons?
Still no answers:
What is this "liberty" you refer to? The freedom to smoke? Or is it the more general freedom to do whatever you want on your own property?
You also haven't answered the question:
How are clean air laws different than any other government regulation of private property?
Clean air is a workplace safety regulation, just like fire escapes and hard hats.
Anon #2- to go back to your original post "After all, the people clearly are incapable of making their own responsible decisions." You are absolutely right. You are, in fact, defending a population of people who are choosing to kill themselves. Clearly they are capable of making responsible decision.
Anon 8:21- clean air on the macro level is not private property, so I don’t see how your question is relevant. The air inside the confines of a bar is private property. I tried to get you to clarify by asking if you were against smoking for environmental reasons, to which you never answered. Do you drive a car? If so, you are putting a lot more greenhouse gases in the air than smokers. Someone said that “slippery slopes are the refuge of the smokers' rights crowd”, yet here you go trying to bring all kinds of other issues in this, such as the environment, hard hats, fire escapes, etc. Fire escapes, wheel chair ramps, etc. do not limit the ability of those who use those things to enter the establishment. Anti-smoking laws do limit the ability of smokers to use all such facilities. Ultimately, the owners of the bar should decide what rules to impose on smoking. Instead of trying to reframe the discussion, please explain why the government should play “mother” and disallow smoking in establishments in which the owners of those establishments want people to be able to smoke.
Smoking is an environmental issue as well, but clean air laws are primarily workplace safety issues. If you want to smoke, step outside and kill yourself all you want. Please don't kill others in the process, including bartenders and wait staff.
Now, why don't you try asking the multitude of questions posed to you?
You raised a couple of new gems:
"[A lack of f]ire exits ... limit the ability to enter the building"
Since when do fire exits limit the ability to enter the building? What about vermin in the kitchen? That doesn't limit the ability to enter the building, but it is still prohibited.
Another flaw - smokers are not prohibited from ENTERING non-smoking bars. Smokers can enter non-smoking bars, but ARE prohibited from SMOKING in non-smoking bars. Big difference which I hope you recognize.
Is that the best distinction you can make?
Your argument re: environment boils down to:
1) Other things (your example was cars) are bigger polluters than smoking
2) Ergo, the government should regulate other things, not smoking.
A few problems with your argument:
1) Cars have a social benefit (they transport people rapidly from one place to another) that cigarettes lack. So society can tolerate some pollution due to the benefits from having cars.
Care to dispute that one?
2) The government already places restrictions on the type of car you can use (e.g., emission standards) and how you can use it.
3) The government doesn't have to regulate pollution sources chronologically in order of the level of pollution.
If you think the government should also ban cars, then lobby the government.
I love the last argument - I made a couple of changes:
"Ultimately, the owners of the bar should decide what rules to impose on [gambling, strippers, food safety, zoning regulation, any other regulation]. Instead of trying to reframe the discussion, please explain why the government should play “mother” and disallow [gambling, strippers, food safety, zoning regulation, any other regulation]. in establishments in which the owners of those establishments want people to be able to [gamble, strip, eat unrefrigerated food, etc..]"
Any government regulation is, to an extent, a restriction of private behavior. Unlike most restrictions, clean air laws only require the smoker to take a step outside.
In light of the undisputed health effects of second-hand smoke, it seems like a reasonable workplace safety measure.
Your hyperbole is entertaining though. Keep it up!
Wow! If you can concoct an argument that does not involve misquotes "[A lack of f]ire exits ... limit the ability to enter the building", misrepresentations (the whole car analogy), and passing your invalid arguments regarding the environment off as mine, perhaps I would be interested in responding to you. You were entertaining at first but you have become quite boring. If smoking does not create utility among smokers, why do they do it? Traveling down your slippery slope a bit, I don’t think the government should regulate gambling, strippers, food safety or zoning. I really don’t see the point of you rewording my argument as such. We obviously disagree about the usefulness of government. You have not motivated me with any of your attempts at argument, and it is apparent I have not motivated you.
How did I misquote you? Aren't you the same person that wrote:
"Fire escapes, wheel chair ramps, etc. do not limit the ability of those who use those things to enter the establishment. Anti-smoking laws do limit the ability of smokers to use all such facilities."
Check two comments up in case you don't remember. If I transcribed it wrong, fine. But the gist is the same.
Smokers are NOT prohibited from ENTERING a smoke-free bar. They are just prohibited from SMOKING in a smoke-free bar. Please tell me you see the difference!
How is the car analogy a misrepresentation? YOU are the one who made the analogy!
Is someone using your computer without permission (maybe when you were out smoking)?
Perhaps I would be interested in continuing this debate, if you could answer my questions and stand behind your own comments.
Post a Comment