Blow Smoke in Their Eyes

Well, the tobacco nannies have had their way in Spain, and it seems all but inevitable that D.C. is now poised to protect the inalienable God-given right of each (non-smoking) citizen to walk into any bar he pleases and dictate terms to the owner. But if you're at least inclined to rage against the dying of the cigarette's light, you can go vote in NBC's poll against the new resolution. Note that at least Spain's ban has some wiggle-room for smoking sections physically isolated from the rest of the bar or restaurant. The D.C. banners haven't been interested in any one of a number of intuitively appealing compromises that would've ensured plenty of non-smoking choices for patrons and workers alike—because at the end of the day nobody really believes this has anything to do with protecting workers, and for the hardcore activists, it isn't even about the petty but widespread desire to go to the exact place you want without dealing with smoke, but rather about socially stigmatizing all those poor, sick, nicotine-stained wretches.

Comments

[isildur]

I'm so glad I quit and now I can be angry at stories like this, instead of terrified.

[jw]

On the news last night it was stated that the Westin Hotel chain (group?) has just banned smoking in all of their establishments both here and abroad. Even in the rooms! Seems to be a trend.

[Julian Sanchez]

It's a fine trend; it's one reason blanket bans like this are so stupid. Eventually you'd end up with a handful of smoking-allowed joints, lots more no-smoking places than we have now, and everyone but the busybodies happy.

[jw]

"It's a fine trend; it's one reason blanket bans like this are so stupid."

It's a fine trend unless they decide they can not bear the "unfair competition" and have the government force all the other hotel chains to ban smoking as well. That's what many of the bars and restaurants have proposed in my home town.

[Not that]

Oh come on. Smoking bans don't prevent you from smoking. They just prevent you from forcing your habit on someone else. When less than 1/4 of the population smokes, some businesses will use the concept of a "private" smokers club to get around bans in public places and target that niche market. In the meantime, businesses that choose to go no-smoking are probably just recognizing that the majority doesn't smoke, and therefore they are the target audience rather than the smaller smoking audience. Much ado about nothing from the smoker's rights crowd.

If a significant portion of humans liked eating shit in public, there would be attempts to infringe on their right to do that in public spaces as well.

Sheesh

[isildur]

Not that,

If you were correct, two things would be true -- and are not.

One, anti-smoking activists would, in light of the 'less than 1/4th' number, be willing to let the market solve the 'problem'. Nobody forces a non-smoker into a bar. At least here in Seattle, the places that allowed indoor smoking were few and far between. If there's no demand, the market will limit the supply.

Two, anti-smoking activists would not have pushed a blanket ban in Seattle that covered, among other things, cigar shops and tobacconists. Your 'private club' argument doesn't hold water for the simple reason that RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ARE PRIVATE PROPERTY. This has not prevented smoking bans in them. How is a 'private club' any more or less a public space than a tobacconist? (For reference, most nightclubs bill themselves as 'private clubs' and charge a 'membership fee'. This hasn't allowed them to evade smoking bans.)

You can try to make these kinds of bans seem reasonable all you like, but they're patently nothing more than nanny government in its purest form, wedded to the non-smoker's contempt and loathing for the smoker. (Your 'eating shit' comment is about the best example of that attitude I've ever seen.)

[SixSigma]

Not that -

I guess you don't understand that some may choose to believe the government shouldn't legislate (read: micro-manage) decisions that should be left to business owners.

And to your nonsensical analogy for the shit-eaters...

It already exists - it's called the movie theater and I'm not demanding the government force them to stop feeding consumers shit; I simply don't go.

[Not that]

Seattle,
By the way, already has a couple of smoking clubs in operation under the draconian ban you so hate.

Private property and public space can be the same space, by the way. Not logically exclusive categories. Smoke outside. Get some fresh air, what's the big deal.

T'aint that complicated.

So why you hate he non-smokers so much? Your anger is palpable.

[Baylen]

If a significant portion of humans liked eating shit in public, there would be attempts to infringe on their right to do that in public spaces as well.

a) What the fuck is the problem with people eating shit in public? Ain't hurting me. By all means, go for it.

b) A bar is private, not public. If you want to ban "smoking in public" then you must ban smoking on sidewalks, in parks, at city hall, etc.

[Julian Sanchez]

We only hate whiny little pricks who use phrases like "force their habit on others" to describe what happens when you walk into an establishment clearly marked as smoking-allowed and find... smoke. Now presumably farmers will have to worry that one will barge into a fertilizer storehouse and demand to know what all this shit is doing in "their" space.

[Kwix]

As a non-smoker, never have been and probably never will be, I take great offense at these bans. Is smoke annoying when I am eating a cheeseburger or drinking a beer, yes. That is why I frequent restaurants that offer a non-smoking section. Simple as that. I let my dollar do the talking.

I don't have a problem going to a smoking bar, but only if they have good ventilation. Again, my choice to go or not go. I am not demanding bars and restaurants to ban smoking, or that they must have some sort of filtration device on the air handler by going to my city council, I am doing it the way it SHOULD be done in a capitalistic society, with my hard earned money.

If only 1/4 of the population are smokers as Not That claims then they could make the same decisions as I have. You would end up with almost all of the restaurants / bars offering some sort of smoke mitigation plan in order to attract the money of the non-smoking patron. After all, a dollar is a dollar.

[d]

Not that: you're conflating NON-smokers with ANTI-smokers. I am a NON-smoker, i.e. I do not smoke. However, I don't complain when I go to my friend's bar and encounter other patrons smoking. It's a fucking bar. Drinking and smoking go together almost as well as strippers and coke (which, by the way, is a much better analogy than your shit-eating example).

As a property owner, I don't allow people to smoke in my home; however, I do NOT expect to be able to dictate that choice to other property owners, including businesses.

You sound an awful lot like the guy at my bachelor party who refused the lap dance my brother bought for him. No, wait, you don't. At least that guy was willing to allow lap dances for others.

[Not that]

So,

Again, why you hatin' so much.

So, to those that make legit points let's discuss:

Quote: I guess you don't understand that some may choose to believe the government shouldn't legislate (read: micro-manage) decisions that should be left to business owners.

I think, maybe, that the misunderstanding is the notion that businesses have the same rights as individuals. They don't. Governments role in a society (in large part) is to regulate business and trade. Micro-management schemes don't work well (look at the tax code), but broad bans on certain behaviors are generally effective, if they make sense for the society as a whole. Letting the free market decide things is fine up to a point, but would you feel safe having the beef industry, say, completely free to sell you any piece of meat it deems safe for you to eat?

My point is that the banning of indoor smoking is no more a burden on businesses than requirements that they meet fire codes, or provide non-tainted meat on their menu.

Smoking bans exist not because a few "ANTI-SMOKER" freaks have hijacked the political process. They exist because some citizens found a problem they thought could be addressed through the political process and the people on the other side of the issue couldn't muster the same level of support. That's not the freemarket. That's something approaching a democratic process.

Confusion of the freemarket with the political arena is a common thread on this board. They are different things.

Quote: At least here in Seattle, the places that allowed indoor smoking were few and far between. If there's no demand, the market will limit the supply.

Living in Seattle, working as a drummer, those "few and far between places" were the place where I had to make a living (bars). Don't give me some pie-in-the-sky, you're such a sissy argument about my having a choice in the matter. I did, but only up to a point. My choice was to choose a different way to make a living or suck up the smoke. Same goes for bartenders.

A bar is private, not public. If you want to ban "smoking in public" then you must ban smoking on sidewalks, in parks, at city hall, etc.

A bar is public the moment the public walks through the door. Confusing the idea of public ownership with public space is a common mistake, but important not to make in this debate.

So, here's my main point again.

Not a big deal. Get over it. Worry about more important issues. If you can't, then do something about it. But don't claim that the people who support these bans are somehow out to get you, or that their motivations are somehow less noble than yours. They just saw something they didn't like and tried to change it. And guess what. Sometimes they win.

Get over it. Get some fresh air.

[d]

Yes, it is something approaching a democratic process, and that's EXACTLY the problem. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. It is imposing the will of the majority, regardless of any rights or priveleges the minority may have claim to.

[Johnny Clarke]

Not that-
I'm intrigued. Could you explain the difference between "public ownership" vs. "public space" and how one might "allow" smoking while the other wouldn't? I'm honestly curious.

[Brian Courts]

Confusion of the freemarket with the political arena is a common thread on this board.

Confusing the idea of public ownership with public space is a common mistake, but important not to make in this debate.

Worry about more important issues.

Get over it. Get some fresh air.

Is such condescending dickwaddery (with apologies to Mr. Welch) typical of the pro smoking ban crowd or did M1EK change his handle? Sort of makes sense though.

[James Anderson Merritt]

"b) A bar is private, not public. If you want to ban "smoking in public" then you must ban smoking on sidewalks, in parks, at city hall, etc."

Welcome to Santa Cruz CA, where it is indeed against the law to smoke outside while hanging around (or standing in line for) restaurants, theatres (mmmm ... gotta eat that great shit they have at the snack bar :-), etc. Of course, as we are in CA, it is also against the law to smoke in smoking clubs, as well as the aforementioned restaurants and theatres, city hall, hotel lobbies, and other areas of "public accommodation."

It is illegal to smoke at the beach, too. I don't think the general ban on smoking while walking on the sidewalks or at parks is in place yet, but I've heard proposals for such things, and they are taken seriously here. So it will only be a matter of time...

[jeffiek]

Living in Seattle, working as a drummer, those "few and far between places" were the place where I had to make a living (bars).

Here we have it. Greed. Pure and simple greed. Someone not willing to peacefully find what they want in life. Someone willing to take by force what others want.

Someone not even willing to allow others a place to get what they want out of life.

Will someone explain to me how this person differs from a common thief?

[not that]

Public Space= a space for the public... anyone welcome
Private Space= not for the public. Not everyone is welcome. You need the permission of the owner to come in.

Public ownership= owned by the public
Private ownership: something, whether private or public, owned by an individual.

Corporate ownership: owned by a corporation... as in most businesses. Not the same as an individual and does not have the same rights (and shouldn't).

You can work out how the private club thing works from there. If you own a public space, you are subject to the whims of the public.

As for the excellent point made by "d." I agree, but whose rights are being trampled here. These bans are not prohibition of smoking, they just regulate public spaces. The proposed bans discussed by James are silly, but also will not last long if implemented. The system is self correcting in this fashion. The people who smoke make up enough of a voting block to balance the system if it gets outta hand.

By the way. Seattle's ban was a voter initiative that passed easily. The ban on smoking in tobacco shops is silly. Someone should put together their own push to change that part, but if you try to get rid of the whole thing, you'll probably lose.

Remember, the political process and the choosing where to shop are not the same thing. .

[jeffiek]

Remember, the political process and the choosing where to shop are not the same thing.

Absolutely true. K-Mart can't tell Walmart what to sell, or regulate what goes on inside their store.
As a result, the customers get what they want, or at least as many as is humanly possible.

Politicians can tell both what to do. As a result 25% of the population doesn't get what it wants.

[TomHynes]

The Spanish ban isn't the choice of the Spanish themselves - the European Union is forcing it on them. At least in the United States, the federal government doesn't push around the sovereign states.

[J]

Not That said, "But don't claim that the [motivations of] people who support these bans...are somehow less noble than yours. They just saw something they didn't like and tried to change it."

That doesn't really strike me as a noble motivation - I don't see anything at all noble about making the extremely selfish and logically highly questionable leap from "I don't like it" to "it should be illegal." It seems a lot more admirable to say, even as a non-smoker, that while smoking may often be irritating it's not our legitimate position to force a ban on restaurant and bar owners and smokers, none of whom are forcing a damn thing on you despite what you claim. I think Julian Sanchez and Brian Courts were dead on in talking about "whiny little pricks" and "condescending dickwaddery."

[SixSigma]

Not that -

I too am curious to Mr. Clarke's question - please elaborate.

As for being a drummer, therefore having no choice, this is a non-issue with people who believe in individual choice. If you don't like the job, get a new one. Drum in TV commericals, be a studio drummer, drum in the symphony, teach drums to others, drum on the sidewalk for tips, start a concert called "Drummers for Charity" and don't allow smoking - all of these are perfectly good alternative careers that do not require bar performances.

And of course, there's a myriad of careers outside the drums to choose from as well.

Off topic - this reminds me of someone I knew once getting close to graduating college with a teaching degree. On and on she went about how little teachers got paid. Now I agree a percentage of teachers are woefully underpaid, but didn't she know prior to the 4 years ending that some teachers are underpaid? Or... another way... If you know the end result prior to begining the journey, who's fault is it for you choosing the path and the result happening?

[jefiek]

Six Sigma

Not very far off topic. Didn't "not that" know what kinds of places hired drummers before he joined a band?

I note in the article on Spain's law that there are no exemptions for places owned by a single individual. You know, the type no one debates as being privately owned.

[BullConner]

not that,

I'm with you 100%. As you say, "what's the big deal?" Let the smokers light up outside. I should be protected from having to deal with their nasty habbits wherever I go. And once we get the smoking ban taken care of, we can work on purging our establishments from those pesky niggers. Their funky smell has been ruining my enjoyment of the bar scene for years now. Stick em outside with the smokers. Or maybe we could compromise and mandate that all establishments have a seperate "nigger shack" to take care of them.

[jeffiek]

BullCorner

Could we include drummers?

[violent_k]

BullConner,
I think you have something here. I don't like most perfumes. How about a ban on wearing them in public places. And I have a friend that hates the smell of leather. No more leather coats in bars I say.

[Stevo Darkly]

There is some confusion over terms here.

As defined by some people, including libertarians:

Private (space or property or whatever) = owned by a person or a limited and specific group of persons. (By that I mean a group whose members you could list or very specifically identify.)

Public (space or property or whatever) = not owned by any one person or specific group of persons, which almost always means "owned by a government body." (Often described as owned by "the public," meaning the populace governed by that gov't body.)

As defined by many other people:

Private space = Space usually occupied only by the space's owner and anyone overtly invited by the owner.

Public space = Space usually occupied by people who are not the owner.

This confusion is shared by many people, including Not That.

Public Space= a space for the public... anyone welcome
Private Space= not for the public. Not everyone is welcome. You need the permission of the owner to come in.

The kind of private property that Not That would consider "public space" is still in fact private space. You still need the permission of the owner to come in.

Normally, that permission to enter is assumed because normally the owner of such a space wants as many visitors as possible. That permission is confirmed when you enter and you are not asked to leave. But you will find out, very quickly, that you still need the owner's permission to be there, as soon as you do something that gets you thrown out.

[jw]

"I think you have something here. I don't like most perfumes. How about a ban on wearing them in public places. And I have a friend that hates the smell of leather. No more leather coats in bars I say."

HEY!!! I have it on good authority that exposure to second-hand aromatic hydrocarbons as found in perfumes, colognes, aftershaves, deoderants etc. are hazardous to one's health. I DEMAND to be protected from them. Such things, if they are allowed at all, should be restricted to sleazy brothels rather than allowed in public. (High class brothels shouldn't allow them, because "I" might want to frequent those establishments.)

[jw]

Forgot to use the smiley emoticon again. Sorry.

[martin]

got that,

Let me try to answer some of the points from your last post.

"These bans are not prohibition of smoking, they just regulate public spaces."
Surely you realise that what you say is a strawman. It is clear that the ultimate goal behind the smoking bans is total prohibition. You give an example later in the post: "The ban on smoking in tobacco shops is silly."

"Private Space = not for the public. Not everyone is welcome. You need the permission of the owner to come in. "
Sounds good, but the fact is that the Civil Rights Act declared even private spaces not open to the general public to fall under public rules to prevent owners from engaging in reprehensible behaviour. Now the precedent is used to support smoking bans. Exposing someone to smoke on par with racial discrimination? Good example of a slippery slope.

"By the way. Seattle's ban was a voter initiative that passed easily."
True. It also is seen by many as an act of tyranny by the majority. Let me point out that "majority rules equals democracy" is a notion which, if carried out once too often will lead to a country of strife and enmity. The writers of the Constitution clearly understood this, hence the many protections to guard the rights of the minority.
Minorities resent oppression and eventually they revolt.
The argument that some other minority needs to be protected, frequently boils down to another act of tyranny, especially when that minority is perfectly able to make their own decisions and didn't even ask for protection. Protecting them from themselves only compounds the tyranny.

If you don't believe that anti-smoking activists are little tyrants, try visiting a hearing and experience them in action.

Personally this issue is not a dispute over the merits or dangers of smoking, it is over how far some group, even a majority is allowed to go to force others to change their behaviour.
Next time it's going to be the hamburger or the pizza or the coke you crave.

[jw]

Martin,

That was very well written. Really!

[Ken]

I quit smoking and now find that the stink bothers me. It's simple, I don't go anywhere that permits smoking inside.

But I am very nasty to anyone trying to smoke where it isn't permitted, maybe because I have no sympathy for anyone who smokes, maybe because it was so hard for me to quit, maybe because I STILL want a smoke six years later. There is no redeeming feature to the smoking addiction.

[Not that]

Much better guys. Now we have some actual discussion of the issue.

But...
Surely you realise that what you say is a strawman. It is clear that the ultimate goal behind the smoking bans is total prohibition.

It is hardly clear that that is the case (it is certainly not what I would support). Remember, just because some of the people who are involved are overbearing does not mean that the ultimate goal is domination of the minority. Your strawman would fall apart as quickly as mine. There are prohibitionists out there. They align themselves with those that support the public space smoking ban... but they don't dominate it. Don't make yourselves the screeching counter-point to the freaks on the fringe of the opposition or you will lose the ability to influence the shape of the final policy.

And as for the smoking ban = racism crowd... that is the kind of argument that will make people dismiss you as whining or sniveling or whatever. It is not THAT slippery a slope. Notice that we haven't even slipped to banning smoking or the sale of tobacco (let the drug war discussion begin). I wonder how you feel about the government's role in preventing discrimination. Do you think that active support of disadvantaged groups is justified? To what extent? Where should we draw the line? Should the government prevent you from excluding Arabs from your work force simply because they will be working in your privately owned public space?

Remember, the country is a social pack that includes some rules...those get codified and debated. The debate might change some minds, but dramatic proclaiming about the dangers of things that a large number of people agree with are not going to get you anywhere. Maybe think about concentrating on solutions to the issues...(you're with us or against us... sounds so shrill no matter who says it).

What would a REASONable compromise position be. The let-business-decide-for-themselves has been thrown out by the voter initiatives. People seem to have decided that the baseline condition should be NO SMOKING indoors in public spaces (I stick with my definition of public spaces). Maybe that is tyranny of the majority. It seems a pretty mild tyranny to me. I have not heard much to convince me that the bans place undue burdens on business owners or smokers. If this mild ban is so outrageous, what is a reasonable activity to regulate? These are not black and white issues. Don't treat them as such. Many businesses are supporting these bans due to their perception that they will save money down the road in healthcare costs. I wonder how that all plays into this. Are big corporations using these voter initiatives as cover? Maybe. Does that mean there is a big conspiracy to keep the nicotine stained downed... I don't think so.

Really, the Seattle air is refreshing. Spend a couple minutes outside and have a smoke in it.

[jw]

" maybe because it was so hard for me to quit, maybe because I STILL want a smoke six years later. There is no redeeming feature to the smoking addiction."

Ken,

Hang in there. It gets easier. I smoked for thirtyone years and I've been free of it for going on ten. About the only time it ever crosses my mind to take it up again is after I've been around someone else smoking for awhile. Just a thought of Peter Jennings' unfortunate experience is enough to drive such ideas away.

[Larry Edelstein]

Try to see it the other way, Not That.

There are perfectly good solutions that don't involve some group of people imposing their will on other people. Unfortunately, the radicals - the prohibitionists - have successfully leveraged what seems to be a tendency in the non-smoking mainstream to let someone legislate away a behavior that they perhaps find annoying, or maybe consider lacking in virtue, which they don't themselves practice.

"Well, neither me nor my wife particularly like the smell when we do find ourselves out a bar with our friends. And smoking is bad for you, I know that...I hear that we're paying for their insurance bills, too...I suppose it's a good thing to ban it then, at least in ."

I don't like to assume that my fellow humans, my fellow Americans are so quick to rationalize the legislation of curbs on freedom, but it sure seems like they are.

And then you come in here, you little shitbag, and your first three words are "Oh come on", and then something to the effect of "it's not like they told you that you can't smoke at home". Surely if you take some time, think it through, try to see it from the other side, you'll see what an ass you are.

I'm thinking, fat fucking chance of that!

[Marty]

If you?re not familiar with how fond the Spanish are of their smoking?and particularly their smoking in pubs and restaurants?it would be something akin to New York City banning taxi cabs, L.A. banning cosmetic surgery or Texas banning the contraction ?y?all.? It?s just hard to imagine.

Bars and smoking and drinking and chatting and eating, and smoking while eating, and drinking while smoking and smoking some more are all a major part of daily life for nearly everyone I knew in every part of Spain I visited in 1990. In my dormitory cafeteria, my fellow students smoked and flicked ashes onto the tile floor during meals and thought it very odd that I didn?t. Whenever Real Madrid would have a match, the toxic smog was so thick in the TV lounge that you literally couldn?t see the screen from the back of the room.

The scourge of cigarette smoking in Spain was one of the things that cemented my allegiance to the United States of America, even while I became aware of how screwed up our country is in many other ways. Actually, I should be pledging my allegiance to California, a state with hard-hitting anti-tobacco campaigns, high cigarette taxes and a long-standing ban on smoking in public places?all of which have produced tremendous successes in reducing cigarette smoking.

Given that Columbus and the Spanish conquistadors nearly wiped out the entire population of indigenous Americans with influenza, measles, smallpox, slavery and outright genocide, it?s just a bit of poetic justice, a smidgen of karmic retribution that it was Columbus who introduced tobacco to Spain in the 16th century. The country has been chain-smoking ever since.

Let's all try to be understanding if Spain seems a little moody and jittery in 2006. If they get through this, we'll be better able to enjoy our sangria and tapas next time we make a trip to the madre patria. To that, I raise my copa and say "?Salud!"

More on this at martymusings.blogspot.com

[Larry Edelstein]

The last part of the quote was swallowed 'cuz I put it in angle brackets. It was supposed to read "I suppose it's a good thing to ban it then, at least in <those private spaces which fools call public>."

And so you don't jerk your knees, you pathetic teenager, you who has been slavering over this topic all day, instead of "curbs on freedom", pretend I said "curbs on behavior".

[martin]

One more, then I'll get some sleep.

Not that,

I think it is hard to deny that the "public space" smoking bans are driven and dominated by the prohibitionist crowd. First public spaces have been expanded from indoor only to outdoor too.
There are already attempts to make smoking in vehicles occupied by children illegal. Note the rhetoric: "We aren't trying to pick on smokers. We're just saying be responsible and protect the rights of children and protect children's health" Now children are protected from their parents in one more area.
http://www.fox28.com/php/article.php?news_id=1039

Next set the stage to ban smoking in apartment buildings. Now we're getting close to people's private home:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/12/2/189

Next the courts tell parents that theyendanger their children by smoking in the home:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/652991/posts

Then we whip up the emotions about poor children suffering from exposure in the home. Don't look too closely at the numbers, it will become evident that they are talking about a miniscule subset of the population further restricted by 20% and then some more. but the headline is great:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-12/ats-ssh121405.php

In Canada they are further ahead, they have government actively involved:
http://www.toronto.ca/health/breathingspace/

And in the UK they have found a really creative way to get the foot in the door of the private home: "We have to protect our workers!"
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=2445122005

Priceless.
So there is the strawman dissected.

Re the racism argument, let me explain again: The reprehensible practice of discrimination set the legal precedent that is now being used to declare some private properties, i.e. bars, clubs, restaurants public places. That's all. No comparison of crowds.

As to the last paragraph, I'm at a bit of a loss.
The businesses that support a ban can feel free to implement one. In contrast to ban-advocates, opponents are willing to compromise, they are not crying for protection, but for their right to choose.

"Maybe that is tyranny of the majority. It seems a pretty mild tyranny to me."
Huh???
How much mild tyranny is not too much tyranny?
When does it cease to be mild and start to become un-mild?
I thought the answer was obvious: There is NO good tyranny!

[Jared]

Woah woah wait, what's this about a blanket bans at hotels?

Now, that is truly absurd. Why don't you guys put up an article about such.

[martin]

I'm so glad you will be able to enjoy your Sangria your way in Spain. Now, I'm sure we agree that the American way is the only right way to do things, not?
Let me burtst your bubble a little bit. I predict that the law will be widely ignored in Spain. You know, they have a little bit of that independent spirit left that Americans have long since traded that for total security granted and enforced by the State.
Salud!
Uhh, in moderation.
Government Warning; Pregnant women.... sorry doesn't apply.

[Not that]

Wow Larry,
Don't pop a vein.

I do think there is a point in what you say (somewhere hidden in the anger).

The "oh come on." was a reaction to the idea of businesses forcing the government to regulate them, but that was a long time ago. Maybe too glib. It happens.

So, let's examine this concept of "groups of people" imposing their will on others. Hmmm... how would you prevent that? Are no limits on freedom (behavior, whatever) reasonable? Can you just do whatever you want, wherever? Does the society have no say?

These are the real questions here, aren't they? But I haven't seen a single response that addresses the central question here... where do you draw the line? Which behaviors are a big enough deal that we need to, as a society, say "nah, we don't sanction that one."? Or to reverse it, which behaviors are a big enough deal that we need to fight to protect them? Freedom of speech seems a pretty good example? Public assembly, sure. The right to move freely about the country, I like that one. I don't find the smoking issue a big enough deal to get so worked up over. I thought I would see how the people who do get worked up were thinking about the issue. So I posted some responses. I see that some are thinking about it. Others are just made that mom won't let them have another cookie after dinner.

What these smoking bans are, are an attempt to find a balance between your right to smoke, and my right not to have to breath the smoke that your habit places in the atmosphere. It is a balance, not one or the other. The question is where is the balance point? It'll move around a bit until we find a place everyone can live with... I do believe that is the point of debating an issue. Not to examine my motive, age range, or shitbagginess.

So the burden question again. Bars in Seattle that violate the smoking ban... pay, I believe, a $100 dollar fine. Pretty draconian. The smokers, have to walk a few feet to some outside air. I find that a reasonable balance. Where would you draw the line?

[Rover Random]

In response to Not That:

Oh but if only it truly was to protect the workers. Then I might be able to find some smidgen of respect for the proponents of the bill.

But no. It's all about the power-trip of being a puritanical nanny.

While complaining that smokers force their habit on you, you go and try and force your habits on them by banning it. You succeed at being a hypocrite!

Haha, healthcare costs. Bull-fucking-shit. The Master Settlement Plan uses all those billions of dollars to pay for roads and prisons, not smokers' supposed insurance costs. Why is it going to be any different now? Fucking tort lawyers.

I think the real issue here is that you mother- fucking sons of bitches think you have the right to treat us smokers like niggers, taxing the shit right out of us, and then on top of that dare to have the balls to tell us to go smoke out in the cold while you sit nice and toasty-smug inside while our dollars flow into your pet projects. Fuck a whole lot of that. Don't give us your sanctimonious prattle -- I don't need someone to lecture me like a child.

Now children, today's lesson will cover the "C" word... Condescension. Hehe.

Oh wait, now I'll start hearing shit about how second-hand smoke is harmful to one's health. Yeah you can shove your government-sponsored studies up your ass, how about Greece consumes the most tobacco in the world per person, and they have a higher average life expectancy than us? Oh, and how about Japan has the highest average life expectancy in the world, but is number two in tobacco consumption only to Greece?

Quote time! "Necessity is the first and last refuge of tyranny." -- Who cares. I could have made it up for all Google is telling me.

Yeah I'm lumping you in with all those other fuckers trying to ban smoking. Prohibit smoking in public places and pretty soon they'll tell me I can't smoke in my own home. So much for business owners' rights and being a republic. Hello mob rule! Man you look ugly.

[Rover Random]

Yeah I find you a real fucking Jesus, a goddamn saint. Telling me, "oh it's okay, I understand you, now hold still while I tell you what to do and steal your freedoms away, it won't hurt." Yeah, trying to cover up your shit with those mild little phrases and claims that we're overreacting. Don't give me that shit you little fucker.

I love it, Jesus is getting snide, great call man. I hope you die soon, maybe your body can fertilize my tobacco plants I'll plant on your grave.

[jw]

"And so you don't jerk your knees, you pathetic teenager,"

Gee, I don't know, Larry...he (she?) writes too well to be a teenager; or one that is a product of the public school system anyway. On the other hand he does sound as though he just stepped out of a high school social studies class.

Not that,

"Which behaviors are a big enough deal that we need to, as a society, say "nah, we don't sanction that one."? Or to reverse it, which behaviors are a big enough deal that we need to fight to protect them?"

I really can't speak for anyone else here, but libertarian thought generally proceeds from the premise that one has a right...the right of liberty (or pursuit of happiness) to pretty much do as one pleases as long as one does not initiate the use of force or deception against others to gain a value that is not legitimately one's own. In other words...don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, and don't commit murder.
I realize that is very simplistic, but without writing you an entire thesis, it is about the best I can do right now.

[Ben]

Smoking should be banned in public for no other reason than that smokers have proven themselves to be pigs, discarding their butts anywhere and everywhere. And the odious things seem to last forever. Look out the window at any red light. Hell, look at the walkway leading up to my apartment. It's disgusting, and they ought be heavily fined every time they're caught doing it. Since they won't stop, we have no other choice but to ban them.

[jw]

"Smoking should be banned in public for no other reason than that smokers have proven themselves to be pigs, discarding their butts anywhere and everywhere. And the odious things seem to last forever. Look out the window at any red light. Hell, look at the walkway leading up to my apartment. It's disgusting, and they ought be heavily fined every time they're caught doing it. Since they won't stop, we have no other choice but to ban them."

Comment by: Ben at January 4, 2006 03:29 AM

By that line of reasoning eating and drinking (all beverages) should be banned in public. Look at all the fast food wrappers and containers, plastic and glass bottles, cans, etc., that are left everywhere. Smokers are not the only "pigs" in this country.

[BrianTerrel]

First off i'd like to extend an apology to "Not that" for the abuse he has suffered here. I can't claim to speak for libertarians in general but i know i can speak for many of the calmer ones when i say it is absolutely appalling how quick many people are to heap abuse on people who disagree with them.

That being said, when folks of a libertarian bent see someone making a defense of what we see as clear cut violation of individual rights we do tend to get heated. To a libertarian the individual is inviolable and sacred. To suggest that the consent of a majority of individuals is sufficient to violate the rights of anyone is about as close to sacrilege as it gets around these parts. Also remember: a self correcting system is still unjust for the period that it is incorrect. I assert it would be better never to go astray in the first place by recognizing the proper boundries of democratic action.

I'd like to talk about democracy a bit later, first off i'd like to offer my take on the issue of public vs private space.

In response to:
Public Space= a space for the public... anyone welcome
Private Space= not for the public. Not everyone is welcome. You need the permission of the owner to come in.

What you are missing is that even under your definition the vast majority of businesses are private spaces.

Ever notice those ubiquitous signs that say something along the lines of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"? That is the owner of the establishment reminding people that their business is not, in fact, a public space which they are entitled to enter.

The owner of a business must grant you permission to enter their establishment. Each owner will create their own criterion based on their personal and busness considerations. They may decide to only allow people they know, or people who are vouched for, or people who pay a membership fee or what ever criterion they think will best promote their business. They may decide that it is best to grant provisional permission to enter to any person who wishes to enter, provided those people follow the rules.

A common pop-culture image that references this is the angry book store owner chasing kids out while shouting "This ain't a freaking library!" In this case the owner's criteria is anyone who follows the rules and has money to buy things is allowed inside. People who violate that criteria quickly discover just how private the business is.

An example of a different vein comes to me from my tenure at a large retail book chain. There was a homeless man who regularly came into the store and read for hours at a time. He was friendly and mild mannered and occaisonally he would buy a small item. One day a customer decided she was upset by seeing a dirty homeless person in the store and called the police. A police officer arrived and tried to make the man leave. My manager quickly intervened and informed the officer that he had no business deciding who could enter her store, and that he had better leave. He got angry, told her "You're making my job alot harder!" and left. My manager then made it clear to the man in question that he was more than welcome to stay as long as he liked. My manager's action is proof positive that businesses, even large retail chains, are private spaces. If it were a public space then the police officer would have been justified (legally at least) in stopping a vagrant from loitering. As it was he had no place telling the customers of a private business that they had to leave. Only the owner (or in this case the owner's designated agent) has the authority to do that.

The important thing to remember is that establishing the criteria, "I will give my provisional consent to enter my place of business to any well behaved person who has money to spend" does not relinquish the right of the owner to determine who is allowed in his or her business. Thus the fact that the large majority of people are allowed into a business cannot be used to make the argument that it has become a public space.

The only actuall public spaces under the definitions that you provide are businesses that explicitly relinquish their right to determine who is allowed to enter their establishment (most likely privately run firms contracting to provide services for the government) or spaces that are owned communaly through government. These places, by virtue of the equal entitlement each person may claim to enjoy them, must be subject to public regulations.

So you see, it isn't that we are using different definitions here. The matter is that you haven't delved deeply enough into your definitions to see the full consequences of the dilineation between public and private.

Now on to democracy:

As "D" so eloquently put it "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch." At the very core of democracy is tyranny of the majority. The framers of our republic recognized that democratic power must be absolutely restrained in areas where it has the potential to violate the rights of minority citizens. That is the purpose of our judicial system and our constitution. The people are not allowed to decide democratically "Group X is no longer entitled to the free exercise of their rights". Democracy's ability to justify collective action absolutely stops at the boundry of an individual's rights.

Combine that with the above and we can see that democracy can not justify taking away the right of a business owner to determine whether or not people can smoke in his decidedly private establishment. He has the right to determine what goes on inside his property provided he does not violate anyone else's rights. The government has no legitamate authority to pass any regulation on his private establishment, period. Anyone who does not like what goes on in his establishment has the right to leave it and not return. They have the right to encourage others to do the same. They do not have the right to force him to change his policy by convincing 51% of the electorate to similarly dislike it. That would be a clear cut case of the majority trampling the rights of the minority, and that goes straight against the principles and virtues upon which our system of government is founded

[jw]

One other thought: Perhaps the reason one sees so many cigarette butts all over the place "outside" is that smokers are no longer allowed to smoke "inside" where ashtrays were once maintained.

[Ben]

jw, there are laws against littering. (And consequently, it's not as bad as it used to be.) But for some reason it doesn't pertain to cigarette butts. Smokers feel free to thoughtlessly throw their butts anywhere, public or private, as if the world is one big ashtray. Litterers are pigs, but smokers are pigs of a higher order.

[BrianTerrel]

A few more random responses:

"Which behaviors are a big enough deal that we need to, as a society, say "nah, we don't sanction that one."? Or to reverse it, which behaviors are a big enough deal that we need to fight to protect them?"

The threshold you are looking for is this: We deal with problems as a society the moment someone's rights are being violated or are in immediate danger of being violated. That is the only time the government has a legitimate claim to control behavior.

Note: You can't have your rights violated by being denied access to someone else's property or by being uncomfortable when allowed into someone else's property, barring relevant contracts.

As to the idea that corporations can't operate a business that is a private space, that is simply not true.

The ability to discriminate as to who is allowed onto your property is an extension of the idea of tresspass. If someone comes into your home uninvited then they are tresspassing on your property and you have the right to evict them and bar their entry. If you allow someone into your home and they become unruly they are tresspassing when you inform them that they are no longer welcome and they refuse to leave. It works the same way for businesses as well. Your establishment is your property, and anyone who enters or remains against your will is a guilty of tresspassing.

If we look at corporations and land ownership we can see that corporations are able to press claims of tresspassing under our current legal structure. Just take a quick look at all the "No Tresspassing" signs on corporately owned land to confirm this for yourself. Since corporations can and do press claims of tresspassing against people who enter their property against their will they clearly are able to discriminate amongst people entering into their businesses. This allows them to satisfy the "Not everyone is welcome" portion of your definition and thus allows corporations to operate private spaces under your own defintions. It all comes down to the rights inherent in owning property.

So corporate owned businesses are private after all.

[Rover Random]

There are many cigarette butts over there.

Some smokers must have smoked those cigarettes and put the butts there.

That is littering.

Thus all smokers are litterbugs.

I hate litterbugs, thus all smokers are pigs.

That's a horrible line of logic, I hope you realize. Maybe if the rest of the world used this kind of logic it could be a little bit more fucked up.

Pf. Apologize away for the "abuse," it's well-deserved, they don't get enough criticism anywhere else. After all, they certainly don't seem to be having second-thoughts about their "crusade" for our health.

Oooo... perhaps that means their thought isn't rational, that they don't evaluate their own claims... it's dogma! Hi dogma! Sorry man, but you're a piece of shit. Go play with your friend fanaticism.

[j.r.]

A modest proposal for people worried about insurance. Regulate how often people can drive, raise gas taxes, not cigarette taxes. People will drive less, thus fewer accidents and lower insurance. Do you know how bad car exhaust is for you? Plus they tear up the roads and that looks way worse than some cigarette butts.

How many grains of sand make a heap? At what point do we say "fuck this.' Some people, many of them here, are dissatisfied with drug prohibition. Others are chaffing at the smoking regulation. A lot of people will say it when nowhere is allowed to sell meals with more than a perscribed amount of fat. Every regulation on our behavior makes further regulation seem more reasonable to the majority.

[Ben]

j.r.: Big difference between regulating fat and regulating smoking. Fat only affects the person who's eating it. Smoking affects others as well through second-hand smoke, a known carcinogen (and simply unpleasant).

[jw]

"Big difference between regulating fat and regulating smoking. Fat only affects the person who's eating it. Smoking affects others as well through second-hand smoke, a known carcinogen (and simply unpleasant)."

There are other pollutants that people put into the air that affect others. Besides automobile exhaust there are the smoke from fireplace chimneys and woodstoves, fumes from barbacues and grills, and in exurbia and rural areas there are emissions from people burning trash of one kind or another. Would you like to ban all that, too?

j.r. is right...where in hell does it stop? Ten years ago the city of Bellaire (Texas) banned smoking in their public parks; Galveston has either banned or proposed a ban on smoking on the "public" beaches. Would you like to see the country end up like the city state of Singapore? There you can be severely beaten for bringing chewing gum in.
The population of the US has doubled since I was a child. As it has grown people have been getting on each other's nerves more and more. But the solution to that is not to further restrict personal liberties, but to instead maximize them to help relieve the stress.

[Ben]

Emissions from trash burning and bar-b-ques and trash do not cause nearly the amounts of death and disease that second-hand smoke does. (If you think otherwise, I'm willing to look at your data; as I recall, second-hand smoke causes on the order of thousands of deaths a year, not to mention disease.) Automobile exhaust does, but automobiles are a deal with the devil that we have accepted. (Besides, automobiles *save* plenty of lives, too--more than they cost, I'd guess. Otherwise, how would you ever get to a doctor or a hospital, or deliver medications to pharmacies.) Smoking has very few positive attributes and causes far more harm than good, and it's *not* a deal with the devil that society is willing to accept. Ultimately this comes down to democracy.

[jw]

Oh, and I would add to the above that I think maximizing personal liberties not only relieves overcrowding stress, it also is more likely to engender greater consideration and respect for the rights and liberties of others. More restrictions, particularly those that seem to pick on one segment of society, only breed resentment.

[Ayn_Randian]

Ben, a word of advice. Don't come onto a board full of smart people and sling around those thouroughly discredited B.S. studies about Second-hand smoke. It'd be like quoting a phrenologist or Shirley McClaine in public.

[Ayn_Randian]

"Smoking has very few positive attributes and causes far more harm than good, and it's *not* a deal with the devil that society is willing to accept. Ultimately this comes down to democracy."

Logical Conclusion: insert fatty food consumption/alcohol/any individual people don't like for "smoking" and see what you get. Why, Ben, if 51% decide that you do more harm than good, can't we vote to execute you?

[wellfellow]

Personally, I like 'Not That's' somewhat weird idiosyncratic interpretation of individual rights.

"Freedom of speech seems a pretty good example? Public assembly, sure. The right to move freely about the country, I like that one. I don't find the smoking issue a big enough deal to get so worked up over."

The populous needs to cater to what you do or do not 'like'. Quick, can anyone trace the pedigree of that philosophy? A proud line, my friend. Proud.

What's almost as good:

"So the burden question again. Bars in Seattle that violate the smoking ban... pay, I believe, a $100 dollar fine. Pretty draconian. The smokers, have to walk a few feet to some outside air."

So the other argument 'Not That' offers, aside from, "I don't like it", is, "Well, I don't think the punishment is that bad."

It rather buttresses his concept that law should be based on his opinion. Brilliant.

Not That:

Do you have anything other than your own personal tastes to offer the debate, or are you going to continue pretending that you're being REASONable?

[jw]

"Ben, a word of advice. Don't come onto a board full of smart people and sling around those thouroughly discredited B.S. studies about Second-hand smoke."

Thankyou, Ayn Randian. I had contemplated mentioning that although I am not qualified myself to comment much on the scientific studies of smoking, there are plenty of regular contributors to this site who are.

" and it's *not* a deal with the devil that society is willing to accept. Ultimately this comes down to democracy."

Why is it that whenever someone invokes "society" that it seems to include everyone except the individual(s) whose liberty is being sacrificed in the name of the "public good"?
And while the rest of you ponder that rhetorical question "I" am gonna get some sleep. Goodnight all.

[Ben]

Second-hand smoke is a carcinogen according to all the major medical institutions in the western world. That's peer-reviewed science. Yes, I believe them more than (biased) smokers like Jacob Sullum. I don't care how smart you think the members of this board are; if they smoke, they're stupid. By definition.

[wellfellow]

Ben,

"if they smoke, they're stupid. By definition"

Of course, no smart person engages in any risky behavior. Ever. That's why no one was smart until smoking became unpopular. Idiot. By the way, you might want to look up the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

[Not-so Mr. Nice Guy]

I've said this before. I don't smoke...tobacco. The stuff makes me turn green by the smell of it. I never picked up the addiction (thank God), and never will.

I hate tobacco companies, because most of the stuff they sell is pure shit, with all the additives. And yeah, I do believe they "spike" their products, and they indeed have an economic interest to lure kids into the addiction. All the dummies who smoke now are going to die off soon enough.

But this is a very simple issue of freedom. It is MUCH better to deal with the minor irritation of someone's stink then to have one's life completely dominiated by pissant, panty-waisted, shrill, lying, stuck-up, little nazi twats.

[wellfellow]

Ben,

Darwin, Einstein, Shostakovich, Churchill... stupid, the whole lot of them.

[wellfellow]

Not so...

I agree with the bulk of your post, however,

"they indeed have an economic interest to lure kids into the addiction"

So what? I may have an economic interest in ripping of my mom, but I haven't.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

wellfellow:

I personally believe tabacco companies are assholes, so I'm more open to assume the worst of them.

I'm 100% for the free market. But I also believe that businesses, like any other human construct, are prime targets for criticism. And these jokers deserve a LOT of criticism.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

..and you never ripped off your mom?

Hell, back in the 80s, those Pac Man machines didn't give out free credits. And she was a bit careless leaving her change purse on the kitchen table..

[Ben]

Yes, smart people take risks, but there are smart risks (with a well-paying reward) and stupid risks. Smoking is a stupid risk. Einstein was, in this regard, stupid of a sort. Plus, all those you cite lived at a time when much, much less was known about the dangers of smoking. (In fact, back then tobacco companies advertised it as something to do for your *health*.)

[Ed]

In a more civilized time it was common practice among enlightened individuals for a smoker to ask if anyone minded before he lit up. Fast-forward to the 21st century, wherein militant smokers demand the right to smoke wherever they please (denying while at the same time espousing the concept of property rights) and militant anti-smokers clamor for laws which erode those same property rights. It's a comical farce but it has real and lasting consequences for anyone who cares about liberty. The health of the combatants is secondary in importance, in my view. You might say it's a smokescreen.

[Jennifer]

Fast-forward to the 21st century, wherein militant smokers demand the right to smoke wherever they please (denying while at the same time espousing the concept of property rights)

Where have militant smokers demanded laws which say they can smoke wherever they wish, regardless of what the property owner thinks? I've seen plenty of anti-smokers push for laws forcing their way on others, but no smokers doing the same.

[Johnny Clarke]

I missed the "perfume" bit so I'd like to toss in that I once worked with a woman who claimed she had some sort of "reaction" to every perfume/aftershave/deoderant/smell and was continuously lobbying for a ban on such things in our workplace.

Personally, I suffer an adverse reaction from working with ugly people, but somehow I survive.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Jennifer:

Yep. Most smokers I know loath themselves worst then Catholics. This goes to show how tyrannical collective "guilt" can be.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

edit!

"worse"

[Jennifer]

I remember a paraphrease of something PJ O'Rourke once wrote: When Fascism does finally come to America, it won't be the nasty Italian-style fascism, but a squeaky-clean fascism where everybody has a nice haircut and gets plenty of exercise and cares about their lawn and eats a healthy diet and always gets a full eight hours of sleep every night.

Here's my addition to the above statement: the defenders of this fascism will all point out that nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have the right to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

[Ira Weatheral]

Thanks medicare and medicaid for allowing the government nose to snoop into health care.

And everyone thought Johnson sucked cause he was killing a bunch of furriners, when really he was the archetect of the demise of personla freedom in the US.

Can we give Texas back to mexico NOW?

[Jim Bowie's Ghost]

Sorry, Ira, it was a good idea at the time!

[Ed]

Jennifer,

Demand the right is not the same as demanding laws. Rights (which are natural) precede laws (which are man-made). But the most militant of smokers attempt to deny the property rights of non-smokers while claiming their own rights to smoke wherever they please (having their cake and eating it too). But the militants are in the minority and dwindling. In a few years most will be grateful to their overlords that they are permitted to smoke half a cig every Tuesday in their own basements (with the proper permits and authorized ventilation systems).

[R C Dean]

Much better guys. Now we have some actual discussion of the issue.

Not That wins the condescending prick of the year award, and its only January 4.

[Rhywun]

But the most militant of smokers attempt to deny the property rights of non-smokers while claiming their own rights to smoke wherever they please

I'm sorry, but I've *never* heard of smokers demanding to smoke "wherever they please". At most, I've heard smokers demand that they be allowed to smoke where it's recently been made illegal. And as a former "whiny little prick" who was all too happy to stamp out other people's pleasure (in the name of "democracy", of course)--who has since joined the dark side--I know what I'm talking about when I say that the anti-smoking zealots are far worse than the pro-smoking.

[Jennifer]

Demand the right is not the same as demanding laws. Rights (which are natural) precede laws (which are man-made). But the most militant of smokers attempt to deny the property rights of non-smokers while claiming their own rights to smoke wherever they please (having their cake and eating it too).

Even so, the militant smokers aren't demanding that the law force others to conform to their wishes, whereas the anti-smokers are. Your argument is a red herring at best.

Who are these militant smokers, anyway, demanding to smoke on other's property against the wishes of others? Have you any links to these people? Or even a name I can Google?

[J]

"Not That wins the condescending prick of the year award, and its only January 4."

Yeah, no kidding. And as it turns out comments like "get over it" aren't actually very useful at producing discussion (much to Not That's surprise, I'm sure).

[Timothy]

Indeed, since when is "don't make this illegal" the same as "YOU MUST LET ME SMOKE EVERYWHERE! NOW! TODAY!"?

[Johnny Clarke]

As an ex-smoker and ex-Seattle apartment dweller, I predict Washington's next anti-smoking ordinance will be to ban smoking in apartments and on apartment balconies. Smokers have absolutely no right to let their second-hand smoke drift onto their neighbor's balcony or *gasp* into their apartments. And, y'know, fire risks, protect the children, blah blah blah.

They'll move on to suburban lots under .3 acres in a few years.

[Ed]

Come now, Jennifer. You've never stood next to or overheard a group of smokers complaining that they should be able to smoke in the park or on the beach or god forbid in the office of their own business? They're asserting their right to do it. But sorry, no, I have not taken down their phone numbers or web addresses or asked them if they have introduced legislation.

[Not that]

Thanks for the award.

I like the Reason hit and run because many smart people post well considered opinions. It takes a bit of prodding to get the discussion going, however.

The limits of private versus public rights is not all or nothing guys. Read Brian Terrel again. He's made a cogent argument that I will think about.

This is not an argument about the MOTIVES of the people who support the smoking ban. It is about the wisdom of that policy. How can we balance the rights of corporations and businesses against the large slice of society's wish to have smoke free environments indoors. How do we do so without trampling on the rights of smokers. Everyone is a hypocrit here if they believe that their position is the only one that protects peoples rights. I don't see it as a matter of taking rights away, but balancing rights.

Businesses are regulated all the time. If you feel that the smoking ban is an attack on the rights of business owners, which is a legit position, then you must include other regulations as part of that attack. Once you agree that some regulation is reasonable, then when does a behavior by the state constitute oppression of the business owner? I don't think that banning indoor smoking rises to that level. I say get over it to people whose reaction to this is to think that the state is trying to control their lives. Your lives are controlled on many levels for many reasons. The trick is to discriminate between the levels of control that are burdensome and those that are not.

Fight this with all your energy if you really think it is a step towards total domination. Consider putting energy into more important things if you put it on par with requiring stores not to sell liquor to minors, or requiring that workers wash their hands before they cook your food.

Now I will take my award and go to work.

[jeffiek]

Not that

You seem to be spending a large amount of effort for someone on the winning side.

Trying to quiet that little voice that says "you're wrong"?

[J]

"...balance the rights of corporations and businesses against the large slice of society's wish to have smoke free environments indoors....I don't see it as a matter of taking rights away, but balancing rights."

You do realize there's a difference between rights and wishes, don't you?

[The State]

'Private' property? What a quaint idea!

All your 'private property' are belong to us.

[Jennifer]

Come now, Jennifer. You've never stood next to or overheard a group of smokers complaining that they should be able to smoke in the park or on the beach or god forbid in the office of their own business? They're asserting their right to do it. But sorry, no, I have not taken down their phone numbers or web addresses or asked them if they have introduced legislation.

Translation: there IS NO legislation on the books or in proposal to let people smoke whenever and wherever they want.

By the way, beaches and public parks are PUBLIC property; the issue here involves what people can or cannot do on private property.

A friend of mine owns a bookstore in Massachusetts. He's a smoker, and he's the only one who works there. Yet according to the law, he is not allowed to smoke in his own store. (Though he does anyway; another friend of ours is a lawyer in Massachusetts and has already said he'll defend the guy pro bono if he ever gets busted for smoking.)

Why should this man be forbidden by law from smoking on his own property?

[jeffiek]

I don't see it as a matter of taking rights away, but balancing rights.

Isn't it curious how that balance always seems to be achieved by subracting from one side instead of adding to the other?

[The State]

Why should this man be forbidden by law from smoking on his own[sic] property?

He should be forbidden because I can do it and it amuses me to do so. Why can I do it? Because all your 'private property' are belong to us, that's why.

Ever notice those ubiquitous signs that say something along the lines of "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason"?

Actually, no, I really *don't* notice those signs any more, (except on some web-sites) because 'owners' no longer have the right to "to refuse service to anyone for any reason." 'Owners' (actually 'stewards') can refuse service to some people for certain reasons, but only for the reasons which I have specified or mandated.

[Brian Courts]

BrianTerrel,

I'm not sure which "many people" you were talking about but I can assure you my complaint was based on the fact that every paragraph the guy (or girl?) writes is dripping with condescension. Many people on here disagree all the time on many issues. What sets people off is someone coming here and insulting the entire board in every post. Any one remark like he has made repeatedly would have been overlooked, but when you cannot make even a simple argument without treating your audience like little kids in need of a civics lecture then you deserve any verbal abuse you get (and he didn't get very much so no need to apologize on our behalf). The fact is that many of the regular commenters here take this stuff seriously and have given it a lot of thought and don't need to be talked down to and told things like, Not a big deal. Get over it. Worry about more important issues.

So in the end I think you have it backwards, Brian. It is he who should come in here with some politeness and civility. The absence of harsh language does not make his condescension any more civil - indeed it is the hallmark of condescension that it sounds otherwise polite on the surface.

[not that]

To continue,

To anyone who feels I have insulted this board, I apologize. I was dismissive of the initial arguments here because I felt they were not arguments that had anything to do with the issue at hand. It is not about why people support these bans, it is about the shape of the legal system as a result that matters. If you disagree with the position of the local government (the right place for these decisions to be made I would say), yelling at the top of your lungs that it can't tell you what to do is not an effective strategy and you should get over it while trying to figure out what is wrong with the position that angers you.

If people who agree with the positions that are taken on issues here are going to win arguments (or influence policy), they need to find better ways to argue a point than discussing why someone is doing things (maybe I am a stealth Reason agent testing your skills). It is never an issue what my motivations are. I might want to dominate you. So what? The question at hand is does society have the right to regulate what goes on in businesses (let's drop the convoluted definitions of public versus private since it is really about business regulation here).

Businesses need to get a license to operate. If they incorporate, the society agrees not to hold the individuals involved in the business liable for mistakes or misdeeds (yeah, I know it is more complicated, but that is the basics). These are the issues involved in this debate. Not the rights of individual persons...

So, an interesting assertion was made.

Demand the right is not the same as demanding laws. Rights (which are natural) precede laws (which are man-made).

I do believe this is a well worn position with a long history, but I would like to ask about the natural source of rights. How do we recognize the difference between a true natural right and an opinion about what should be included in the list of natural rights? Do businesses have the same natural rights as humans given that businesses are man-made creations? I would say not. I don't think businesses have natural rights, and therefore they can't be taken away. If you disagree, I wouldn't mind hearing why business = person in the domain of natural rights versus man-made laws based on those rights.

Another point,

He has the right to determine what goes on inside his property provided he does not violate anyone else's rights. The government has no legitamate authority to pass any regulation on his private establishment, period.

No rights whatsoever to regulate a business (or private property for that matter). Hmmm that would obviate the governments ability to intervene in anyway in anyone's affairs unless rights are being violated. Again, how do we determine when someone's rights have been violated? It has to somehow involve a consensus within the society, but we will never get to 100% agreement. So, we set up processes (voter initiatives, civil courts, etc...) to help us find a balance on this. But it becomes dangerous to equate a businesses' rights with those of an individual. Courts recognize the difference. I think that is a good idea.

So, if you are pissed off about issues on this scale because you see an equivocal (or closer to equivocal than I assert) status for businesses and individuals, then, you have a beef and should be fired up since the society has decided that businesses are not people and can be treated differently. There is a way to influence debate on that level.

If you are mad that someone is trying to tell you what to do, and you are a business owner, I will be dismissive of you since that is the nature of doing business in a society. If you are a smoker that is mad that you can't smoke in a bar anymore, then think about the two way road involved in freedom of choice (where did the anger of the majority come from?...hint it is not a desire to dominate those poor addicts). When I say get over it, that is what I am talking about. This is not an issue about the personal freedom of individuals to smoke. It is about the regulation of behavior within the business environment.

On those terms it might be a big enough deal to get fired up about, but I don't see it. Businesses are regulated. What's the big deal? That's my position. Please show me where it falls apart (Brian T is your mentor here guys).

Respectfully,
Not that

[Ed]

...beaches and public parks are PUBLIC property....Why should this man be forbidden by law from smoking on his own property?

He shouldn't be.

But what if he smokes in his car and drives to the park? He's smoking on park (public) property. His taxes probably helped to pay for and maintain it. His greatly diluted smoke cannot possibly harm anyone. Yet he's forbidden to smoke, not because of any perceivable harm, but because the larger gang (non-smokers) have decreed him a less-than-civilized, second-class citizen.

[jeffiek]

...These are the issues involved in this debate. Not the rights of individual persons...

Trying to redefine the issue doesn't change the issue.

On those terms it might be a big enough deal to get fired up about, but I don't see it.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Businesses are regulated. What's the big deal?

Use your imagination. Pretend it was your business. You'll answer your own question.

I don't think businesses have natural rights.

Then clearly you don't think anyone has the right to earn a living. A sole proprieter is clearly an individual.

somehow involve a consensus within the society

Translation: Those who appear to have sufficient influence on legislators will enforce their will on the others.

then think about the two way road involved in freedom of choice

That road really does run two ways. Areas that don't have smoking bans have smoking, non-smoking and mixed solutions.

Bans are a one-way road.

Again, why all the effort? Guilty conscience?

[not that]

I don't think businesses have natural rights.

Then clearly you don't think anyone has the right to earn a living. A sole proprieter is clearly an individual.

Earn a living, sure. But a person operates in one realm as an individual, and in another as a business. I had not heard yet that a smoking ban was preventing people from earning a living. And I don't think that regulation of business means that they can't operate unless they are trying to operate a business that has been banned.

then think about the two way road involved in freedom of choice

That road really does run two ways. Areas that don't have smoking bans have smoking, non-smoking and mixed solutions.

That is true. So the question becomes, what is the best balance? How do these mixed solutions work. In most cases, they involve overly complicated regulations about providing ventilated areas, which requires complex enforcement by the government and really puts a burden on the business that wants to provide the mixed solution. The failure of these types of solutions for some, in some communities has led to the movement towards a more easily enforced, less burdensome ban on smoking in business that engage the public and employ people.

These are the issues involved in this debate. Not the rights of individual persons...

Trying to redefine the issue doesn't change the issue.

Actually, in a debate, that is one of the goals. To have everyone talking about the same topic. If you want to engage me on a different topic. That is a different debate.

somehow involve a consensus within the society

Translation: Those who appear to have sufficient influence on legislators will enforce their will on the others.

Yep. That is the way it works. Tell me a better way to do it.

On those terms it might be a big enough deal to get fired up about, but I don't see it.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Again true. Help me see it.

Businesses are regulated. What's the big deal?

Use your imagination. Pretend it was your business. You'll answer your own question.

I have. I don't see a problem with working within the rules. I would expect the government (read society) to do the same and use reasonable mechanisms for deciding what those rules are. How else would you implement the relationship?

[Rover Random]

Ben,

To claim that all smokers are stupid because they smoke while knowing the health risks is fundamentally stupid in and of itself, as it smacks of false logic.

You claim Jacob Sullum is biased, and then you talk about some amorphous "peer-reviewed" research done by some pristine entity which, I assume, isn't biased like dear Mr. Sullum. Right, I'll take that as a valid argument... oh... never. Then I really would be stupid as you claim smokers are.

Now let me get this straight. I am stupid for smoking a cigarette, because it's bad for me... But how would you know about any of the benefits if you've never tried it? This would either mean you read something that said there were no benefits, or you did smoke. Which, well, I'll let you figure that one out.

I suppose you simply ignored my post about Greece and Japan up thar aways.

Brian Courts made the case much more civilly than I could, a hearty pat on the back for you good sir.

As far as I know, most of this "research" that shows smoking and second-hand smoke is significantly harmful to one's health was rigged to get the results the government (who funded the "research") wanted. I don't know many smokers who smoke a carton a day, but I'm sure that if they did this "research" would at least pertain to them.

All this seems to indicate to me that responsibility, moderation, risk-assessment, and scale are all dead in today's world.

[science]

This seems far fetched...

"As far as I know, most of this "research" that shows smoking and second-hand smoke is significantly harmful to one's health was rigged to get the results the government (who funded the "research") wanted. I don't know many smokers who smoke a carton a day, but I'm sure that if they did this "research" would at least pertain to them."

The process for getting government funding is actually quite rigorous in its attempts to regulate bias of results. And even if it were not, the science journals that publish live and die by their ability to claim lack of bias. If the results were largely biased, then the would have had a slew of dedicated debunkers getting published on their heels. I have not seen that happen.

"All this seems to indicate to me that responsibility, moderation, risk-assessment, and scale are all dead in today's world."

There does seem to be a lack of responsibility, moderation, risk-assessment, and scale in much of the world today. It may be that some of that drives the current debate about the war on terror. But the risks of smoking on the individual and those around him/her are fairly well established.

I wonder why the government would want to prove smoking is harmful if it isn't? What would it gain from such action? How would the loss of all the potential tax dollars benefit the government?

[jeffiek]

...In most cases, they involve overly complicated regulations...

Blatently false. They work by respecting private property rights. Governement stays out. Owner Joe takes one, owner Bill takes another, and so on. Customers decide which solution they like. Surprise!
That actually works.

Yep. That is the way it works. Tell me a better way to do it.

Yep. That is the way it works.

This is simply a matter of dispute resolution. I want X, you want Y.

The peaceful means of dispute resolution are:
1) One side persuades the other to change their point of view. This obviously won't work here.
2) Negotiation. Both sides trade some important elements in order to get satisfactory resolution. Emphasis on both. This won't work here either.
3) Agree to disagree. You go your way, I go mine. This could work here.

Then the non-peaceful means:

Only one here. The government won't allow more.
That solution is violence. To be sure, the violence is wrapped up in sophistication and ceremony. That doesn't make it any less violent.
The goverment makes a law, people obey it because the goverment has the guns. Oh, they don't draw them immediately. I did say the violence is disguised. First, they levy a fine. The victim can acquiese or escalate. Eventually, the escalation rises to jail time. Finally, in trying to escape, the victim will be shot.

I choose peace. You don't

[not that]

Thanks for that jeffiek

Three points of yours I wonder about.

2) Negotiation. Both sides trade some important elements in order to get satisfactory resolution. Emphasis on both. This won't work here either.

Why not? That is what I am advocating. The position isn't regulate smoking in businesses or don't. The position I am taking is to find the appropriate level of regulation so that everyone can be, if not happy with, at least comfortable in their ability to continue living in the given community. I think the balance says don't smoke in business that the public uses. Smoke outdoors. Smoke in your car. Smoke at home. Smoke in private smoker's clubs. You think the balance is closer to letting the business decide if it wants smoking. Where is the middle ground that doesn't involve a regulatory regime involving what counts as a non-smoking section, and how far away from the smoking section it needs to be, etc.

The goverment makes a law, people obey it because the goverment has the guns. Oh, they don't draw them immediately. I did say the violence is disguised. First, they levy a fine. The victim can acquiese or escalate. Eventually, the escalation rises to jail time. Finally, in trying to escape, the victim will be shot.

Okay, so there are the other branches of government that can help the poor downtrodden business get their views heard to avoid the prison break tragedy. Nothing here has taken away your freedom to do these things. This is not the kind of rhetoric that leads to a negotiated settlement. It leads to people towards dismissing your well considered opinions.

Governement stays out. Owner Joe takes one, owner Bill takes another, and so on. Customers decide which solution they like. Surprise!
That actually works.

The thing is. Some communities have decided that this solution doesn't work. Hence the current debate.

[jeffiek]

other branches of government that can help the poor downtrodden business

Again. Blatently false. I may have used rhetoric in an effort to keep the explanation shorter than "War and Peace". That doesn't change the fact that government IS violence. You can debate the proper use of it, but you can't debate what it is. Most people have forgotten that.

Some communities have decided that this solution doesn't work.

Doesn't work for who? Ans: The people not willing to use peaceful dispute resolution.

How do they succeed? Fraud, lies, and the acquiesence of the real majority that just don't want to get involved.

[not that]

So,

Again. Blatently false.

So you have figured out the truth? Congrats;)

I wonder about this REAL majority. Nice to have them in your back pocket in a debate though.

Some communities have decided that this solution doesn't work.

Doesn't work for who? Ans: The people not willing to use peaceful dispute resolution.

I can't agree with your definition of the legislative process as violence. I believe that is the mechanism by which the negotiated solution gets worked out. Is there another mechanism I am forgetting (and no I haven't forgotten the FREEMARKET, we are talking about the point at which people have chosen a different route)

[BrianTerrel]

Re:

So in the end I think you have it backwards, Brian. It is he who should come in here with some politeness and civility. The absence of harsh language does not make his condescension any more civil - indeed it is the hallmark of condescension that it sounds otherwise polite on the surface.

You're right that he was impolite, and im sorry if i over reacted. What got me a bit up in arms is that i think many people miss that Not that's views are more or less mainstream. My guess is that he really didn't realize that he was being offensive or condescending. Like an american tourist in paris he has stumbled into a system of values and ettiquite he doesn't understand and isn't aware of.

Yeah, he comes off as a jerk when he says "It isn't a big deal, get over it" but we should realize that to most people it isn't a big deal.

If we spend all our time jumping as a group on people who wander in here with mainstream views and values all we do is re-enforce the view of libertarians as unapproachable ideologues. It would be in our interest, i think, to try to explain to people why these issues are so important to us.

As I said, I may have over-reacted a bit, but i think my point is valid. Just because he is uncivil by our standards doesn't mean we should respond in kind. That sort of approach does no good for anyone. Instead we should make sure to be extra polite as we explain our positions. Remember that two wrongs don't make a right.

[jeffiek]

I can't agree with your definition of the legislative process as violence.

Then I feel sorry for you.

Why do you think people pay attention to the smoking ban ( or most any other modern legislation )?

The fine? Why pay the fine? Ans: You go to jail if you don't. Why submit to jail? Ans: You get shot if you don't. Is that blunt enough?

As I said. It's all dressed up in ceremony and sophistication. That doesn't change its nature.
Wake up, smell the coffee. While you're at it read up on George Washington's opinion.

The legislative process is a mechanism that does prevent actual bloodshed. It does so by making the force so potent that the losing side simply gives in.

Consider a bank robbery. One in which no shots are fired. There's no bloodshed, but there is plenty of violence. The robber gets the money because his power is overwhelming, not because he's peaceful.

Is there another mechanism I am forgetting?

No. It's either force or free market.

[not that]

Brian T.

Yep. I was impolite. And I was eventually trying to demonstrate, rather than state, the point you make so eloquently. I am a mainstream libertarian-curious individual that wants you to convince me. Makes me a prick, I know, but then people need to get thicker skins and more savy political skills if we are going to get out of the (not) two-party system we have. Convincing people does not involve insulting them. But expect your opinions to be dismissed if you spiral into protestations about issues that people don't find earth shattering.

Some good points were eventually made by many. I hope you enjoyed the game. Tah.

Sincerely,
Not that offended or rude.

[Rover Random]

I agree with your points Brian Terrel, and while this is the case, alongside it is the fact that I think most of the time your approach doesn't work. They won't change their views when confronted with logic and reason, the same reason why they took up those views in the first place.

I have a hard time deciding between the two, so I'm glad there are people like you to balance me out.

Science,

Haha, I didn't think I'd use this, but I can't resist but pointing out the case of Hwang in relation to your remarks about bias. That and the fact those journals in which the research is published have been questionable as I remember, but since you're a seemingly reasonable fellow I haven't been fired up to go compile a list of links for you. I may yet.

Ah, that is an interesting set of questions you pose there at the end. Allow me to shed some light on it. Pillip-Morris, when they filed for bankruptcy, were barred from doing so in court. Instead, the government gave them a ludicrous loan on the sly.

Here is the reason. The government is now heavily reliant on tax dollars from cigarettes and tobacco products and the money from the Master Settlement Plan, which bleeds money from the companies who produce these products (like Phillip-Morris). But, at the same time they are reliant on the support of voters who are strongly anti-smoking.

So on the one hand, they must pursue tobacco and wage war on it, but on the other hand they can't let people stop smoking or the companies go bankrupt. It's really quite delicious how in hammering at the industry they became reliant on them.

Now I don't quite follow your last question, but I will say this, the government doesn't give a flying fuck where tax dollars go so long as they get their pork. After all, it's us poor saps who get raped every April, not them.

[MJ]

"How can we balance the rights of corporations and businesses against the large slice of society's wish to have smoke free environments indoors."-Not That

Well, as society does not have the "right" to smoke free enviroments indoors, your side is not balancing anything. You are imposing your wishes on individuals who have the right to choose otherwise. There is no balance. FYI, the distinction you make between businesses, corporations and individuals is a fallacy. Ultimately businesses, even corporate businesses have rights as an extension of the rights of their owner's, i.e. individuals.

[MJ]

"I believe that is the mechanism by which the negotiated solution gets worked out."- Not That

Ah, now I understand the confusion. Not That is using that dialect of English called Newspeak, where "negotiation" means one side imposing its will on the other, and to not conform is a crime.

Not That, remember, most people around here use the old, unimproved dictionaries not the ones published by Minitru.

[science]

Rover,

I can't resist but pointing out the case of Hwang in relation to your remarks about bias

citing a single case doesn't make an argument. If you are talking about issues of science, and are a betting man, put your bets with the consensus view. It wins out more often than it loses. If you have trouble with the conclusions of a particular consensus, find a reason that it doesn't make sense and test it.

So, if tobacco is bad for you when you suck it through a cigarette filter, how is it less bad for you when you breath it off the tip? (you will respond that it hasn't been proven to be bad to smoke? If that is your position then you should look at where that biased opinion comes from)

MJ,

Well, as society does not have the "right" to smoke free enviroments indoors, your side is not balancing anything

I believe you misconstrue Not That's position here. S/he seems to be saying that the concept of what rights exist is a function of what the society as a whole agrees on. So by simply saying that someone does not have the right, you are missing the point. There is no list of which things count as rights (beyond the bill of rights which is incomplete). As a result any claim to a right has to be decided through a process. In our country that process involves legislation. Don't preach about imposing or restricting rights that are in the process of being defined and expect to be convincing. The question isn't who has the right, the question is how does one person's claim to a right balance against another person's claim to a right. There is no inherent "right" for a business to decide anything if they are not people. Not that's position seems to be that business are not people and therefore do not have natural rights in the same sense that individuals do, so therefore the person's claim to a right (represented by the voter initiated legislation) is more convincing than the business's claim to a right since the business is not a person.

Rover again,

They won't change their views when confronted with logic and reason, the same reason why they took up those views in the first place.

You seem to have a very strange concept of how humans form opinions. Apparently if they disagree with you, they came to the conclusion based on faulty logic. It is possible they have different information than you. It is possible (gasp) that you're position is logically flawed (gasp), it is possible you don't understand the complexity of the issue on the same level they do (oh say it ain't so). Try logic and reason on people. It might work. Insults and dogmatic statements gussied up as facts are never convincing.(please excuse the sarcasm;)

Science out

[Ira Weatheral]

What I love about the anti-smoking folks is they think since their way is the only way to think, and that since they got their way, everyone from now on will agree with them.

Making cigs forbidden is the best way to make teens want to do them. It's one thing to make it seem stupid or uncool, but forbidden?

I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the funding for these anti smoking campaigns came form the tobacco companies themselves.

[Rover Random]

citing a single case doesn't make an argument.

I never said it did. I merely stated that I wanted to point something out, I drew no conclusions from it, nor did I insinuate that you should.

So, if tobacco is bad for you when you suck it through a cigarette filter, how is it less bad for you when you breath it off the tip?

When did I claim it wasn't harmful? All I said is the studies that anti-smoking activists cite are generally flawed. Jacob Sullum makes the case quite well in his book entitled, "For Your Own Good," I believe.

Mostly I've been saying that I think a public-smoking ban is wrong on a constitutional, ethical, and idealogical level. Oh, and I've been attacking anti-smoking crusaders.

You seem to have a very strange concept of how humans form opinions. Apparently if they disagree with you, they came to the conclusion based on faulty logic.

"citing a single case doesn't make an argument." No, I never said that or even insinuated it. Now you're attacking my character instead of arguing the point. Sure, I attacked anti-smoking crusaders, and with good reason, look how they respond.

It is possible they have different information than you.

Faulty information from what I know in this particular case.

It is possible (gasp) that you're position is logically flawed (gasp), it is possible you don't understand the complexity of the issue on the same level they do (oh say it ain't so).

Condescension will get you nowhere. Why don't you just say you're more intelligent and civilzed than me, I know you want to.

I freely admit when people know more about a subject than I do, or when I'm not qualified to make a particular judgement, but I don't see this as one of those cases, and nothing you have said has changed that fact.

Try logic and reason on people. It might work. Insults and dogmatic statements gussied up as facts are never convincing.

I do when it seems appropriate and has a chance of doing some good. When I posted that was already tried, and failed. Oh, I don't think I ever claimed my insults were facts, they were my perception of these people. All I have is what I've seen and heard of these people, and it's all bad.

Sure I'm a dogmatic person, I'll freely admit that, but I generally have the evidence and facts to hold a solid footing. Everything I've claimed as facts are verifiable.

But no, I'm not going to compile a list for you, you won't listen, you'd rather attack my character and call me stupid.

(please excuse the sarcasm;)

No.

[MJ]

"I believe you misconstrue Not That's position here. S/he seems to be saying that the concept of what rights exist is a function of what the society as a whole agrees on."- science

No, I did not misconstrue Not That's position, I think that it is horribly wrong, and essentially denies the whole concept of "rights" as meaningful. A right that only exists if society at any given moment agrees that it should exist, is not a right at all, it is a privilege.

"The question isn't who has the right, the question is how does one person's claim to a right balance against another person's claim to a right."

Let me state it plainly, the anti-smoker's are claiming a right to dictate to private individuals (the business owner's) what legal activities the business owner's can allow on the owner's property. Such a right simply does not exist. There simply is no way to balance the anti-smoker's false right against the owner's real right to allow or disallow smoking on his premises as he sees fit.

"There is no inherent "right" for a business to decide anything if they are not people."

As I stated above, a business has right's as function of the rights of the individuals who own said business. Making a distinction between the business and the owners is a fallacy. Becuase Not That and apparently you, believe in this fallacy does not mean anyone else has to accept it.