Barack Obama No Longer Allowed in New Mexico

Bill Richardson has made his state the very latest to ban smoking:

Richardson, who occasionally smokes cigars, said he decided late last night to support the bill.

"Each year, more than 53,000 die in the United States as a result of this exposure. Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. . . . In my mind it doesn't make any sense to continue to allow smoking in bars and restaurants," he said.

The measure prohibits smoking in all workplaces across the state, including bars and restaurants. It takes effect June 15. Individuals violating the ban would face a $100 fine for a first violation.

That's a fairly low fee for the first offense, as these things go. So, can anyone think of another case where a presidential candidate burnished his resume by signing a smoking ban? This seems like the best proof so far of the bans' unassailable popularity.

Read some of Reason's reporting on smoking laws here.

Comments

[Warren]

Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States.

THIS is best proof so far of the bans' unassailable popularity. Unchallenged, outright bullshit.

[Chris S.]

Just when I was starting to like the guy... What a jackass.

[Memnon]

I am convinced in the superiority of voluntary contracts to state-imposed rules and consider myself very libertarian in my outlook. I fully agree that the War on Tobacco is in many ways wrong because of it's partisans inability to respect individual choice and voluntary risk-taking. I support every adult's access to smoking, as much as they want and untaxed. However. Banning tobacco smoking in workplaces cannot be logically and coherently attacked without opposing all employee safety and public health regulations. While some may legitimately do that, I cannot see myself battling against the ban on asbesthos or regulation of toxic chemicals in the workplace. I don't feel those are the worst excesses of the government. How do you feel about that? Should only tobacco smoke be free from that kind of regulation or should exposing willing workers to all kinds of medical risk be in the domain of civil litigation?

[Petra]

I am glad to see bans such as this. Smokers can smoke at home--we don't want you polluting our workplaces, bars, and restaurants, whether second-hand smoke is unhealthy or not. The days of your filthy habit are coming to an end.

[Qbryzan]

The days of your filthy habit are coming to an end.

Yup, and your filthy habit is next!

[James Ard]

Petra, sometimes they aren't YOUR restuarants and bars. Sometimes, they're OURS. If my workforce and customers are ok with smoke, who the hell are you to say we can't have it? My nanny?

[anon]

Your workplace? Your bar? Your restaurant?

Do you really mean those, or do do you mean:

The place (owned by someone else) where you work.
The bar (owned by someone else) where you like to drink.
The restaurant (owned by someone else) where you like to eat.

If you want to open a business, bar, or restaurant, you can have any rule you want about smoking. But don't pretend that smokers are invading something that belongs to YOU when you make the choice to enter a smokey, privately-owned establishment

[Lamar]

anon doesn't get it.

James Ard says "if I own the bar, why can't I do what I want there."

anon replies "you don't own the bar."

We all know that nobody really wants to smoke. The only reason so many hundreds of millions of people smoke is because [insert corporate conspiracy theory here].

[Timothy]

I am convinced in the superiority of voluntary contracts to state-imposed rules and consider myself very libertarian in my outlook. I fully agree that the War on Tobacco is in many ways wrong because of it's partisans inability to respect individual choice and voluntary risk-taking. I support every adult's access to smoking, as much as they want and untaxed. However. Banning tobacco smoking in workplaces cannot be logically and coherently attacked without opposing all employee safety and public health regulations. While some may legitimately do that, I cannot see myself battling against the ban on asbesthos or regulation of toxic chemicals in the workplace. I don't feel those are the worst excesses of the government. How do you feel about that? Should only tobacco smoke be free from that kind of regulation or should exposing willing workers to all kinds of medical risk be in the domain of civil litigation?

DRINK!

[Chris S.]

Banning tobacco smoking in workplaces cannot be logically and coherently attacked without opposing all employee safety and public health regulations. While some may legitimately do that, I cannot see myself battling against the ban on asbesthos or regulation of toxic chemicals in the workplace. I don't feel those are the worst excesses of the government. How do you feel about that? Should only tobacco smoke be free from that kind of regulation or should exposing willing workers to all kinds of medical risk be in the domain of civil litigation?

We can make a very good case for public interference in contracts when we're dealing with latent hazards and persistent information asymmetry. The threat of asbestos or hidden toxic chemicals won't be obvious to any prospective employee, and forcing employees to accept the risk of a hidden hazard places the burden of discovering such threats on the wrong party (an employer could more easily discover building defects, etc.). On the other hand, an employer can't easily conceal cigarette smoke. It's fair to ask prospective employees to bargain around such obvious threats, as they'll have easy access to information about these threats.

As for Petra, people can also drink at home, worship at home, etc., so should we also ban drinking and wearing religioius symbols? For that matter, I think the sight of clothing pollutes my visual world, and I think you should refrain from wearing clothing outside of your home.

[mike in ftw]

The NM ban like many excludes private and fraternal clubs from the ban. I wonder if we will ever get back to the days where people do their drinking at the Elks Lodge or the Royal Order of the Buffalo? I would like that I think. I've always wanted the power to vote out people I didn't like drinking with and going down to the Elks for a cocktail seems somehow cooler than going to Chili's for a beer and quesadilla basket.

[swillfredo pareto]

Banning tobacco smoking in workplaces cannot be logically and coherently attacked without opposing all employee safety and public health regulations.

That is one painfully false analogy. There is a continuum of risk. You could possibly argue those who oppose this ban must also oppose attempts to eliminate employee risks equal to that of second-hand smoke. Of course that would require that you actually establish what the risk of environmental tobacco smoke is, across all atmospheric concentrations, and establish why you don't think employees should be allowed to voluntarily assume it. I don't give a fuck if an employer wants to use asbestos in the shag carpeting and PCB in his water cooler as long as I know it going in.

[Timon19]

In Grand Olde Ohio, the ban just passed INCLUDES private clubs.

Tremendous!

[Steve Stephens]

Comedian (and LP pres candidate) Doug Stanhope did a couple of shows in Ohio recently. Apparently there's a loophole in the law that allows performers to smoke if it's a part of the show. So Stanhope invited anyone in the crowd who wanted to be his "backup smokers" to sit on the stage and light up. Dozens did.
That was awesome. (And I hate cigarette smoke, but not enough to miss Stanhope.)

[brotherben]

In Ohio, the ban included truckers in their rigs until that was amended as a private one person workplace as the N.M. ban allows.

[Rhywun]

I wonder if these bans apply to private homes with nannies, butlers, gardeners, etc. As if I'll ever find out by experience 🙂

[Petra]

Bars are *licensed* establishments which can exist only via the consent of the state. The state therefore has a right to insist that they not be full of cancer causing substances, as much as they should insist that the bar's owners not paint the walls with dioxin.

[Rhywun]

The state therefore has a right to insist that they not be full of cancer causing substances, as much as they should insist that the bar's owners not paint the walls with dioxin.

Pretty much everything causes cancer in sufficient enough quantities.

[David]

I wonder if these bans apply to private homes with nannies, butlers, gardeners, etc. As if I'll ever find out by experience 🙂

You could try to be a butler. 🙂

[Timon19]

Steve,

I wonder if it's partly also because the law that was passed was unenforceable as written and they've been working on enforcement language. During this time, you can pretty much get away with it. I think they project that the crackdown will commence in June.

I hate smoke, too, but I hate these sorts of laws even more.

[VM]

Brotherben - what part of the buckeye State are you from?

Timothy - glug glug!

Happy Marth 14th!

[James Ard]

Why can't you busibodies just mind your own business? What kind of power trip makes people get involved in things that have no effect on them?

[Steve Stephens]

Timon
Your point is well taken. But wouldn't there have to be a "performance" exception? Otherwise, how would anyone every stage Equus?
So here's my contribution.

Smokers - A Play in One Act.

Bartender: Now is the time when we take volunteers to smoke.

Chorus (moving to the front and lighting up): We smoke, we smoke.

Ad lib until closing.

The end.

I offer my work of art to Ohio bar owners free of royalties.

[Petra]

Rhywun wrote:
> Pretty much everything causes cancer in
> sufficient enough quantities.

Really? At what level does pure, unadulterated air cause cancer?

[The Real Bill]

Bars are *licensed* establishments which can exist only via the consent of the state. The state therefore has a right to insist that they not be full of cancer causing substances, as much as they should insist that the bar's owners not paint the walls with dioxin.

You remind me of the kind of person that uses "big" words incorrectly, not knowing what they actually mean.

[76]

Because they love children and we hate children. That's why every law designed to protect children is derided here; not because the law is poorly written, unenforceable, an invitation to abuse or all 3, but because children suck.

On a related note, have there been any critiques of the 700 page report?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

[The Real Bill]

Really? At what level does pure, unadulterated air cause cancer?

More ignorance. Quick! Name all the gasses in air and their relative abundance.

[76]

There is no such thing as pure unadulterated air, because air is a mixture of gasses, mostly oxygen and nitrogen.

Both pure oxygen and pure nitrogen are deadly, with more quickly fatal consequences than smoking.

[Dakota]

"Bars are *licensed* establishments which can exist only via the consent of the state."

Scary. Post.

Do you really believe that? Or are you trying ot be ironic?

[The Real Bill]

Petra's comments are pure, unadulterated nonsense.

[Chris S.]

Bars are *licensed* establishments which can exist only via the consent of the state. The state therefore has a right to insist that they not be full of cancer causing substances, as much as they should insist that the bar's owners not paint the walls with dioxin.

Petra, that's circular logic: The state has the right to regulate bars because the state has the right to regulate bars (via licensing). What if you received a letter in the mail saying that you need a "home license" to own a home? Would you now accept any regulation of your home on that account? Actually, this isn't much of a hypothetical, as the state does require licenses of sorts via zoning regulations and property taxes. But my question remains, does the fact that the government already regulates your house mean that it can regulate your house in whatever fashion it desires? Do regulations justify more regulations, per se?

You might also ask yourself why bars can only exist with the consent of the state rather than assuming that this fact justifies the onerous regulation of these bars.

[The Real Bill]

Chris S.,

You have far more patience with fools than I will ever have. Kudos!

[76]

If dioxin were enjoyed by adults, what right would the state have to stop people from enjoying it in private establishments? Furthermore, private establishments where children are not likely to be?

This is one of the issues I'm torn about, because the mantra is always to allow and defend people to enjoy what they wish to enjoy without subjecting unwilling subjects to the same action. The only compromise I can think of is to enforce said laws on individual people who smoke tobacco (as opposed to smokeless tobacco), and to not rely on the bars themselves for enforcement. Let the cops enforce the law, to do otherwise will lead to a self-enforcing nanny state much worse than the complaining soccer moms we have now, as it compels and begins to force citizens to enforce crappier laws.

[Chris S.]

The Real Bill,

It's only a matter of time before I call Petra an idiot. I'm usually not this patient.

[ed]

Bars are *licensed* establishments which can exist only via the consent of the state.

Wow, petra, just how large is that portrait of Stalin that's hanging in your living room?

[Irving]

The best thing about smoking bans is that they make it easier to quit. Quitting smoking used to be agonizing because you had to confront smokers everywhere. Since it has become socially unacceptable and illegal to smoke in most places, it's much easier to kick the habit.
Libertarians, who are often viewed as nutbars by the tiny minority who have any idea of what libertarianism is, should find a different cause (not seatbelt laws) to flog. Intelligent smokers want to quit and welcome smoking bans as an aid. Die-hard smokers might swell libertarian ranks, but the last thing you need is more morons.

[Chris S.]

Irving,

You want the state to force other people to help you quit smoking? Why are people so unreflective about smoking bans? What does your theory on the benefits of smoking bans imply about the nature of the state and the limits of its powers? When they take one of your more cherished liberties, you won't be able to seek common cause with people like you who are willing to allow the government to curtail your rights for their benefit. They will gladly accept your salary, your services, and your rights, just as you've accepted theirs.

[highnumber]

...going down to the Elks for a cocktail seems somehow cooler than going to Chili's for a beer and quesadilla basket.

= damning with faint praise.

[James Ard]

Intelligent smokers wouldn't want to empower government and weaken property rights just to get a minor aid in something that isn't that hard to quit in the first place.

[Russ 2000]

Incandescent light bulbs are next.

[WLC]

Irving,

That explains why after 14 years of increased restrictions, the nationwide prevelance of smoking has barely budged. Not buying it.

[ed]

Intelligent smokers want to quit and welcome smoking bans as an aid.

How utterly generous of the intelligent smokers to help usher in the police state so they can have a better chance at quitting their self-destructive habit.

[brotherben]

VM,
I am from Alabama. I am a truck driver so i notice these things.

[andy]

The invasion of property rights do concern me in smoking bans, but I'll be honest: It's absolutely wonderful being able to go to any bar or restaurant and not walk out smelling like an ashtray. I would never propose a ban like this, but I find myself unable to strongly oppose these bans because the vast majority of bars allow smoking and I like going to bars that don't allow smoking. Call me unprincipled, but hey, it doesn't matter. Y'all are fighting a losing battle on this.

[James Ard]

andy, I guaranttee you that your chance of getting lucky is 5 times greater at the smoking bar. Don't worry, when your property rights ox gets gored, we'll still be there to protest, whether you help us on this one or not.

[Petra]

Call me all the names you want, but smoker's days are numbered, and you all know it. Very soon you will only be allowed to smoke in your homes, if there. That's how it should be, as long as you insist on exhaling. The state has just as much business regulating second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants as it does regulating health and cleanliness codes.

[R C Dean]

Another Dem supports another expansion of the nanny-state! Dog bites man, no?

Hey, how's that liberaltarian alliance coming along, anyway?

Bars are *licensed* establishments which can exist only via the consent of the state.

During Prohibition, after all, no bars were licensed, and thus there were no places where people gathered to purchase and consume alcohol.

[Irving]

That you see opposition to smoking bans as the rallying cry against a repressive state at a time when the state is engaged in domestic spying, torture, and god knows what else means that you are all suffereing from brain pan leakage. But, hey, it's your creepy little cult, not mine. Carry on.

[R C Dean]

we don't want you polluting our workplaces, bars, and restaurants, whether second-hand smoke is unhealthy or not.

Who is this "we" of which you speak, petra?

[WLC]

Irving,

I know what you mean--but in the cases you cite, you're going down with me.

Misery loves company.

[The Real Bill]

Incandescent light bulbs are next.

To anyone who supports this trend: I truly hate you.

I, unfortunately, am extremely sensitive to the quality and quantity of light in my environment. In winter, I tend to become depressed do to shorter days and the "paleness" of the light. In summer, I'm much happier. Luckily, I was born in the incandescent age. I use incandescent lights of various colors and power outputs to improve my mood. It works amazingly well. Florescent lights don't work for me. Their light actually makes me feel uncomfortable. I don't own a car. My power bill averages ~$60 per month. I recycle. I guarantee that my "carbon footprint" is far smaller than the average American's, and smaller than the average environmentalist's.

Take away my incandescent lights and I will wish you nothing but ill. Why? Because you are trying to make me unhappy.

[Irving]

The Real Bill

You are the embodiment of everything that will ensure that libertarianism remains a marginal cult. Mazal tov!

[The Real Bill]

Irving,

Fuck you.

[Chris S.]

That you see opposition to smoking bans as the rallying cry against a repressive state at a time when the state is engaged in domestic spying, torture, and god knows what else means that you are all suffereing from brain pan leakage. But, hey, it's your creepy little cult, not mine. Carry on.

I had no idea that we could only oppose a limited number of government initiatives. The and the proponents of domestic spying probably agree on that one.

[Chris S.]

Should read "You and the proponents of torture..."

[Irving]

Chris

Giving all issues equal importance betrays an unrealistic grasp of time limitations, weak math skills, and possibly a mild form of autism. Maybe these are the essential traits of a believing libertarian. Good luck on your membership drive.

[highnumber]

Irving = bj?

[Chris S.]

Giving all issues equal importance betrays an unrealistic grasp of time limitations, weak math skills, and possibly a mild form of autism. Maybe these are the essential traits of a believing libertarian. Good luck on your membership drive.

Which of the above posts asserted that these issues were of equal importance? May I propose a ban on burning straw on public forums?

[ed]

Irving,
Adolf called. Your jackboots are ready.

Petra,
Maybe Irving will let you wear them on weekends.

[Rhywun]

Quitting smoking used to be agonizing because you had to confront smokers everywhere.

Yeah, now you only see them outside... everywhere.

as long as you insist on exhaling

Your pettiness is tiresome. May the State someday arbitrarily ban something YOU enjoy doing in your own home, for your own good, of course.

You are the embodiment of everything that will ensure that libertarianism remains a marginal cult.

Jesus. Because he prefers a certain kind of light bulb that he's fully willing to pay extra for? The mind boggles. You are aware that some localities are considering banning incandescent bulbs, right?

[Irving]

Chris

I'm sorry, I assumed that devoting an entire thread to libertarian platitudes on smoking bans and snarly responses to any dissent on their relative importance indicated a slightly skewed sense of priorities. I wouldn't want your eyes to smart from burning straw.

[Lamar]

"Call me all the names you want, but smoker's days are numbered, and you all know it."

ALL of our days are numbered. That's why I say, smoke up Johnny. This idea that we are invincible if we just take better care of ourselves is a high school delusion that somehow seeped into your grown-up life.

"Very soon you will only be allowed to smoke in your homes, if there."

And Brittany Spears will outsell Beethoven and Mozart combined. If your point is that pseudoscientific nonsense will guide our policy, then you might be right.

"That's how it should be, as long as you insist on exhaling. The state has just as much business regulating second-hand smoke in bars and restaurants as it does regulating health and cleanliness codes."

This is not true. Cleanliness and health codes are designed to protect against unknown dangers. Whether they accomplish this is up for debate (you can debate it with rats running around NYC restaurants right now), but the regulations have the effect of putting confidence in the restaurant industry. Neither of these goals is relevant in the smoking debate.

"Really? At what level does pure, unadulterated air cause cancer?"

Where on earth does this pure, unadulterated air exist? I live in NYC, and by your standards, all cars, businesses, buildings and people should be banned.

[Irving]

Smoking bans = Nazism?

[The Real Bill]

I'm sorry, I assumed that devoting an entire thread to libertarian platitudes on smoking bans and snarly responses to any dissent on their relative importance indicated a slightly skewed sense of priorities.

You are seriously confused if you think that one thread on one blog has such a high worth.

[brotherben]

Maybe we can get Mr.Gore to convince folks that all the ciggy smoking outside is causing global warming. We need to keep it indoors where conditioned air is cleansed of the greenhouse gasses?

[Irving]

Okay, Bill, but even if this thread doesn't mean much, what do the posters get out of repeating the same old shit to each other? What's the point?

[Chris S.]

I'm sorry, I assumed that devoting an entire thread to libertarian platitudes on smoking bans and snarly responses to any dissent on their relative importance indicated a slightly skewed sense of priorities. I wouldn't want your eyes to smart from burning straw.

After reading an entire thread, I also often feel that I've captured the essence of an ideology and all of its adherents.

Irving, why did you come to this forum? Was it to mock libertarians? To vent? Are you trying to present a convincing argument about smoking bans? You have the gall to criticize the people of this forum for their inability to frame libertarian arguments in an attractive and convincing manner. Perhaps we ought to call non-libertarians "autistic," right? Do you have any other such persuasive gems for libertarians with brain pan leakage?

[JW]

Shouldn't we be glad that there are pure and unassailable people like Petra who are good enough to show us the One True Way?

Thanks to people like Petra and their tireless efforts, they have saved us from the dreaded toilet seat cootie. Additonally, you have them to thank for the double-ply that you take so much for granted and the banning of the foward-sweeping, single swipe.

Thank your stars that they still have the stamina to save us from clearly identifiable and detectable smoke in privately owned establishments that the state has seen fit to claim as "everyone's." Fuck with the "regulators" and you'll get the horns, son.

[stephen the goldberger]

Irving if you're not addicted to cigarettes then you have no idea the ammount of pain and anxiety not being unable to have a cigarette causes.

[stephen the goldberger]

i messed up with a double negative but you understand what i'm saying.

[Rhywun]

What's the point?

To provide hopefully convincing arguments related to the topic at hand? To maybe convince people, who might be a little less certain of themselves than you, of the error of their ways? I know, it doesn't work and it might seem pointless if you don't have an open mind.

[Chris S.]

JW,

For the record, I simply cannot tolerate sarcastic comments about double-ply. You're treading on sacred ground. Very sacred ground.

[The Real Bill]

Okay, Bill, but even if this thread doesn't mean much, what do the posters get out of repeating the same old shit to each other? What's the point?

A sense of community? You see, we libertarians are a tiny, oppressed minority. We find it difficult to find others who think like us (and we don't even think like "us" much of the time). Unlike liberals and conservatives, who have entire regions of the nation (and the world) under their control, we control nothing, and we have no place to call "home" other than places like this.

[Irving]

Well, Im all for banning smoking in public places and nothing I've read here convinces me that doing so constitutes an unwarranted restriction of personal freedom much less a step toward Nazism and a police state. I think your rhetoric is overwrought and your arguments are weak and illogical. On the other hand, you're clearly enjoying yourselves and not hurting anybody. I apologize for intruding.

[The Real Bill]

Well, Im all for banning smoking in public places...

Private establishments open to the public are not "public places." Ban them in public parks, buildings, etc. if you like, but leave the private sector alone.

[just another lurker]

Rhywun said:
I wonder if these bans apply to private homes with nannies, butlers, gardeners, etc.

At the University of Washington in Seattle they've declared the entire campus a 'smoke-free area' -- including outdoors. They (specificially, the Dept of Environmental Health) said it was to comply with the state ban enacted a couple of years ago.

The state ban stipulates where you CANNOT smoke: within 25 feet of any opening to a 'public' place or 'workplace'. The UW extended this on the rationale that "hey, we have people, like gardeners, that work outdoors. Ergo, all of the outdoor areas are a workplace."

To be fair, they have denoted a limited number of 'designated smoking areas'. But in one fell swope they greatly increased the restriction of a law that was already draconian. It's not hard to see this interpretation being applied elsewhere as the government deems fit. Smoking in your own backyard? Doesn't a meter reader come on your property periodically? It's a workplace. Inside your home? Do you have a furnace man or plumber come out periodically? It's a workplace too. Smoke while camping in a national forest? Hey, we've got rangers out there. Just define things so that ALL areas, indoors or outdoors, are either 'public' or a 'workplace'.

I wish this was as ridiculous as it sounds.

[Art]

Irving:
Yes, every ban, forced coercion, and extraction of my money through higher taxes and fines is, in fact by definition, another step toward a police state.

[anon2]

"What's the point?"

Beats working.

[Dakota]

"Well, Im all for banning smoking in public places"

Except we aren't talking about public places.

"I think your rhetoric is overwrought and your arguments are weak and illogical."

What is illogical about "allowing" someone to engage in a legal behavior in a building they own...

[ed]

I dunno, I just come here to make fun of all the stupid people.
Does that make me a bad boy? It does?
Good.

[I. Self. Divine.]

Fuck with the "regulators" and you'll get the horns, son.
For some reason, ever since I read this, I have been unable to get Regulate by Warren G out of my head.

"Regulatorrrrrrs...ROUND UP!"

[NoStar]

So, what is the penalty for getting caught smoking at a cock fight in New Mexico?

And which offense carries the stiffer penalty?

[andy]

"Irving if you're not addicted to cigarettes then you have no idea the ammount of pain and anxiety not being unable to have a cigarette causes."

If I liked to fuck children do you think I could use your argument? Would it fly?

I'm aware that smoking isn't quite in the same realm as pedophilia, but smoking in the car with a young child or smoking while pregnant are the same in principle if not in degree. While this thread doesn't concern those things I saw the same arguments in the thread about smoking in cars with kids.

[STEPHEN THE GOLDBERGER]

i was just appealing to his sense of empathy since i figured that would persuade him to think differently.

[STEPHEN THE GOLDBERGER]

and i do think it's true that i have no idea what it's like to be a pedophile and the pain involved unless i am one.

[Chris S.]

So, what is the penalty for getting caught smoking at a cock fight in New Mexico?

And which offense carries the stiffer penalty?

You get 50 points for using "cock" and "stiffer" in the same post. Well done.

[Nick M.]

I.S.D.,

I believe it is "Mount Up!" from the movie Young Guns, which makes sense because they were on horses.

[Steven]

While some may legitimately do that, I cannot see myself battling against the ban on asbesthos or regulation of toxic chemicals in the workplace

I can see myself battling against a ban on asbestos if most asbestos strippers chose to use asbestos (whatever that means) in their free time and the rest didn't care about asbestos either way.

As anyone who has ever tended bar or waited tables can tell you, this is exactly the situation in restaurants and bars.

Notice these "advocates" never cite the opinions of bartenders and waiters.

[Lamar]

Asbestos and toxic chemicals, again, are hidden dangers. Smoking, unless you are incredibly dense, is an open and obvious danger.

[Robert]

NY has no exception for performances, but performers (and anyone else in most workplaces) are allowed to smoke materials as long as they don't contain tobacco. Go figure.

[Single Issue Voter]

Hey it takes effect June 15th
The cockfighting ban goes into effect July 1st.
Governor Richardson supports smoke-free cockfights. I'm sure the gamefowl will appreciate it.

[Lamar]

"performers (and anyone else in most workplaces) are allowed to smoke materials as long as they don't contain tobacco."

...as long as they don't contain tobacco and?

And?

And?

The Reefer.