I was lucky enough this past weekend to get two different comments on two different smoking ban posts from people with completely differing views. I found it fascinating that two people could comment so differently on the same topic, and decided to reprint the comments here, together, for comparison. I am also including my dissection of the anti’s comment, since I think it is quite relevant to the argument, and I invite anybody else to dissect and comment on either the pro-smoking rights or pro-smoking ban arguments here. I would really like to hear from more anti’s on this one, since the pro-smoking rights argument reveals many of the problems that the anti-smoking crowd generally ignores.
Pro-Smoking Rights:
As a large MN bar owner, we have already seen our business, which was just making enough to get by in it’s only 2 yr old infancy, have its business slashed by 45-50% because of the loss of our smoking customers.
We do have an outside smoking area but it doesn’t matter, as of today November 19th, within a 50 mile radius of our bar, 11 bars have come up for sale and 3 have closed their doors completely. Thanks Pawlenty for the help with MN small business, the backbone of the state. All they have managed to do is put a bunch of small local businesses out of business and get the employees they were whining about protecting laid off as the bars that are still in existence are cutting staff big time along with hours of operation. Where are all the people who were saying yeah we’ll come in if theirs no smoking, BULLSHIT. The same crowd that comes in for 2 hours orders french fries and a glass of water and leaves a 25 cent tip, they really helped out the employees didn’t they, who by the way 95% of our employees smoke, so now we are also paying them for not working while they go outside for a smoke break.
I couldn’t agree more with the comments on this site what a direct violation of our rights as a business owner and private property rights. ITS A CHOICE!! Now even an outside area has to be 50% open, wow thats fine if you live in Florida or California, but not good old -30 plus wind chill tropical Minnesota!! We have been banging our heads on the wall with as many of the bars as we can contact, but the bottom line is how in the hell did this happen in the first place? We need someone to challenge this with a law suit because I don’t see how they can regulate private property like this, it can’t be constitutional. If non smokers have a problem with a smokey bar, they can take their own money, pay the insane amount of insurance we do, plus the taxes we do, and build their own smoke free bar. PERIOD! We don’t go into other businesses and tell them what to do with THEIR business and THEIR money, oh no they would be howling like banshees that would make us go broke and put a bunch of people out of work. Well, WOW, NO SHIT!! Thats exactly what you did and the people we elected to help small business in MN let it happen.
Pro-Smoking Ban:
While I agree that government should not have the right to arbitrarily step on peoples’ rights, I do believe that government is necessary and has the power to enact certain laws.
What you have to look at is the larger picture here. No one is saying you can’t smoke, just take it outside where you can only hurt yourself. I think this law is a no-brainer for restaurants considering that “smoking sections” never really worked. Invariably I am always sitting next to the most inconsiderate smoker who insists on blowing smoke over to the non-smoking area.
Now, as far as bars, pubs, taverns go, they were intended for drinking originally not smoking. Smoking, as a part of American culture was just along for the ride but as people became more aware of the dangers the glamor started to fade. Personally, I would rather go belly up to the bar and have a drink and not have to worry about the person next to me blowing smoke in my face.
Think of this ban the in a different light. Government is not trying to take away your right to smoke, though it might seem as such, but rather it’s just limiting where you can smoke. By doing so, everyone can enjoy the different establishments in the state. Prior to the ban I, like so many of you pointed out, would not step foot in a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking. Now I can enjoy finding new and entertaining places to eat and drink. Wouldn’t you expect that to help business rather than hurt it? As a matter of fact, I was against the ban when it was county by county. I thought that would be completely unfair to certain businesses. If there was going to be a ban, like so many other states, it needed to be statewide to be fair.
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
Of course government should have the power to enact certain laws. That is what government is for. But where do we draw the line? Should the government be in the business of enacting nanny state laws that take away our decision making processes?
But what about the places that are banning smoking outdoors too? How do you justify that? Besides, other than the annoyance, where is the proof that second-hand smoke harms anybody?
So you’re admitting that it’s a nuisance issue? If it bothers you that much, eat places that don’t allow smoking period. There are more smoke-free establishments than restaurants with smoking areas.
How do you figure? I would have thought that bars/pubs/taverns were there for people to relax and indulge – and smoking is an indulgence.
Then go to a wine bar or a bar that doesn’t allow smoking. There are plenty of very nice restaurant bars that don’t allow smoking. Why should your supposed right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a smoke free environment trump a smoker’s right to belly up to a bar and enjoy a beer and a cigarette?
But it’s a de facto ban. By continuing to put limits and absurd rules on smokers, the government is trying to take away the right to smoke via a back door. Remember, this is much less an issue of public health than it is an issue of personal agendas set forth by people who personally don’t like smoking. The people who push the bans would like to see smoking eradicated, period.
Is that their right? What about the rights of the bar and restaurant owners? Set aside smoker’s rights for a moment and just consider the rights of the business owners. You do not have the right to patronize them. They afford you the privilege to do so. Don’t ever think that you have greater rights than the business owners. To enjoy places is your choice, and to take away smoking rights in lieu of your own selfish feelings on the subject.
Do your homework. It is harming small businesses all over the state.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your arguments here are all flawed. You are fighting for your own personal agenda at the expense of other people’s rights. You are telling business owners that they should not have the right to run their own businesses on their own property as they see fit because you think that you have the right to go there and not have to deal with smoke. Sorry buddy, it just doesn’t work like that. Well, it shouldn’t anyway. The fact that it is just proves that the laws are agenda driven.
The World Health Organization, ASH and other Nazis have stated that their purpose is to get tobacco outlawed worldwide. They don’t care about any business but Big Pharma.
We’ll soon know if they’re getting their way when the Congressional vote on FDA regulation takes place, If they take the nicotine out of tobacco you can smoke all the cornsilks you want.
What about the rights of the bar and restaurant owners?
This is all it really comes down to. No other arguments matter. Not public health. Not whether or not such bans hurt business. That’s all irrelevant. The question is whether or not we are going to allow people to do what they choose within their own establishments and properties. Apparently, we’re increasingly deciding that, no, we are not going to allow this. It’s quite pathetic and sad, actually.
I don’t care about the ban itself that much, but the attitude behind such bans that sickens me.
Glad to see this getting tossed around. It’s an issue that drives me crazy. I appreciate the view of the bar owner. I honestly haven’t met many people who want to sit at a bar but don’t want to be around smoke. If it was that viable of a market, then you’d see smoke-free bars popping up naturally. Frankly, it shouldn’t just be people who want to smoke who are inconvenienced. Let’s see some balance here. If we can make people go off to a corner to smoke, we can also handle people who don’t want to smoke finding somewhere else to drink, I would think. Why not make it a licensing thing, like alcohol?
“Why not make it a licensing thing, like alcohol?”
Hey ! Rowsdower !
Why shouldnt someone be able to have a great selection of tobaccos behind the bar along with quality liquors and run with the theme of an establishment for those appreciate fine tobaccos and liquors ?
The arguement about second hand smoke would be null and void as much as the arguement of the health risks that alcohol present.
“If it was that viable of a market, then you’d see smoke-free bars popping up naturally.”
And that’s the truth right there.
The part that bothers me is how the anti’s have no problem with the government regulating PRIVATE buisness. As the person who argued for the smaoking ban said, he/she hates to belly up to the bar if someone might blow smoke in their face, I say to this person, find a bar that banned smoking on it’s own rather than having a mandate handed down by the state. In New Hampshire 75% of bars and restaurants were smoke free because the owners decided to become smoke free. That wasn’t good enough for our liberal governor so he mandated bars and restaraunts become smoke free. The choice has been taken away from the people. FOR OUR OWN GOOD, that is the way they spin it. I say, LET ME DECIDE WHAT IS FOR MY OWN GOOD, I AM AN ADULT.
That’s just it, isn’t it? The anti’s believe that they have the right to be free from inconvenience because they are somehow “better” than smokers. It’s funny, though, because they don’t see it that way. They pull the “public health” card instead, but really, when it comes down to it, it’s all about convenience for them. People I have talked to always make the same claim:
“I don’t want to have to choose where to go based on if they allow smoking. It’s so nice to be able to go anywhere I want now that the smoking ban is in place…”
It makes me sick. When did people become so disillusioned as to think that they have the right to go anywhere they want and have it their way?
Like Steve says:
And that’s exactly it.
Here’s an interesting thought… Micky brings up smoking v. alcohol and it just got me thinking.
Isn’t the public health threat of alcohol more severe than the threat of second-hand smoke? I mean, don’t more uninvolved people die as the result of alcohol than nonsmokers die of second-hand smoke?
Yet, smoke is the root of all evil and is the scourge of public health? What the hell?
“When did people become so disillusioned as to think that they have the right to go anywhere they want and have it their way?”
Exactly. I don’t like bars that play music too loud, or types of music I don’t like (and that’s a public health risk as well. Loud music can damage your hearing). Guess what? I don’t go these bars, or if I happen upon one without knowing it, I don’t stay very long.
This same issue applies to a variety of other areas as well. If I’m a Yankee fan, I don’t go to bars that only play Red Sox games. If I don’t like dogs, I don’t hang out at dog parks. If I don’t like Mexican food, I don’t force Mexican restaurants to serve Chinese. People need to grow up.
If anybody feels compelled to join the debate with the author of the pro-smoking ban comment, please zip over to the original post and read the last few comments:
http://arclightzero.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/minnesota-smoking-ban-moves-forward-is-there-any-limit-to-the-actions-of-these-power-hungry-nannies/
This discussion of smoking omits the crucial point: that discarding your waste smoke where it affects others without their consent, is an act of assault.
Exhaled cigarette smoke is a bodily waste like the saliva of a spitter, the gas of a farter, and the products of picking one’s nose.
No such thing as a “right” exists to discard the waste products of your personal habit on the person of others without their consent.
A smoker can keep his cigarette private, like any of those acts, but he has no “right” to use unconsenting others as his toxic waste disposal site.
Society reasonably accepted the end of public spitting. Spittoons once found wherever people gather, such as barbershops, are now expensive antiques.
Today it might be a good investment to stock up on ashtrays, since the habit of smoking cigarettes is going to be as obsolete as public spitting is.
You can not be serious. By your logic, we should also be allowed to outlaw body odor, perfume, hair spray, flatulence and anything else that comes from a person that affects other people. You should also be able to ban car and truck exhaust, because it is a waste product that affects others.
As far as spitting goes, you have obviously never lived in an area with a lot of people who “chew”. While you may think that society has ended public spitting, you’re very wrong. It’s still alive and well in some areas. You just don’t see it publicly in areas without many people who chew. Back in the days of spittoons, many many people chewed.
Once again, you (like so many others like you) generalize about society as a whole. Elements of society may turn their noses up at various activities, but society as a whole has not.
It’s like smoking. The loudmouth anti-smoking segment of society stands firmly against smoking and claims to speak for society as a whole, but they are wrong. There are many non-smokers (like myself) who do not support smoking bans and at no time do you or the people like you speak for me.
Fra59e wrote;
“This discussion of smoking omits the crucial point: that discarding your waste smoke where it affects others without their consent, is an act of assault.”
Yes my friend , but your point is old and tired and still does not address the fact that my right to my property should not be assaulted by your preferences or rights.
I do not have the right to come on to your property and demand that I be allowed to blow smoke in your face any more than you can come on to my property and tell me I cant blow smoke into my own face.
Unfortunatly you goody two shoe pompous do gooders do exactly that in the name of public health.
Second hand smoke is not at all the threat it has been made out to be so the only thing you can bitch about is the smell.
If you dont like the smell of food cooking that has the potential to clog your arteries then dont go there !
And when you start claiming rights because of smells that might offend someone you have opened a flood gate of irrational requests and motivations.
fra59e;
Today it might be a good investment to stock up on ashtrays, since the habit of smoking cigarettes is going to be as obsolete as public spitting is.
This is clearly an agenda driven philosophy and an idealistic one at that.
Smoking is a pleasure that has unhealthy side effects as much as a greasy burger or a cocktail.
Man has been indulging in guilty pleasures since day one. And all efforts to rid us of this have failed. Even God cant get us to stop.
But you morons on the left will do whatever you can to make your dreams come thru even if it means the loss of our right to do what we want with our bodies and our property.
People still pick their noses in the damndest places, they still fart everwhere, and they still spit on the sidewalk, in urnals and on football fields. And with the exception of farting the others can be controlled.
But you cant come into my farting, spitting and nose picking club and tell me I cant do these things because now you are there.
What is wrong with everyone! The bottom line is this is the Unitied States of America, and Smoking is legal!
If you prefer not to be around smoke, there are plenty of options for you. Sorry if you can’t handle the bar scene, but thats what it is! You want healthy? go to the health club! You won’t see smokers there. You want drinks! I got news for you, even if you don’t smoke, drinking is not good for you! So give me a break on the health issue. If you were really concerned about you, you wouldn’t be in such an unhealthy place.
I would just love to see how you control freaks would feel if they made you drink your Vodka outside in the frikin cold! Beer is okay, but licquor has to be outside! can you imagine. I guess that really shouldn’t happen in the United States of America Should it!
So true. Interestingly, drinking is a much graver public health issue and kills more people every year than smoking ever could hope to achieve. It’s proof that it’s more of a control issue than a public health issue. People just don’t like the smell of smoke and want to have things their way.
So to make light of the alcohol argument…anyone ever hear of the open container laws? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_open_container_laws
Consider yourself lucky in that you can smoke freely outside (for the most part). I would have to go to one of the 7 states that don’t have open container laws to drink outside on the street.
I have to assume you conservatives are also against open container laws as well so you will see the irony in this.
The FDA will never regulate tobacco. They dont want the job. If they regulate it, they have to admit that there is a safe level and they dont want that. (sorry, catching up on this whole thing…going to post one comment at a time)
That’s why OSHA et al. are staying out of it as well. As soon as they get involved, they will have to establish safe limits which will piss off all of those zealots who jump around claiming that there is NO safe level of smoke exposure…
Actually I’ve read that OSHA is staying out of it because the local governments are regulating in such a fashion as to not warrant OSHA’s involvement.
i need a cigarette
Smoking is an addiction. It is a very UNHEALTHY addiction. So is drinking. There are many more people who can drink without becoming addicted than to smoking, however. Addicts think and speak from their addictions, not reason. They become paranoid when they feel their “addiction” or their “choice”, as they blindly see it, is being attacked. It becomes personal because they ARE their addiction.
NO ONE IS SAYING SMOKERS HAVE TO QUIT. The bottom line is that the rest of us don’t want to breathe the smoke or be exposed to second hand smoke, whether it is dangerous or just a mild annoyance. The problem here is that the SMOKERS are causing the ruination of the small bars, not the bans! I have been posting on an anti-smoking board for months and I will tell you that they have deliberately BOYCOTTED their local establishments and proudly admitted doing so. Then they have the nerve to complain and whine and blame the bans, “non-smokers” or “antis” as they call them, on the problem. Anyone who uses the words, Nazi, nannys, or antis to describe those of us who are concerned about our health and welfare, are, in fact, addicted to smoking.
I personally believe it is a temporary problem at best. The smokers who enjoyed drinking or who are addicted to alcohol as well, as many are, they will eventually give in and go back to the bars “patios” or if they can’t stay away from their addiction for an hour or two, stay at home.
Bars prey on addicts. Just like the porn industry. Maybe the fewer bars there are, the fewer drunks on the highway! A good thing! They don’t really care about their patrons, other than their “codependendency” on feeding and encouraging their addiction to their own benefit, monetary gains, that is. That’s just my opinion. Addicts are addicts and the only complaints are coming from those establisment that cater to addictions such as alcoholism, smoking, sex, and gambling.
In my area, two “strip joints” have felt the affects of the bans, one is foundering and the other closed down and I say GOOD RIDANCE! Another positive affect of the bans.
Non-addicted patrons will not spend the money on alcohol or gambling or whatever like the addict will. Addiction is a disease, not a right of passage and certainly not something that the rest of us have to adjust our lives around.
Personally, I’m getting sick and tired of hearing all the whining.
As a small restaurant owner in a small town in Ohio, I can attest to the impact that the Ban has most certainly had on my business. It’s down 30% since before the Ban was implemented, and specifically since May 3rd 2007 when enforcement officially began.
The Anti-Smoking proponents routinely claims that small business owners like myself lie about such losses to benefit our “addiction”, …this is simply more misdirection by the same groups that have no reasonable explanation for implementing the ban to begin with.
If Smoking Bans were good for business. I wouldn’t be posting here today.
The debate is not rightfully about where smoking should be allowed to occur …but why.
The reason why it should be allowed is the only legitimate argument, and like smokers themselves, has been marginalized by Anti-smoking zealots that fear the validity of that argument actually making sense to the public. Misdirection is something that Anti-smoking / Anti-liberty forces have come to excel in and unlike those of us that receive no funding to defend our liberty, they have the necessary funding to ensure the cause they claim to support is never ever confused with the true rent seeking agenda they pursue.
Tobacco is still a legal in the state of Ohio, and in 2006, more than a billion dollars was generated specifically from the sale of tobacco products throughout the state. Despite the faux paternalistic concern of self appointed guardians of individual health, and the manufactured “science” promoted specifically to support the campaign of “denormalization” against smokers, the alleged deleterious health consequences of smoking is a secondary concern, and even then only to those who make the choice.
Now under the existing law, and as a reward from the State for not smoking, the individual liberty of Non-smokers has been greatly expanded at the direct expense of the same liberties being rescinded from individual smokers as punitive coercion to quit, and from business and property owners that specifically support and cater to that preference.
“It’s not a Rights issue, it’s a Heath issue” This argument has no merit whatsoever.
Just as it true that “the dose makes the poison”, it is equally true that Choice makes the difference in a Smoking Ban being either a Health or a Rights issue.
Personal preference does not trump Private Property Rights, and Private property rights do not trump personal choice. These things are mutually exclusive unless you happen to be the owner of the property. Private property owners, specifically the hospitality based business owners that are clearly the primary target of Smoking Bans nationwide, decide on the environment they wish to make available in order to entice a specific market segment of consumers into choosing their specific environment. The public’s only input into this decision is whether or not they choose to accept an offer of employment, or enter that environment as potential patrons or employees. They are free to decline in both instances because if the environment doesn’t suit their personal preference, it is ultimately their personal responsibility to do so. There is no obligation to be there ever. It would be a Health issue for those concerned only if there were no other choice of venue available to patronize. With more than 27,000 hospitality based businesses in Ohio to choose from, this IS a Rights issue. The rights of the business owner to provide an environment specifically designed to entice citizens that smoke into their business has been rescinded in favor of no choice at all, and that’s what makes it a rights issue. Choice negates the risk for those concerned with making one.
The “right to breathe clean air”. To put it simply, there is No Such Right, and to pretend that there is ignores the ubiquitous nature of a much more prevalent, and far more dangerous Class A carcinogen that accounts for fully 50% of the contaminants in the air quality of every major city in the US.,..diesel exhaust.
The indoor air quality of hospitality based businesses is no less subject to the owners personal preference than the air quality of the open street just outside their entrances. They care about both, but have direct influence over only one. The potential employee or patron that would seek out and enter a venue where smoking is allowed, does so of their own volition knowing a difference between “outside” air, and “inside” air is likely, and unquestionable if it is promoted accordingly. Nonsmoking patrons and employees enter a private establishment as a privilege extended by the owner, not as a constitutional right. Any obligation to enter is the result of a personal choice made by each, and any expectation of indoor air quality being something other than promoted is ludicrous. There is no “right” to breathe “clean air”. There can only be a reasonable expectation that the air we breathe is relatively safe, and appropriate signage to announce the tobacco usage policy of the business should be more than sufficient warning to the Non-Smoking public. The private business owner’s right to allow his patrons and/or employees to engage in a legal activity supersedes the intolerance of that activity by those who would patronize, or accept employment in the establishment by their own free will.
Smoking Bans are not about the health of Non-smokers, and they are most assuredly not in the best interest of independent business when the prescribed method of protection is based on coercion through punitive measures enforced against the business owner for having the audacity to provide an environment that is specifically sought by patrons as one that will accommodate their personal preferences.
Smoking Bans are a ham-fisted attempt at social engineering through legalized discrimination against an all inclusive group of citizens that share at least one critical trait among themselves. These Citizens would prefer to make their own decisions rather than surrender their autonomy. “For their own good” is a gross misnomer, and government intrusion into their personal choices is completely unwarranted. Smoking Bans diminish consumer choice, and dramatically reduce the economic vitality of all small independent businesses.
Smoking Bans in “Public Places” are designed to coerce those that have made the choice to smoke, and specifically the Private Property Owners that would allow it into surrendering their right to make those choices.
Eliminating the choice by property owners of providing accommodation to smokers is a clear and prejudicial violation of the property owners right to quiet enjoyment, exclusive use, and all other benefits of ownership.
It has nothing to do with the health of Non-smokers since the Non-smokers choice to be there remains, as it always has been, a choice.
Lastly, …for now, …
The Anti-Smoking claim of “a 90% voluntary compliance rate” is at the very least, misleading.
There are more than 280,000 business entities registered with the Ohio Secretary of State.
Of the 280,000 registered businesses, approximately 10% of those registered entities (more than 27,000) are hospitality and leisure based businesses. Nearly 40,000 complaints have been filed with the ODH in the two years since inception of the ordinance, and 99% of those complaints have been made specifically against private clubs, restaurants and bars. DO THE MATH
The source of “Non-compliance” are those industries that were specifically targeted by the ordinance in the first place. Any negative impact to any other industry is simply collateral damage required to afford an appearance of the law being “fairly” applied to all “places of employment”. (More statistical slight of hand)
It’s always easy to rescind the rights of others, especially if you don’t approve of their choices. Don’t hold your breath though, because you are not immune to the coming assault on your liberty as well.
i am a smoker. in my english class we have write a arguementative research paper about something that pertains to our lives. so i choose weather or not the smoking ban should be appealled. interesting fact here is the people who support and push for this bill
“Smoking bans in the U.S. have been funded by those who directly profit from the sales of Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT),” said Debi Kistner with Opponents of Ohio Bans. Robert Wood Johnson, the late CEO of Johnson & Johnson, established the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) tax exempt non-profit 501(c)(3) in the early 1970s. According to their November 2005 publication, “Taking on tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Assault on Smoking”, from 1991 to 2005 the foundation paid $446,398,054 in tobacco-control grants. Grantees that did not move from tobacco education to tobacco control became ineligible for further grants (see also Opponents of Ohio Bans).
As of March 31, 2008 the foundation owns 35,435,189 shares of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) common stock (valued at nearly 2.3 billion dollars) and is one of the company’s largest institutional holders. As a tax exempt foundation RWJF pays 1 percent tax on realized capital gains and dividends from its investments, while other investors pay 15 percent. Johnson & Johnson profits from the sales of Nicoderm CQ and Nicorette products. The foundation therefore directly profits from cigarette tax and smoking ban laws they’ve provided grants to create. In January 2008, 1,000,000 boxes of the company’s nicotine replacement products were reportedly sold and Nicoderm CQ is touted as the “best selling smoking cessation patch in history”. April 15, 2008, Forbes reported that Johnson & Johnson profit jumped 40% during the first quarter of 2008.
“Why is it legal for a non-profit foundation to directly profit from stock that is driven by the sales of products coerced by a law that their grants create? Where are those, such as state attorneys general, who are supposed to protect consumers’ interests? Why should a pharmaceutical company and their private foundation be profiting while Ohio’s businesses fold? We believe these questions raise important issues that must be addressed by Ohio legislators,” said Pam Parker with Opponents of Ohio Bans.
OPPONENTS OF OHIO BANS;Who Really Profits From Smoking Bans?
DRUG WEEK-SECTION: EXPANDED REPORTING; Pg. 1939- August 8 ,2008
this just goes to show the ppl who own businesses like guy in MN and the guy in OH are losing their money to big business… so now if u wanna make money from smokes u better close ur bar and start making cessation products… i think this is absolute bull. i cant drink yet but hell i would love to able to go into a bar with my friends have a good time and smoke a pack of cigs. i agree that smoke might be a pain in the ass but hell theres no smokin at lots of places that have bars so why dont you get back on the feet that walked you in and walk your ass back out the door. we smoke, we kill ourselves, we dont give a shit, please leave our rights to go to a shitty country bar get a lil tipsy and smoke like a freight train. then we’ll call our DD go home and pass out after makin love to our women… or just start smokin and it won’t bother you no more
We are all getting screwed over here the companies who say they’re just trying to help us are paying to push through laws that will pad their pockets and buy their lambos