11.20.07
Smoking Bans: A Unique View From Two Sides
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
arclightzero said,
November 20, 2007 at 12:09 pm
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.
Joe Camel said,
November 20, 2007 at 12:34 pm
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.
Jason said,
November 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm
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.
Rowsdower said,
November 20, 2007 at 1:15 pm
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?
micky2 said,
November 20, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“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.
Holly said,
November 20, 2007 at 5:12 pm
“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.
mpinkeyes said,
November 20, 2007 at 9:12 pm
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.
arclightzero said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:01 am
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.
arclightzero said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:03 am
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?
Jason said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:13 am
“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.
arclightzero said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:52 am
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/
fra59e said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:19 pm
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.
arclightzero said,
November 23, 2007 at 9:07 am
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.
micky2 said,
November 23, 2007 at 9:23 am
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.
Nancy said,
December 9, 2007 at 1:38 am
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!
arclightzero said,
December 9, 2007 at 1:00 pm
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.
alaskanspawn said,
January 22, 2008 at 1:33 pm
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.
alaskancamel said,
January 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm
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)
Ryan said,
January 28, 2008 at 7:54 pm
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…
Alaskanspawn said,
February 28, 2008 at 7:49 am
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.
KITTY said,
April 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm
i need a cigarette
Madelene Fortney said,
May 17, 2008 at 4:14 pm
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.