News: The hard part: Making it stick

I'm about as anti-smoking as they get, I think it's a drain on our society and health care, and even I didn't vote for these things. It shouldn't be up to government to tell you what to do with your own body, and it shouldn't be up to anyone but business owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking. I choose not to work where they allow smoking (not that anyone does) and I choose not to eat at places that allow it.

Its not about what you do to yourself its about what you do to other people.

If you choose to jump in front of a car, it is not the drivers fault you get run over.

If a business owner allows people to smoke, it is not their fault you are exposed to smoke when you go there.

You choose to visit an establishment that permits smoking just as easily as you can choose to not visit.

(copied from the Pay Raise thread as this is a more accurate place to post)

this law is as much for workers in those establishments as for visitors to them.

Our campus instituted a "smoke free" environment 16 years ago. No smoking in any building or within 20 feet of an entrance. Not even designated smoking areas. I think it was 20 years ago when smoking was banned on airplanes. Believe me, you don't want to be anywhere NEAR a heavy smoker like my husband who has been deprived of his nicotine on a 4 hour or more flight.

It IS going to create a problem for businesses such as bars and bowling alleys where there are a lot more smokers. I'm sure it won't be devastating enough to close those places down, but I can guarantee there will be a drop in business. A friend whose uncle owns a sports bar in Florida is barely surviving after a smoking ban went into place as a good portion of his clientele were smokers.

I'm a light smoker, but I also understand how even a small amount of smoke can affect some people. My son's girlfriend gets sick if exposed. One of my friends was highly allergic (she was also allergic to cologne/perfume). My best friend and coasterbuddy can't handle smoke either. I accomodate them. If it means getting a non-smoking hotel room, or making a few more stops at rest areas on trips so I can get my fix, then so be it.

At CP, I try to be inconspicuous when I smoke. I stay away from crowded midways if I feel the need, blow above my head, and if there isn't an ashtray nearby, I stomp my butts out and throw them into the nearest trash can. I'd welcome designated smoking areas at CP.

Do I consider banning smoking in all public enclosed areas a restriction on liberty? To some extent...yes. But more to owners of establishments who would prefer to maintain a separate, enclosed and well-ventilated smoking area for their smoking patrons and employees. Let the non-smoking employees work in the non-smoking rooms and the smoking employees work in the smoking rooms.

For those of us who are smokers, we do have a choice of which establishments to frequent. We have the choice of getting up and going outside to have a smoke. The owners of those establishments do not have a choice. Not everyone can up and move their businesses and families to another state.

halltd said:
madrid made the point that I think everyone else is missing. You're free to do whatever you want as long as it doesn't infringe on other people in a negative way.

I think this is the most accurate statement anyone has made about this. It's not about someone smoking and harming themselves, but rather, their smoking harming the people around them. There are already plenty of laws in place to prevent people's perfectly legal actions from harming others around them.

Hey Jeff/Walt - this is not whining or complaining. Since the pay raise thread has turned into almost the exact same smoking thread, is it possible to close/lock it so we aren't discussing over crossposted topics anymore?

It's cool if not, but it would be easier to understand each other if we were all discussing in one topic.

Thanks

*** Edited 11/10/2006 8:11:31 PM UTC by e x i t english***

^^ - If I hit you with my car, that's my fault. If you jump in front of my car on the freeway and get hit, thats your fault.

I said it above, if an owner of a business wants to allow his patrons to smoke (and provide separate areas for smoking and non that are separated by more than some plants) then it is your fault for wandering into the smoke.

There is plenty of room for both groups to co-exist without total bans in place.

I guess I'll put my 2 cents in on this. I also voted no on 4 for one reason: I don't beleive that smoking should be allowed in bowling center's. I see kids there all the time and children shouldn't be exposed to adult stupidity(smoking). If the bowling center's weren't a part of issue 4, even as a non-smoker I would have voted yes because I also don't beleive in government taking away the people's rights.

Bob.

I disagree on the loss of business revenue from the smoking ban. I guess I would see their point for places like Cincinnati or other "border" cities where its VERY easy to cross the border and frequent an establishment that allows smoking. However, in MOST of Ohio, smokers can't just go to a "smoking" bowling alley or bar anymore. If they want to go to a bar or bowling alley, they have to go to a non-smoking one. So, I don't really see the logic in saying business owners are going to lose a ton of money from this. If the "smoker" business goes down, maybe they'll see a rise in "non-smoker" business?

I lived in NYC when they implemented their smoking ban and it didn't hurt business. Actually, they had a lot of bar owners say it helped their business because people stayed longer and spent more money. And, for NYC residents, it was QUITE easy to just take a subway or drive to NJ or CT where (at the time) smoking was permitted. *** Edited 11/11/2006 5:46:58 PM UTC by halltd***

^Thank you, for saying what I've been thinking about while reading this whole thread.

I have nothing against smokers, it is an incredible addiction that I spent years trying to overcome. I used to smoke until I watched my mother die from cancer, wake up call, I quit promptly. Rather than us accomodating smokers, now smokers must accomodate us.

I would be very happy if CP banned smoking everywhere in the park except designated smoking sections away from the rest of us nonsmokers. There have been many times that a smoker almost burned my kid's face in the stroller on the midway. Once we sat to enjoy the midway monsters and another smoker stands next to us blowing his smoke in my kid's face.

Yes, outside the concentrations are probably small, but still irritating. My head turns into a football because of second hand smoke, even small amounts! Your right to pollute your own body does not preclude my right to enjoy clean air in a public place like Cedar Point without gagging or fearing for the safety of my kids. As a child around 4 years old I was burned very badly by a cigar yielding hand waver. I still remember and if this happend to my kid that moron is going to have 3rd degree burns on his/her anus!

YAY for the smoking ban!

The other thread is closed and linked here now.

This stuff about your "rights..." You have a right not to go where people are smoking, and that's the only right you need. You can choose not to go to businesses that allow smoking. Why is that so complicated? Don't like the smoke-filled bowling alley? Then don't go. The business owner is not in any way obligated to adjust his or her business to give you exactly what you want. That's not how a free market economy works.

What is or isn't good for business is irrelevant. My issue is that the market should and does decide on issues like this. There's no reason to legislate it.

The business owner is not in any way obligated to adjust his or her business to give you exactly what you want.

Actually, in less than 30 days they are.

Your right to smoke in a bowling alley no longer precludes my right to clean air and my asthmatic child can finally go bowling! The same goes for any other public place that I have kept my kid from. What if you can't afford to quit your job that is making you ill due to poor air quality? Been there, done that! The market waits until people are harmed to the point that it's bad for business before they act, that's nuts. The business owner must also accomodate the handicapped and this same argument came up when this was an issue when ADA was enacted. It is now the law and smokers must finally accomodate us nonsmokers!

It has been this way in NY for a few years now. Seems too work pretty well.

CP-DAD said:
Your right to smoke in a bowling alley no longer precludes my right to clean air and my asthmatic child can finally go bowling!

I feel like the anti-smoking folks aren't reading what the pro-liberty folks are saying. You've always had a right to clean air, but you're choosing the air you breathe. If you want clean air, don't willfully choose to go into places that don't have clean air. You have no constitutional right to go bowling. Bowling alley owners, however, have the constitutional right of liberty to run their businesses as they see fit.

1) Business chooses product/service/terms
2) Customer chooses to buy or not buy said product/service/terms

This is remedial civics and remedial economics. It's making my head hurt trying to make it as plain as possible.

Complaint 1: "I don't want to breathe smoke"
Solution 1: "Don't enter businesses where smoking occurs. Exercise your liberty and choose to visit non-smoking businesses, while leaving the liberties of businesses intact."

Complaint 2: "Smoking is hazardous."
Solution 2: "If you don't want to be subjected to the danger, don't subject yourself to it. Businesses are private property, you are merely invited inside. You have no right to be there. You choose to be there. The dangers of smoking are immaterial to your liberty and the business' liberty."

Complaint 3: "Smokers are a drag on society by increasing health care costs for everyone."
Solution 3: "Fatty, high cholesterol foods are bad for you. So is alcohol. So are dangerous occupations. They all contribute to higher health care costs. The idea of banning anything potentially hazardous is rediculous and impossible."

Complaint 4: "Workers have to breathe smoke if it's allowed in their workplace, even if they don't want to."
Solution 4: "No one is forced to work anywhere. You have no entitlement to employment, and no obligation to remain at a job. Don't say "I can't afford to quit", you can. Find a new job, then quit. Your livelihood is entirely within your power, and saying that it's not is irresponsible and lazy."

What this all boils down to is anti-smoking advocates are saying "I just don't like smoke". This is hardly just cause for legislating the issue. With that kind of self-riteous, liberty-infringing logic, I'll go back to some previous examples...smelly diapers bother me, we should ban babies from restaurants. Body odor bothers me, we should amend the constitution to require the use of deodorant.
Seeing fat people when I'm eating grosses me out, we should ban fat people. Seeing gay people in bars makes me sick, we should ban homosexuality. I just don't like black people, we should send them to another country.

It's preposterous. Liberty is guaranteed in the constitution so personal opinions don't run amok on the rights of others. Yet in one fell swoop, the people of Ohio said "screw you" to the constitution.

I don't smoke, I never have smoked, I hate the smell of smoke, I never will smoke.

That said, I do not feel that the government, or anyone, has the right to tell a private business owner what to do with his business. I am against smoking bans for this reason. It has been stated before: a business owner has the right to run his business in the way that they choose, and the customer has the right to choose to patronize or not patronize a business. I don't like smoke, so I've been known to pass on a trip to the bar with my friends, or suggest we go do a different place. To the person with the asthmatic child that can finally go bowling? That's nice. But going bowling is not his constitutional right. Last night I saw a show on TV about a girl who is allergic to the UV rays in sunlight. Her parents can only take her out at night. They go to the park every night at midnight. How about we block out the sun so that the little girl can go outside whenver she pleases? Isn't it her right to be able to go to the park when all of the other little children are there so she can play with her friends?

My point is, we can't begin telling people how to run their businesses. Once we stop, where does it end? My brother can't eat salt, let's ban all the salt used in all foods. He might eat some. My friend is allergic to cats. We'd better kill your cat, what happens it's dander pollutes her air? Or how about my brother chooses not to go to a place that can't accomadate his diet, and my friend just stays away from places that have cats?

I've experienced the same thing CP-DAD. Innocently walking though Disneyworld at the age of 4, some idiot ashed on my arm, and I have a nice little scar to remind me of it for the rest of my life. If I had kids, I certainly wouldn't want them to go through that either. However, I'm not holding a grudge. People smoking on the midways of Cedar Point or Disneyworld are no different from people smoking while walking down the street. All you can do is watch out for those stupid smokers that carelessly ash and wave their cigs around like magic wands.

^ I've heard that story 20 different times with as many variations. My favorite was the little girl at Disney World who is now blind in one eye.

If tobacco is so dangerous, make it illegal to use. Treat it no differently than cocaine or methamphetamine.

If tobacco is legal to use, then the state has no right to tell business owners whether to allow its use in their establishments.

It's really that simple to me. If it's legal, stay out of our lives. Let us make our own decisions.

Tobacco is a problem for sure, but not only is this the wrong solution, it sets a very dangerous precedent.