News: The hard part: Making it stick

Kevinj said:
Actually, in less than 30 days they are.

And that's exactly the problem. If the government suddenly said I couldn't run ads, or had to make all of the pages on PointBuzz pink, I wouldn't do it anymore. It's not the government's place to tell you how to conduct business, and that's exactly what this silly law does.

Jeremy is exactly making my point. If you don't want to expose your kid to smoke, DON'T GO WHERE THERE IS SMOKE. Why is that so hard to figure out? This is not complicated.

Coastern3rd said:
^ 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.

Your favorite? I'm not sure what you're implying, but this kind of stuff probably did happen. If it happened to me, and another member of this board, then it probably has happened to many other children. As far as I know, kids are pretty small and unnoticable walking underneath you at the age of 4, so it wouldn't be inconceivable for somebody to ash right on top of the child.

Eh, I was off to bed and didnt have time to post something sensible. I completely understand your (Jeff) and Jeremy's point. But your arguments all have to do with the "business owner's" perspective. I am also not naive to the fact that we saw a good example of what a law like this can do to businesses (Toledo, OH)...nor do I believe those who say it has no effect on businesses. I have no doubt that it will. But others thrive, and show an increase...the market doesnt just evolve based on where consumers go and dont go, it also morphs and adapts to new rules and regulations. Who is responsible for issue 5? Consumers who have had enough.

A business owner has never had the right to run a business exactly how he or she fits. There is always laws, standards, and rules (some of which you dont like) that one has to follow that are enforced, and these are decided by society. What about strip clubs in Ohio? How dare the government stick there nose in and say I cant have full nudity? What about Asian Spas? How dare the government say I cant have prostitution going on? Why should I spend all this money to have handicapped people in my store? That will hurt my business! Why does the government force me to interview this black person. That person will hurt my business!

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.

These examples make no sense. Second-hand baby poop smell doesnt increase my chance for cancer...neither does B.O., but second-hand smoke does.

GO OUTSIDE TO SMOKE OR STAY HOME TO SMOKE. Why is that so hard to figure out?

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."

Or, join in a grassroots campaign to restrict the use of smoking.

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."

This is one we disagree on. A business owner has no right to run a business exactly how he/she fits. A smoker and a non-smoker have an equal right to enter a restaraunt, but the smoker is entitled to do harm to others inside? I dont think so. See above solution.

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."

Well, one solution was increasing the taxes on cigs. That helps. And Im not sure why you brought this one up, as smokers automatically pay higher insurance rates...so this is a non-issue to me. Everyone's health care costs are too high in this country.

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. Find a new job, then quit. Your livelihood is entirely within your power, and saying that it's not is irresponsible and lazy.""

This is an interesting one, as I wish everyone had the feelings of self-empowerment over their lives that you (and I) feel. Unfortunately, they do not. The workers in bars/restaraunts had nothing to do with why I agree with issue 4, but its a nice "icing on the cake" for the workers.

And lets use your same logic for the business man who "whines" that this hurt his business. Change! Evolve! Attract new consumers! The bar owner's livelihood is entirely within their power, and saying that it's not is irresponsible and lazy." Right?
*** Edited 11/11/2006 5:12:54 PM UTC by Kevinj***

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

Amen to that!!! My daughter also has asthma, and there is no way I could take her bowling, especially when her asthma is acting up. Shameful thing is that she loves it too, but strict rules from her pediatrician about being around smoke.

In bars and bingo halls, I expect it. But it was the bowling alleys that got me to vote no for 4 and yes for 5. If it would of stated places where it is adults only, I would of voted differently, but anything that has to do with children, forget it. It irritates me watching someone smoke around their children. Children don't get the opportunity to chose if they want to be around it or not.

Even though if it was restricted to bars, I would of voted differently, I do have to say that it is the number one reason why I don't go to one. I can't stand being in the smoke. Now, I may go more often to watch a football game.

The issue here is that second hand smoke is dangerous to the non-smokers around the smoker. Ok, I agree with that. That's fine, but what about the air pollution caused by cars? When will the government step in and tell everyone that they have to drive the smaller, more fuel efficent hybrids? I'm sure that they could figure out a system of how large a car a family needs based on its size. How about making carpooling mandatory? Employers keep employees' addresses on file, they could assign people to a carpool. YOUR gas-guzzling SUV is polluting MY air. I'm afraid of getting skin cancer because my skin is so fair, and everyone knows that pollution from cars is one of the reasons that skin cancer is on the rise. When will everyone be forced to park the SUV and buy a hybrid?

I'm not sure how banning public smoking ban in an enclosed space compares to banning pink web sites or prohibiting Chinese restaurants. There is a big, big difference between messing with free market and protecting the public. I really think that point has been missed in this discussion. There are a number of laws that are put into place that are for the protection of its citizens. The tyranny of the majority argument very much does not apply here.

Yes, there is a point at which government can become too controlling. This is so far from that. And I can already hear the, "if we allow this, they'll take away my red meat next (or insert cause of your choice)" Leave the tin foil hat at the door. I think some of you have watched Demolition Man too many times. The people of the State of Ohio made this happen. It isn't like Issue 3, where a few businessmen tried to buy their way into the constitution.

I'm a traditional conservative in almost every sense of the word, but I'm not a Libertarian or an Anarchist. I believe the government has the duty to protect its citizens. That's why we have drug laws. That's why it's illegal to drive above a government set speed limit. That's why we have welfare, however broken or overused it may be. That's why you'll get a ticket if your child isn't in a safety seat, or if you're not wearing a seat belt.

We could say there's no longer any speed limit on the interstate highway system. Since you have no constitutional right to use a four-lane highway, you have no right to complain. If you think it's a hazard to your health and safety, then stay off those highways and use alternate routes.

When will the government step in and tell everyone that they have to drive the smaller, more fuel efficent hybrids?

The government already places numerous regulations on fuel efficiency, pollution, etc. Whether or not it's enough or too much is irrelevant. For this discussion, the relevant part is that they do place limits for the protection of citizens, environment, and so on.

*** Edited 11/11/2006 6:57:43 PM UTC by Walt***

For this discussion, the relevant part is that they do place limits for the protection of citizens, environment, and so on.

Yes, but there already was a limit on tobacco. You have to be 18 to purchase and use it. Why not give the option to apply for a tobacco license, as the LCB does with alcohol?

The people of the State of Ohio made this happen.

That's my problem. The people who celebrating a victory for clean air are now strapping their asthmatic children into their 10 mpg SUV's and driving down to the bowling alley for a victory party.

These are the same people who would vote against laws like the ones I mentioned in my above post. "New laws are great as long as they don't inconvenience me."

Well, marvina, you'll be happy to know that I voted no an 4 and yes on 5, and I am all for cleaner air, hybrid cars, more fuel effeciency, etc. I would argue that we are making great strides in all those areas you just mentioned.

Lets all take a deep breath and remember....the book 1984 was a work of fiction...

I hate big brother about as much as anyone, but I think the no smoking in public places law is a good one.

Sure, I can choose not to go to a bowling alley or bar if there is smoke. But that is limiting where I can go, but it doesn't restrict the smoker in any way. It limits where I can work, play, eat, drink and relax. My full freedom of choice has been taken away from me (if I choose to remain healthy), but the smoker can go to any place they want, as a non-smoking environment places no health hazards on the smoker.

Public laws exist mainly to protect the public from bad actions of others. Second had smoke is about as hazardous as it comes. Banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is the absolute correct thing to do to protect the public's health.

I also find it amazing that a smoker finds it ok to sit right next to me in a bar all night and not consider it rude to blow nasty smoke in my face. I always thought I should fill up on beans and cabbage, sit next to a smoker and fart all night. Of course the smoker would consider me rude for doing that!

Pete said:
Sure, I can choose not to go to a bowling alley or bar if there is smoke. But that is limiting where I can go, but it doesn't restrict the smoker in any way. It limits where I can work, play, eat, drink and relax. My full freedom of choice has been taken away from me (if I choose to remain healthy), but the smoker can go to any place they want, as a non-smoking environment places no health hazards on the smoker.

You're right... the restriction has now been shifted to the business owner. Everyone keeps coming back to their "right" not to be exposed to smoke because they feel it is harmful. I'm not in disagreement that it is harmful, and you're a moron if you think otherwise.

But where does it stop? I mean, NYC is contemplating a law that would ban trans fats! People want to ban all kinds of things that are harmful, even though the scope of the harm is limited to the individuals that choose to be exposed to it. The government regulates things like the environment because we don't have a choice but to be exposed to it. A lot of people are making this out to be an environmental issue, and it's not. If adults can't decide for themselves what to expose themselves or their children to, then we've got a problem.

I guess we'll have to disagree, but I think it's a stupid law. I don't go to many bars because of the smoke. But it's not my place to decide for others and the businesses that they are patrons of whether or not they can smoke there.

Kevinj said:
What about strip clubs in Ohio? How dare the government stick there nose in and say I cant have full nudity? What about Asian Spas? How dare the government say I cant have prostitution going on? Why should I spend all this money to have handicapped people in my store? That will hurt my business! Why does the government force me to interview this black person. That person will hurt my business!

Don't look at me, I don't think there should be regulations on any of that either. The problem with attempting to legislate equality is that it infringes on the liberties of others. In your first two examples, government is telling business they can't sell a product that a lot of people really want. It would be like if you invented the greatest invention of all time and could make billions of dollars with it because demand was so high for it, but then government forced itself on you and said "sorry, you can't sell it". The consumer demand is there, but government is interfering with the free market just because some uptight people "just don't like what goes on in there". In your third example, mandating handicapped access represents a substantial cost to business. If the public forces it on private businesses, the public should pay for it. In your final example, race quotas are themselves discriminatory. Say a business owner has to choose between two candidates, one with exceptional skills and one with poor skills. The former happens to be white and the latter black, and he's required by law to hire a black person. Is that fair to his business? Is it fair to the qualified white person that may then continue to struggle in unemployment? Racism is racism, whether it's discriminating against black people or white people.

And now people are taking liberty from bar and restaurant owners and giving it to anti-smokers, who never even had a right to enter a bar or restaurant to begin with.

I live by the principle that people aren't stupid and will do what's best for them. If a restaurant gets more sales with a smoking area than without one, they should be allowed to have one. If a person dislikes smoke in a restaurant, they shouldn't eat there. It's a simple concept, and yet some people continue to think we should make government TELL people what's best for them. It smacks of authoritarianism and is diametrically opposed to the foundations of America.

Kevinj said:
Second-hand baby poop smell doesnt increase my chance for cancer...neither does B.O., but second-hand smoke does.

High fat, high cholesterol foods increase your risk of cancer, but they haven't banned McDonald's yet. Why's that? Oh yeah, because people have the power to choose what they put in their bodies. Just like you can avoid McDonald's and a future heart attack, you can avoid smoke-filled bars and future lung problems.

Kevinj said:
GO OUTSIDE TO SMOKE OR STAY HOME TO SMOKE. Why is that so hard to figure out?

Again, that's not the issue. If bar and restaurant owners were allowed to exercise their liberty and banned smoking on their own, I would be content with that. The issue is that the majority is using their vote to restrict the liberties of bar and restaurant owners.

Kevinj said:
Or, join in a grassroots campaign to restrict the use of smoking.

Grassroots campaigns should never have a say over the liberties of others. Liberty is guaranteed in the constitution. Bar and restaurant owners should have the liberty to make their rules, and you should have the liberty to visit whatever business suits your needs. Anything else is unconstitutional.

I will however concede to a point in Jeff's eloquent (and more succinct) post above. Liberty does have a limit, and that's where it does harm to others involuntarily. The key word is "involuntarily". Environmental regulations are fine because harmful emissions, tainted groundwater, etc. affect people who do not CHOOSE to be subjected to it. If your well is poisoned by runoff from a nearby dairy farm, their liberty to do business is infringing on your private property and should be curtailed. Visiting a smoke-filled restaurant is voluntary however. Smoke isn't invading your personal private space, your personal private space is invading someone else's restaurant.

Kevinj said:
A smoker and a non-smoker have an equal right to enter a restaraunt, but the smoker is entitled to do harm to others inside? I dont think so. See above solution.

Actually, a smoker and a non-smoker have no rights to enter a given business. A business sells a product, sets terms, and people are invited to engage in business based upon that criteria. You have no "right" to do business, you are only "invited" to do business. You have no more right to the air inside a restaurant than you do to the air inside my house. Both are privately owned. If you don't like the smoke in a restaurant, leave. If you don't like the smoke in my house, leave. By the same token, if I want to smoke in a non-smoking establishment, I'll leave. If I want to smoke in someone else's house, I'll leave. The point is that you should respect the rules of the house you're in, not force your will upon the private property of others.

*** Edited 11/12/2006 1:01:36 AM UTC by Jeremy Sell***

Kevinj said:
Well, marvina, you'll be happy to know that I voted no an 4 and yes on 5, and I am all for cleaner air, hybrid cars, more fuel effeciency, etc. I would argue that we are making great strides in all those areas you just mentioned.

Everyone says that they're all for these things. But what do they do they voluntarily change about their everyday lives to support these things? That's my question.

Pete said:

It limits where I can work, play, eat, drink and relax. My full freedom of choice has been taken away from me (if I choose to remain healthy), but the smoker can go to any place they want, as a non-smoking environment places no health hazards on the smoker.

..and it limits where I the smoker can go to enjoy myself. I have to be unhappy that I'm not smoking now... Yeah, your point works both ways.

It's clear no one can be happy now. Another law should be passed. Non smokers are now not allowed to whine anymore when they pass a smoker enjoying a cigarette on the street. The non-smoker put them there.

Maybe we should start a grass-roots campaign to amend the constitution to explicitly include the line "No liberty shall be infringed upon except in instances where it involuntarily infringes upon the liberty of another". I thought this was implied, but apparently we need to make it plain as day.

Cases where liberty is infringed upon involuntarily: Murder, rape, assault, theft, environmental poisoning, etc. Conveniently, government forcing a private bar or restaurant to ban smoking would fall in this category. Government would be involuntarily infringing on a bar/restaurant owner's liberty to make their own rules. These things would all be illegal and unconstitutional.

Cases where liberty is infringed upon voluntarily: Anything dangerous or unhealthy that a person willfully chooses to do...eating bad food, smoking, skydiving, boxing, choosing a restaurant that allows smoking. These things should all be legal and constitutional. People should be free to decide for themselves what they want, not have others infringe on their liberty and tell them what they want.

For myself, Pete summed it up well...

My full freedom of choice has been taken away from me (if I choose to remain healthy), but the smoker can go to any place they want, as a non-smoking environment places no health hazards on the smoker.

Thats my problem with it.

I must say...it would have been fun to be on a debate team in high school with several of you. :)

If I may make a prediction here...issue 5 was not a constitutional amendment. There is a lot of room for it to be modified, etc. My bet is that much like in Toledo, the rule will slowly begin to be modified so that certain places will allow smoking. The bar and smaller privately owned establishments in Toledo did a lot of work to begin modifying the laws to help certain businesses. I dont see why this cant (or wont) happen here.
*** Edited 11/12/2006 3:03:52 AM UTC by Kevinj***
*** Edited 11/12/2006 3:06:47 AM UTC by Kevinj***

Walt you make some good points, but there's a big difference between a speed limit on a public road and a smoking ban in private business. Taxpayer money isn't funding private business, but taxpayer money is funding roads. So in an essence, roads are 'shared' by all, however, you have no god given right and instead make a choice to go into a private business.

I do not agree with the seatbelt law at all though. While I always wear my seatbelt, I think if someone chooses to not wear one it is their own choice, and they deal with their own consequences.

Kevinj said:
For myself, Pete summed it up well...

My full freedom of choice has been taken away from me...

Thats my problem with it.

Your freedom hasn't been taken away from you. You can choose not to be a patron of these businesses. And bowling alleys and bars have nothing to do with your liberties. If you disagree with the smoking policy of a business, then it's their loss that they can't get your business. I don't go to strip clubs, I don't shop at grocery stores that don't offer organic food, I don't eat fast food, I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart... these are choices that I make as a consumer for health and moral reasons. The government doesn't need to make those choices for me.

And now people are taking liberty from bar and restaurant owners and giving it to anti-smokers, who never even had a right to enter a bar or restaurant to begin with.

But the owner never had a right to allow smoking either. We're not talking about what colors he can paint the walls, what menu options he can serve, how late his business can stay open. We're talking about a public health hazard. Everyone still insists on making this about putting up with stinky smoke during a meal. You're completely missing the point of the law.

I live by the principle that people aren't stupid and will do what's best for them.

Then let's remove all speed limits on highways. People don't have a right to drive on the highway. They can use secondary roads if they feel it's unsafe on the highway. People will drive reasonable because they know what's best for them.

It's a simple concept, and yet some people continue to think we should make government TELL people what's best for them.

Is this a new concept or something? Drug laws, worker protection laws, helmet laws, seat belt laws, and on and on and on and on. How about we get rid of the health department? Shouldn't a business be allowed to use bad meat if it wants to? If you get sick, then you won't go back. Thus the free market will protect you, because you'll be deciding for yourself what's best for you and you won't have Big Brother telling you what is or isn't sanitary in the kitchen.

While we're at it, let's get rid of the Department of Education. What business is it of the government to tell me how much education my kid needs? If I decide as a parent that my child only needs two years of home school, it's no one else's business but mine.

High fat, high cholesterol foods increase your risk of cancer, but they haven't banned McDonald's yet. Why's that?

Why's that? Let me know when secondhand cholesterol becomes a problem and then we'll talk.

The issue is that the majority is using their vote to restrict the liberties of bar and restaurant owners.

Businesses already face a multitude of restrictions.

and you should have the liberty to visit whatever business suits your needs. Anything else is unconstitutional.

I want to start a business where I have a bar that gives customers a hit of heroin for a price that I establish. That heroin will suit the needs of my target customer. That customer will only be harming himself. If people have a problem with seeing people use drugs, they will avoid coming into my bar. It's unconstitutional for the government to tell me that selling heroin in my bar is wrong.

Environmental regulations are fine because harmful emissions, tainted groundwater, etc. affect people who do not CHOOSE to be subjected to it.

Those people choose to live there. If they don't like polluted groundwater, they can move someplace where there is clean groundwater.

Visiting a smoke-filled restaurant is voluntary however. Smoke isn't invading your personal private space, your personal private space is invading someone else's restaurant.

You know, if you just read this thread, you'd think that Issue 5 only mentioned restaurants. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States were not covered by smoke-free workplace policies. That includes my white collar, professional office. What about the factory worker who has to put up with smoke because the factory allows smoking on the line? Like I said earlier, telling a person to get a new job is ludicrous. Why are there overtime laws? Why can't employers force unpaid overtime on their workers at will? If you don't like it, get a new job! That's silly.

And even if it was just about a 30 or 60 minute meal, and nothing else, there is scientific evidence - as announced by the U.S. Surgeon General - that indicates that there is no (i.e. zero) risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

It's too bad that this law doesn't protect kids from smoking parents. But, hey, if those kids have a problem with inhaling secondhand smoke at home and in the car, they should find new parents!

Both are privately owned.

A house and a business are not the same. If you don't want a black person to come into your house, then you are able to say, "don't come in." A restaurant who enacts that rule is violating the law. I'm not comparing racism to smoking, but you can't oversimplify things. There are a whole list of things that apply to a public business (privately owned or not) that does not apply to your home.

Walt you make some good points, but there's a big difference between a speed limit on a public road and a smoking ban in private business. Taxpayer money isn't funding private business, but taxpayer money is funding roads.

Paying taxes on something doesn't give you an automatic right to it. The government can provide many different travel options, but if you want to use this one, you must accept any applicable health hazards.

*** Edited 11/12/2006 4:50:01 AM UTC by Walt***

Hey Walt! :) :) :) ! Ditto! I would love to add to this but the horse is already dead....

Communist, Next there going to come to my house and ask me for my guns. It is wrong to tell a private owner of any building what the public can and cannot do. if you wanna complain about smoke go watch the bubble boy episode of seinfeld. It's B.S. And I do not even smoke.....cigarettes that is. Are we going to have Speakeasy's like in the 30's. You have to have a password to get into a hidden smoking bar.

Just my own personal opinion and I am sure that most PBers will not like it.

mikey