Illinois goes smoke-free!

[yoopers]

As of tomorrow, Illinois jumps in with 19 other states in declaring indoor environments as smoke-free. Yahoo! It's been too long in coming.

[Gilby]

Very sad.

We have allowed an authoritarian state, in which the state can just declare something like this instead of letting the private property owner make the rules for the use of their own property.

The basis of all law (property) has been undermined and now law is whatever the authoritarian state declares.

Mob rule in action.

[s7ev0]

Very sad.

We have allowed an authoritarian state, in which the state can just declare something like this instead of letting the private property owner make the rules for the use of their own property.

The basis of all law (property) has been undermined and now law is whatever the authoritarian state declares.

Mob rule in action.

But hasn't law always been whatever the state/government declares? Whether authoritarian or not?

Also, if the law is anything like the one here in the UK, it applies not to private property but public places where the rights of workers not to have smoke inflicted on them are being upheld through this law. Everyone is still free to smoke within their own homes, I believe.

Also, if the basis of all law is property, then I'm with Proudhon and the rest of the anarchists when he says "Property is theft".

[harper]

Very sad.

We have allowed an authoritarian state, in which the state can just declare something like this instead of letting the private property owner make the rules for the use of their own property.

The basis of all law (property) has been undermined and now law is whatever the authoritarian state declares.

Mob rule in action.

Preach it, brother. Although I sympathize with Bruce and those in his position, I sympathize more with those who are forced to bend to this dictatorial rule. People of the world should always be able to privatize their behavior control and recognize those boundaries.

[yoopers]

Preach it, brother. Although I sympathize with Bruce and those in his position, I sympathize more with those who are forced to bend to this dictatorial rule. People of the world should always be able to privatize their behavior control and recognize those boundaries.
Privatize - keep their behavior in private control without affecting me. Boundaries - their second-hand smoke knows no boundaries. All in all, if they can smoke in public and keep their smoke to themselves, I'm all for it. I like the ol' saying, "Go ahead and smoke, just don't exhale."

I want to be able to enjoy a burger down the road at the Butterfly Restaurant without it tasting like cigarettes.

[yoopers]

Very sad.

We have allowed an authoritarian state, in which the state can just declare something like this instead of letting the private property owner make the rules for the use of their own property.

The basis of all law (property) has been undermined and now law is whatever the authoritarian state declares.

Mob rule in action.
Mary makes a good point. If the Butterfly Restaurant were a private organization in which only their family members could enter, then they should be free to allow smoking. Since the restaurant is open to the public, enforce the restrictions to the fullest extent and allow me to eat in peace.

[Gilby]

There is a difference between "open to the public" and "public property". A restaurant is private property. They allow you to go onto their property and by you doing so, you are accepting the rules they have imposed, which may be that it is a non-smoking environment, or it may be that they allow smoking.

I want to be able to enjoy a burger down the road at the Butterfly Restaurant without it tasting like cigarettes. Is it a right to force this place to serve you a burger in an environment of your satisfaction? Or is it your right to not go there and go somewhere else in which the environment meets your requirements?

[jamessd]

I assume you guys in the USA know about Britain going smoke free this year then? You can't smoke in any enclosed public places, so pubs and resaurants are a completely different scene. Good for non smokers, not so good for smokers...:rolleyes:

[yoopers]

There is a difference between "open to the public" and "public property". A restaurant is private property. They allow you to go onto their property and by you doing so, you are accepting the rules they have imposed, which may be that it is a non-smoking environment, or it may be that they allow smoking.
I know the difference between the two. Yes, they are privately owned but they offer services to the public. That makes the environment within a public place. If they are going to cater to the public, then give me a fair shake at a nice-tasting meal. You've been to Rochelle. There was not a sit-down restaurant available in town that offered a smoke-free environment. Mary and I have been denied the right to utilize a nice public eating establishment without having to wait until we drive out of town. That is, there was not a smoke-free eating environment in town...up until now. :D
Is it a right to force this place to serve you a burger in an environment of your satisfaction? Or is it your right to not go there and go somewhere else in which the environment meets your requirements?

[swarbrim]

Another freedom taken away for another state, the 51st state lost it on the first of July 2007.

Cheers.

[s7ev0]

Is it a right to force this place to serve you a burger in an environment of your satisfaction? Or is it your right to not go there and go somewhere else in which the environment meets your requirements?

I'm back to the rights of those who work in such places. They may not have the same choice as the customers. Their choice may be to go there and earn a living or not go there and condemn their family to living below the poverty line.

(I can't believe I'm backing the now over-prescriptive health and safety legislation, but) surely this falls within the remit of providing a safe workplace?

[Gilby]

I know the difference between the two. Yes, they are privately owned but they offer services to the public. That makes the environment within a public place. The environment is enclosed (indoors), therefore it's not public property. Just because they voluntarily let you in, it does not mean you get to make the rules.

I offer services to people from China, but China has no authority over how I run my business. But according to your logic, they would.

If they are going to cater to the public, then give me a fair shake at a nice-tasting meal. You've been to Rochelle. There was not a sit-down restaurant available in town that offered a smoke-free environment. Mary and I have been denied the right to utilize a nice public eating establishment without having to wait until we drive out of town. That is, there was not a smoke-free eating environment in town...up until now. :D Sounds like there was an opportunity for someone to open up a smoke-free restaurant and cater to that specific market.

[Gilby]

I'm back to the rights of those who work in such places. They may not have the same choice as the customers. Their choice may be to go there and earn a living or not go there and condemn their family to living below the poverty line.

(I can't believe I'm backing the now over-prescriptive health and safety legislation, but) surely this falls within the remit of providing a safe workplace?

The worker can voluntarily choose to work in such an environment and agree to such in the contract they have with the property owner. They have choosen this environment because the risk caused by the environment is acceptable to them because of the reward (pay) they receive. They can choose to work in a better environment for them with less reward (less pay, farther away, etc.).

[s7ev0]

The worker can voluntarily choose to work in such an environment and agree to such in the contract they have with the property owner. They have choosen this environment because the risk caused by the environment is acceptable to them because of the reward (pay) they receive. They can choose to work in a better environment for them with less reward (less pay, farther away, etc.).

In an economy where there is very little unemployment this may be possible. Where unemployment is high, and/or where the jobseeker has few skills the choice is limited.

Your argument that the risk caused by the environment is acceptable because of the pay they receive is the same argument used by employers in the past: "They have the choice to work down the mines/up the chimneys/with asbestos/in my sweat shop".

[monkeyman]

Preach it, brother. Although I sympathize with Bruce and those in his position, I sympathize more with those who are forced to bend to this dictatorial rule. People of the world should always be able to privatize their behavior control and recognize those boundaries.

I'm with Greg and Gilby on this one. It should be the restaurant owners' decisions how to run their properties.

For a much more controversial outlook, I honestly wouldn't care if some dumbass redneck in Mississippi opened a restaurant that only served white people. I think he'd be a freakin' lunatic, but it would be his choice. I think the same would apply to someone who wanted to make his restaurant open only to black people. Personally, I would think that it would be a pretty despicable thing to do, but I don't have the right to tell them how to run their property.

[phlegm]

Yeah, let's get rid of health inspections too! Who's to say that it's unsanitary to tenderize meat by stepping on it? Shouldn't the private property owner get to prepare meat however they want? :eek:

Note: Yes, I had an uncle who worked at a restaurant that actually did this. Either that, or he was hiding the real reason for having blood soaked work shoes.

[Gilby]

But hasn't law always been whatever the state/government declares? Whether authoritarian or not?

Nope. What gives the state/government the authority to declare laws? By definition then it has to be authoritarian.

Law has a basis in natural law, which is quite simple: don't violate the property of others, and honor your contracts.

In other words, nobody but the property owner has authority over that property. Contracts extend privileges to the use of property to someone else.

Also, if the basis of all law is property, then I'm with Proudhon and the rest of the anarchists when he says "Property is theft".

Proudon is a socialist anarchist. When taken under context, he means property privileges that cause exploitative conditions. He's also said that "property is freedom" in which one is only free when they are the sole owner of their possessions and what they create. Together, he's really referring to the exploitation of wage labor, in that the laborer is inputing labor to produce more value from the capitalist's property than they receive in a wage. The flaw with this is that the risk is on the property owners and therefore they need to receive some compensation for that risk.

[Gilby]

In an economy where there is very little unemployment this may be possible. Where unemployment is high, and/or where the jobseeker has few skills the choice is limited. Ah, so what causes unemployment and oppression?

Lets see: minimum wage, unions, payroll taxes, working condition regulations, licenses, unemployment insurance, the Federal Reserve (it's booms and busts), etc.

In other words, you're basing your argument on more regulations on the fact that the government caused problems from its past authoritarian regulations.

[Gilby]

Yeah, let's get rid of health inspections too! Who's to say that it's unsanitary to tenderize meat by stepping on it? Shouldn't the private property owner get to prepare meat however they want? :eek:

Get rid of government impose health inspections, yes. But a business will not last long if they are unsanitary. They have the consequences of being sued from illnesses derived from this. Further, in a free market, you would still see restaurants being inspected and certified by an independent third party and you as a customer will check the certifications before eating there.

[phlegm]

But a business will not last long if they are unsanitary.

Oh, the restaurant was there for a long time, well before and after my uncle worked there.

[cathwood]

Nope. What gives the state/government the authority to declare laws? By definition then it has to be authoritarian.


I'm struggling to understand your stance. Could you give me an example of which governments/ruling systems or whatever use the system that you are advocating? Ta.

[surfer1024]

Yay! My mom is allergic to cigarette smoke.

[Gilby]

I'm struggling to understand your stance. Could you give me an example of which governments/ruling systems or whatever use the system that you are advocating? Ta. Unfourtunately, none exists right now. You have to remember that it is the tendencies of governments to slowly take away the liberties of the people, and so we are at a stage in which no truely free society exists. The United States just after the American revolution was the closest to a free society.

[harper]

Yeah, let's get rid of health inspections too! Who's to say that it's unsanitary to tenderize meat by stepping on it? Shouldn't the private property owner get to prepare meat however they want?


Excellent. A small step down the right (and righteous) path.

[yoopers]

The environment is enclosed (indoors), therefore it's not public property. Just because they voluntarily let you in, it does not mean you get to make the rules.

I offer services to people from China, but China has no authority over how I run my business. But according to your logic, they would.

Sounds like there was an opportunity for someone to open up a smoke-free restaurant and cater to that specific market.
But I didn't make the rules, Kev. I'm celebrating them. :)

I think we agree that the establishment is a privately held company, but the key is that THEY made the choice to cater to the public - that would be me! Yes, the indoor, enclosed area is not public property, but it is a public area. Maybe the restaurant owners should make a choice to only cater to private persons, maybe by invitation only. Then they could make all the rules they want.

Another option would be a requirement for equal number of smoke-free restaurants to smoking allowed restaurants. I could handle that. But as it is(until tomorrow), I do not have the option to eat my tasty burger at this nice-looking restaurant free of icky cigarette smoke.

I know! A third option...We could use a device like the Cone of Silence at the tables of smoking patrons. The restaurant could spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to equip the smoking section of their restaurant with Cones of Smoke Suckers over each table. Then the smoking patorns could smoke all they want without disrupting the taste of my exquisite burger.

Don't need any new smoke-free restaurants. All will be that way tomorrow!!!!

[yoopers]

Unfourtunately, none exists right now. You have to remember that it is the tendencies of governments to slowly take away the liberties of the people, and so we are at a stage in which no truely free society exists. The United States just after the American revolution was the closest to a free society.
My liberties are being added to!

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Very sad.

We have allowed an authoritarian state, in which the state can just declare something like this instead of letting the private property owner make the rules for the use of their own property.

The basis of all law (property) has been undermined and now law is whatever the authoritarian state declares.

Mob rule in action.
I'm with the Gilbster.
I think it's the club/resteraunt owner's right to decide wether his/her place is smoke free, alcohol free, etc.
I'm a musician and even though I smoke, some places I play in are just too smoky and I'm thankful for venues with no-smoking rules. But ultimatly, I believe that it's the club owner's right to decide what the atmosphere of their place will be.
However... from a totally different point of view, I don't see what's wrong with stepping out for a smoke..

[yoopers]

Yay! My mom is allergic to cigarette smoke.
Mary is quite allergic to cigarette smoke, too. Exposure to said smoke makes her sinuses all stuffed up and gives her a whoppin' headache.

It's a grand day in Illinois tomorrow!!! Happy wife, happy life!!!

[James_Potter]

My liberties are being added to!
Maybe yours are, but the liberties of anyone who likes to smoke are being taken away.

[maestro8]

Just curious, Gilby, how does the "free market" keep from spiraling downward into anarchy? Just where do you draw your lines, after all?

The worker can voluntarily choose to work in such an environment and agree to such in the contract they have with the property owner. They have choosen this environment because the risk caused by the environment is acceptable to them because of the reward (pay) they receive.
Sure, sure, but you're assuming the terminally poor are smart enough to make such decisions. You're also assuming these same people can afford to make those decisions. Those are huge assumptions, and they could possibly end up making many poor people even poorer.

They have the consequences of being sued from illnesses derived from this. Further, in a free market, you would still see restaurants being inspected and certified by an independent third party and you as a customer will check the certifications before eating there.
Great! So, we have a whole bunch of restaurants that are operating "just above the line" where people get deathly ill. Then, when the law suits come around, what will be the basis on which one sues? With no legal regulations on food quality, all a restaurateur needs is an "eat at your own risk" asterisk on the menu, and they're free and clear from litigation.

Think that's a stretch? Look at the bottom of the menu at any chain restaurant. Those asterisks are already there (re: eating undercooked meats and fish).

And bollocks to the "customer will check" business. Many fast food restaurants display posters detailing the 1000s of calories and 100s of grams of fat in their foods, yet we still have hordes of mouth-breathers streaming in to these places on a daily basis.

Either you're trying to speed up the process of natural selection or you're too confident in the Average Joe.

In other words, you're basing your argument on more regulations on the fact that the government caused problems from its past authoritarian regulations.
And it seems that you're basing your arguments on some reality where "government caused problems" never existed in the first place. It's a long way from here to there (where here is where we are now, and there is where you propose we go)... how are we going to make that journey? You're going to have to change a lot of laws, a lot of hearts and minds.

People aren't always quick to adopt radical changes (if at all...), so there's going to be quite a period of chaos if we were to drop all sorts of regulations. I doubt it will be pleasant for many people.

Okay, you've stated your end game. Could you please tell us how we're getting there?

[Gilby]

I think we agree that the establishment is a privately held company, but the key is that THEY made the choice to cater to the public - that would be me! Yes, the indoor, enclosed area is not public property, but it is a public area. Maybe the restaurant owners should make a choice to only cater to private persons, maybe by invitation only. Then they could make all the rules they want.

What is the "public" and how is that different catering to private persons?

Isn't the restaurant open by invitation only? If the sign on the door says "open" or "come right in" isn't that the invitation?

At what point does this private property become public as you claim that it has become?

[yoopers]

Hey, we could use these (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=technology&res=9506EEDC133EF930A15753C1A961958260&n=Top%2FNews%2FBusiness%2FSmall+Business%2FInnovation). Only we'd have to keep the requirement about smoking without exhaling.

[James_Potter]

I think we agree that the establishment is a privately held company, but the key is that THEY made the choice to cater to the public - that would be me! Yes, the indoor, enclosed area is not public property, but it is a public area. Maybe the restaurant owners should make a choice to only cater to private persons, maybe by invitation only. Then they could make all the rules they want.
No, the key is that they're not forcing you to come inside and inhale second-hand smoke. That is your choice. There are plenty of establishments already that don't allow smoking, go to one of those.
Both you and anyone who wants to smoke have the right to using the establishment, if you don't like the way it's run, don't come in.

[yoopers]

What is the "public" and how is that different catering to private persons?

Isn't the restaurant open by invitation only? If the sign on the door says "open" or "come right in" isn't that the invitation?

At what point does this private property become public as you claim that it has become?
I didn't say that it was public property. I said it was a public area.

It's a public area simply because they cater to the public. The sign says "Open," not "By Invitation Only."

[James_Potter]

I didn't say that it was public property. I said it was a public area.

It's a public area simply because they cater to the public. The sign says "Open," not "By Invitation Only."
But they can make anyone leave for any reason, any time they want.
They usually don't, but if someone is drunk and being disruptive, they have the right to make that person leave. If someone is making a big scene because they want someone to stop smoking, they have the right to make that person leave as well.
That doesn't seem "public" to me.

[yoopers]

No, the key is that they're not forcing you to come inside and inhale second-hand smoke. That is your choice. There are plenty of establishments already that don't allow smoking, go to one of those.
Both you and anyone who wants to smoke have the right to using the establishment, if you don't like the way it's run, don't come in.
No one is forcing anyone to go inside. I would hope we're not that sort of a country! Yes, it is my choice to go into the restaurant as it is for the smoking patron to enter. But when the smoker allows his cigarette smoke to wander outside the perimeter of his table and make my burger taste icky, his choice to smoke in a public area has affected my liberty to enjoy my food. Until the smoking patron can contain the smoke to his table, we need such a law.

Besides, I've already mentioned that we don't have any other smoke-free restaurants like this in Rochelle.

[Unibugg]

That's 25 states where I can feel assured to enjoy a meal in a restaurant without having to wheeze or immediately wash my clothes or hair afterward. 25 states where families can enjoy meals with their children
25 more states to go.....

Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington

[yoopers]

But they can make anyone leave for any reason, any time they want.
They usually don't, but if someone is drunk and being disruptive, they have the right to make that person leave. If someone is making a big scene because they want someone to stop smoking, they have the right to make that person leave as well.
That doesn't seem "public" to me.

We should have another law that prohibits disruptive behavior within public areas. Oh wait, we do!

[yoopers]

Maybe yours are, but the liberties of anyone who likes to smoke are being taken away.
They can still smoke, just not around me anymore. Yippee!

[cathwood]

We've had a smoking 'ban' in wales since last spring and its lovely. It is so nice to go out to a resteraunt or pub (bar) and not to come home stinking of smoke.

[yoopers]

without having to wheeze or immediately wash my clothes or hair afterward.
That's the worst! Being exposed to cigarette smoke in a confined area makes me feel grimy and disgusting. It gets in my clothes, my hair, and even in my contact lenses. My eyes just burn after such exposure.

[Buddy]

Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Utah
Vermont
Washington

I know where I live it's banned, but at least it's not state wide. I'm with Gilby on this one.

[Gilby]

Until the smoking patron can contain the smoke to his table, we need such a law.
So do we need a law that prohibits one from passing gas? How about from breathing onion/burger breath into the air? Or a law that says that you have to shower before going into a place "open to the public" to prevent fowl odor? Or a law that says that the sound level can not exceed a certain decibel rating? Where does this line fall on what the government can dictate to private property owners? Why can't the business owner make the rules for their establishment and why can't the individual choose whether they want to participate in such an environment?

[johnfoss]

There is a difference between "open to the public" and "public property". A restaurant is private property. They allow you to go onto their property and by you doing so, you are accepting the rules they have imposed, which may be that it is a non-smoking environment, or it may be that they allow smoking.I imagine the text of these various statewide laws differs from state to state, so I can only comment on what I know of the California version. I would assume it reads something like "businesses open to the public." Restaurants and offices? Yes. A home-based business where customers don't regularly come? Probably not.

Remember the foundation of this legislation is usually built upon the idea of a assumed right for people not to have to breathe second-hand smoke, which is known to have all sorts of health-ill effects. The primary people being protected are the employees of these businesses, as apparently our laws today put them into a position to sue their employer if they get lung cancer, for instance, from working at their place.

The option of "not working" at a place that allows smoking is not a realistic one if this legislation isn't operating, as there wouldn't be enough places to choose from. *Someone* would have to work in those smoky places, which returns things to the lawsuit scenario above.

In California, there is some form of an exemption for owner-operated bars. Not sure of the details but if the owner works there, and all employees agree to it, they can have smoking in there. Nowadays, those places are extra-smoky, so everyone can really get their fill if secondhand smoke if that's what they like!

Freedom for smokers? Apparently the problem is that you can't control where the smoke goes. Then you create a general health hazard in the area around you. Experience worldwide shows that not enough smokers are courteous enough to take this health hazard seriously.

I hate the smell of cigarette smoke, and I hate how it clings to your clothes even after you leave the smoky environment. I'm a huge fan of this legislation. I see it as being clearly for the public good, and I have no problem with this. If future legislation comes along, claiming to be for the public good but without the reams of health studies to back it up, I'll have a problem with that.

Recently my wife's company changed their smoking policy to not allow smoking anywhere on the property. What was once smoking outside became smoking only at the far end of the loading dock. Now they have to go to outside the parking lot to light up. That was a free choice made by the owner, at the request of nonsmokers trying to relax on the back patio (which was once a loading dock). :)

[phlegm]

So do we need a law that prohibits one from passing gas? How about from breathing onion/burger breath into the air? Or a law that says that you have to shower before going into a place "open to the public" to prevent fowl odor?

No, because most people are nice enough to not expose strangers to those smells in confined spaces. When was the last time you saw smokers in a restaurant try to disperse their smoke discreetly?

[Unibugg]

I know where I live it's banned, but at least it's not state wide. I'm with Gilby on this one.

There are lots of individual cities who have smoke free environments. Hopefully it will spread statewide for them some day.


Where does this line fall on what the government can dictate to private property owners? Why can't the business owner make the rules for their establishment and why can't the individual choose whether they want to participate in such an environment?

I don't know the answers to your questions but I do know that in Florida restaurant owners feared they would lose customers in a smoke free environment. So the public's health was compromised because of $. Plain and simple. The result though is not what many feared. Restaurants are doing fine, and we are no longer forced to choose between confining ourselves to our homes or breathing smoke filled air that makes many of us sick. If you haven't suffered a migraine triggered from second hand smoke, count yourself lucky. Washing clothes and hair takes care of the smell.. but migraines can last for days.. severe pain I wouldn't wish on anyone. I am thankful to live in a state were people were able to use their voting power to put our health above someone elses' right to pollute theirs.

I used to smoke. It nearly ruined my life. After quitting I still had to put up with smoke everywhere except for my own home. That was the only power I had over my own health. There were even smoking rooms inside our public schools for teachers to use. No amount of equipment really kept the smoke confined.

Now thanks to laws I live a nearly smoke free existance. Where I live, work, and play is smoke free and I don't have to fight about it or leave. I excercised my right to vote to make it so.

[Gilby]

No, because most people are nice enough to not expose strangers to those smells in confined spaces. When was the last time you saw smokers in a restaurant try to disperse their smoke discreetly?

I live in one of those authoritarian states that banned it, so I don't come across smoke often in a bar or restaurant. But, about a month ago, when I was in a state that still allowed business owners to make their own business decisions, I was with some people that were polite and asked me if it was OK for them to smoke. When I agreed, they were polite and did blow the smoke away from where I was.

[johnfoss]

...I do know that in every place it's been proposed restaurant owners feared they would lose customers in a smoke free environment.Fixed.

Money usually trumps the public good. It's nice to see things go the other way 'round every once in a while. Not that businesses lost any money anyway. If the new smoking legislation applies to *all* restaurants, everyone who wants to eat out is still going to do so. No change. Maybe the businesses even save a little money (or labor for their employees) on cleaning.

[harper]

There are lots of individual cities who have smoke free environments. Hopefully it will spread statewide for them some day.



It will spread like the disease it is as long as we all continue to consent to relinquish our liberties as we all seem so willing to do lately. I await the day when horrid, unhealthy television programs like Oprah and sport events will no longer be allowed to be played in public (or "private") places. Followed shortly by radio, magazines....and finally public discourse.

Please, protect me from myself. And start by taking my dangerous unicycle from me.

[Unibugg]

And start by taking my dangerous unicycle from me.

OK.. and where should I have it picked up? Is the seat post long or short?

[musketman]

Meh....im not a smoker, and never will be. I dont really like when people smoke around me either. But......I think they should have the freedom to smoke if they want. And private places like restaurants should decide for themselves it they allow it or not.

my little $.02

[gkmac]

I was with some people that were polite and asked me if it was OK for them to smoke. When I agreed, they were polite and did blow the smoke away from where I was.The smoke they blew out from their mouths would have been directed away from where you were... and possibly eventually fill the room (including the bit that you are sitting in) since in a closed environment it would have nowhere to disperse. Unless it got into the air conditioning and spread further afield.

And all this while the smoke from their constantly smouldering cigarette end would still be wafting straight up and past your nose...And private places like restaurants should decide for themselves it they allow it or not....thus taking the decision of whether I "want" to passive smoke or not away from me if a friend of mine decides to go to the same restaurant.

And if a venue cannot decide whether to be a smoking place or not, it can't be too much of an inconvenience for the smokers. All these places seem to have these things called "doors" to which they can step out into the open and stink themselves whilst killing themselves etc etc.

[Gilby]

The smoke they blew out from their mouths would have been directed away from where you were... and possibly eventually fill the room (including the bit that you are sitting in) since in a closed environment it would have nowhere to disperse. Unless it got into the air conditioning and spread further afield.

Which I realized when I said it was OK with me that they smoke.

And all this while the smoke from their constantly smouldering cigarette end would still be wafting straight up and past your nose......thus taking the decision of whether I "want" to passive smoke or not away from me if a friend of mine decides to go to the same restaurant.

You decided when you entered an establishment that allowed smoking. You decided by staying when the air was more smokey.

And if a venue cannot decide whether to be a smoking place or not, it can't be too much of an inconvenience for the smokers. All these places seem to have these things called "doors" to which they can step out into the open and stink themselves whilst killing themselves etc etc.

Why treat smokers like second class citizens? Should they not be allowed to go into an establishment that allows them to smoke? Why should the state force them to go outside, which here in Minnesota is very cold this time of year, instead of allowing them to smoke in a place designated by the property owner as a smoking area?

[phlegm]

How does it follow that giving up the liberty to smoke in restaurants will lead to a society with zero liberties?

Doesn't democracy prevent that from happening? The majority of voters voted to ban smoking, so they gain the liberty to eat in restaurants without smoke. Hasn't the net liberty increased?

[cathwood]

Why treat smokers like second class citizens? Should they not be allowed to go into an establishment that allows them to smoke? Why should the state force them to go outside, which here in Minnesota is very cold this time of year, instead of allowing them to smoke in a place designated by the property owner as a smoking area?

That was tried and didn't work.

[Gilby]

That was tried and didn't work.
What was tried and didn't work?

[harper]

OK.. and where should I have it picked up? Is the seat post long or short?

(sung to the tune of Oh Where, Oh Where Has My Little Dog Gone?

......
With the cranks cut short and the post cut long,
Oh where oh where can it be?

Come and pick one up at my place. It's a non-smoking establishment by my own choice...for now.

[gkmac]

You decided when you entered an establishment that allowed smoking. You decided by staying when the air was more smokey.I actually meant that if a friend of mine phones me and invites to a restaurant of his choosing which allows this pollution. Explain to me where having to enter such establishment to meet my friend was my decision.Why treat smokers like second class citizens?Before the smoking ban came into effect all pubs allowed smokers to force me to passive smoke and make my clothes stink (beyond my choice). That certainly made me feel like a second class citizen for too many years.

[Gilby]

How does it follow that giving up the liberty to smoke in restaurants will lead to a society with zero liberties?

Doesn't democracy prevent that from happening? The majority of voters voted to ban smoking, so they gain the liberty to eat in restaurants without smoke. Hasn't the net liberty increased?

Democracy is mob rule... ignoring the liberties of the minorities. The US is a republic (according to the constitution), in which the liberties of the individual (the largest minority) are protected. Unfortunately, we've been coerced into thinking we are a democracy and that the constitution doesn't matter anymore.

Now, it's not that giving up one liberty will nullify all other liberties, the question is whether liberties need to be given up.

What we have seen in this thread is that many people like a smoke-free environment (myself included), but some people think they gain liberty by forcing others to conform to what they want and therefore opening up more possibilities to them (ie. in this case, having more options on where to go to eat a burger). An analogy would be if I stole money from someone else. Yes, I love the "liberties" that having this extra money allows me, but it's still not right to use force on others to benefit myself.

In a free market, if there is a market for a smoke free environment, as is clear exists, then it will be demanded and be very likely to happen.

[cathwood]

What was tried and didn't work?

Sorry.

What I meant was that for years in this country places have had designated non-smoking or smoking areas. But i guess employees were still developing cancer from passive smoking, which would contravene health and safety regulations.

And, unfortunately with smoking its either all or nothing. If you have a smoker's area then most of the building is not non smoking.

To be honest I have never even considered your way of looking at it until I read your post. It certainly made me think.

But this law (in the UK) is embedded in and enmeshed with all sorts of other rules and regulations. Such as the health and safety at work regulations, licensing laws, the legality of nicotine and alcohol and illegality of other drug.

Is your point that we shouldn't have any of these laws and regulations? Or is it just this one that you particularly object to. Because resteraunts and pubs have always come under state regulation and lisence.

[Bondo]

Page TOP !!!


Good post Gilby!

A couple of other points:

Colorado just passed this law too, many business went out of business because of it.

In Boulder they are now trying to ban smoking OUTSIDE...when will it end?

Look at what has happened to smoker's rights. Bit by bit they are taking it all away. I used to think the gun-right people were a little nuts talking about their "eroding rights," but seeing what has happened to smokers - I don't think they are too far off base.

[cathwood]

Page TOP !!!


Good post Gilby!

A couple of other points:

Colorado just passed this law too, many business went out of business because of it.

In Boulder they are now trying to ban smoking OUTSIDE...when will it end?

Look at what has happened to smoker's rights. Bit by bit they are taking it all away. I used to think the gun-right people were a little nuts talking about their "eroding rights," but seeing what has happened to smokers - I don't think they are too far off base.

It's interesting what happens when rights collide. The right to smoke. The right not to die of lung cancer. The right not to spend your evening in a smoke filled environment. there were no non smoking pubs round here. The right to go to a pub and not to be in a smokey environment.

What businesses went out of business? Round here the same people go to the same pubs. The smokers just go outside to smoke. No one has gone out of business. Nothing else has changed. Except maybe the makers of those small marquee things that some pubs have outside them now have had more business.

[gkmac]

Look at what has happened to smoker's rights. Bit by bit they are taking it all away.Before the smoking ban came into effect, it seemed smokers had the right to pollute my air and make it hard to breathe, the right to make my clothes stink...

..and the right to make my life shorter. Bit by bit they were taking it all away.

[Bondo]

It's interesting what happens when rights collide. The right to smoke. The right not to die of lung cancer. The right not to spend your evening in a smoke filled environment. there were no non smoking pubs round here. The right to go to a pub and not to be in a smokey environment.

What businesses went out of business? Round here the same people go to the same pubs. The smokers just go outside to smoke. No one has gone out of business. Nothing else has changed. Except maybe the makers of those small marquee things that some pubs have outside them now have had more business.
The Denver Post had an article about the businesses that had to shut down after our smoking ban. I don't have the link. Many business owners opted for a smoke-free establishment before the bans...they did all right...let the market decide!

And...as mentioned...no one forced you to go to smokey pubs.

I used to ride my unicycle in smoky bars every night. even my unicycle smelled. But that was part of the trade, I chose to be an entertainer in that environment. If it bugged me enough I wouldn't have done it.

I don't like the fact that kids roam around with their underwear hanging out. But I am not so offended that I run to the goverment to do something about it. I deal with it because that's what being in public is about, sometimes you might not like what you find out there.

Before the smoking ban came into effect, it seemed smokers had the right to pollute my air and make it hard to breathe, the right to make my clothes stink...

..and the right to make my life shorter. Bit by bit they were taking it all away.
Do you drive a car? What's the difference? You are polluting my air worse than any second-hand smoke.

[Buddy]

I don't like the fact that kids roam around with their underwear hanging out. But I am not so offended that I run to the goverment to do something about it. I deal with it because that's what being in public is about, sometimes you might not like what you find out there.


A city in Louisiana made it illegal to do so with $500 fine as consequence...Pretty petty if you ask me. BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6751777.stm) NYSun (http://www.nysun.com/article/56535)

[Bondo]

A city in Louisiana made it illegal to do so with $500 fine as consequence...Pretty petty if you ask me. BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6751777.stm) NYSun (http://www.nysun.com/article/56535)

Exactly my point.

First it's cigarettes, and now underpants and jeans. Just wait till they tell you that unicycling is stupid and start legislating what you can and cannot ride.

It's easy to villify the smokers. But everyone has some habits that may not be so good for them. Do you enjoy beer, pr0n, chronic, fatty foods?? Where does it stop, where do you draw the line? Better to do it now than try down the road when it's YOUR habit they are restricting?

[gkmac]

Do you drive a car? What's the difference? You are polluting my air worse than any second-hand smoke.Driving a car is essential for getting me and my goods from A to B. Although the pollution coming from the exhaust pipe is a side effect, I certainly don't drive around polluting the air in your enclosed space.

Second-hand smoke is the result of smoking, which has absolutely no advantage whatsoever.I don't like the fact that kids roam around with their underwear hanging out.I don't either, but if the kids walk or sit by me, the difference is my underwear won't spontaneously start hanging out.

[yoopers]

but some people think they gain liberty by forcing others to conform to what they want and therefore opening up more possibilities to them (ie. in this case, having more options on where to go to eat a burger). I don't see it so much as gaining a liberty, but sort of recovering a lost liberty.

And why was it left up to me to make the choice to attend or not attend a restaurant for my dearly beloved burger? Why couldn't the choice be on the smoker's part, a choice not to smoke? Seems that would be the more fair and considerate option. Before the smoking ban, all were free to enter the restaurant, only I had to choose whether or not to make myself filthy and stinky and to accept the health risks. Now after the smoking ban, we are all still free to enter the restaurant. Now if the person who smokes would like to enjoy an after dinner cigarette, there's the door. If I would like enjoy some after dinner screaming and yelling, there's the door.

I still like the Cone of Smoke Sucker idea. I suppose it could also be adapted for those who inappropriately pass gas. Now that would be a sight!

[Gilby]

What I meant was that for years in this country places have had designated non-smoking or smoking areas. But i guess employees were still developing cancer from passive smoking, which would contravene health and safety regulations.

Employees had full knowledge of the environment in which they chose to work. They chose to work there because the reward (extra pay) was higher than a different employment opportunity that provided a non-smoking environment.

And, unfortunately with smoking its either all or nothing. If you have a smoker's area then most of the building is not non smoking.

But it is possible to provide a non-smoking environment. In my area, before the ban went into effect, many establishments had smoking and non-smoking sections. Many places didn't allow any smoking, while others allowed smoking in the entire area. It worked quite well. If I ended up in a non-smoking section that was too close to the smoking section and had smoke drift into my area, then I could choose to be moved farther away, or to leave that place and go elsewhere. There were many places in which to choose which provided satisfactory non-smoking environments.

Is your point that we shouldn't have any of these laws and regulations? Or is it just this one that you particularly object to. Because resteraunts and pubs have always come under state regulation and lisence.

I reject that any private property comes under state regulation or license. Private property owners can make the rules for their property and individuals can choose which businesses they want to patronize. The market will then naturally conform to the diverse market. In this case, they will provide smoke free environments as well as smoking environments.

This idea that one has the right to go to someone else's private property and have the right to an environment they can enforce by mob rule should be rejected by those that want liberty. The only jurisdiction the state has to making regulations is for property that the state owns (ie. public property).

[yoopers]

I don't know the answers to your questions but I do know that in Florida restaurant owners feared they would lose customers in a smoke free environment.
I've seen at least two local news reports so far about bars who went smoke free some time ago. The owners initially feared that they would lose business. What they found is that their profits increased due to the increase in indoor air quality. I'm sure there are just as many reports the other way as well, but there are at least two examples of improvement.

[Gilby]

I actually meant that if a friend of mine phones me and invites to a restaurant of his choosing which allows this pollution. Explain to me where having to enter such establishment to meet my friend was my decision.

What kind of friends do you have that force you to enter a building? If they did not drag you in there forcefully, you had made the choice voluntarily to do so, presumably because the reward (meeting your friend) was worth entering this environment.

Would you have not been able to suggest a different place to meet? Or to not even go there?

Before the smoking ban came into effect all pubs allowed smokers to force me to passive smoke and make my clothes stink (beyond my choice). That certainly made me feel like a second class citizen for too many years.

They did not force you. You chose to enter this environment.

[Gilby]

I've seen at least two local news reports so far about bars who went smoke free some time ago. The owners initially feared that they would lose business. What they found is that their profits increased due to the increase in indoor air quality. I'm sure there are just as many reports the other way as well, but there are at least two examples of improvement.

Ah, the market at work. Providing what the market wants, which in this case was a smoke free environment.

[yoopers]

Employees had full knowledge of the environment in which they chose to work. They chose to work there because the reward (extra pay) was higher than a different employment opportunity that provided a non-smoking environment.
Kevin,

You know how hard jobs are to come by sometimes. Yes, the employee has a choice on whether or not to work at a certain place, but sometimes it's trumped by a choice of survival. It's not like they have a bundle of jobs from which to choose. I certainly haven't had that luxury. Probably more than often, it's a person's only job offer.

[gkmac]

Would you have not been able to suggest a different place to meet? Or to not even go there?A different pub? At that time there certainly was no such thing as a pub that disallowed smoking at that time, nor a pub that has a non-smoking area.They did not force you. You chose to enter this environment.Wrong. I chose to meet my friends. The pub is the place they just happened to be.

[johnfoss]

Why treat smokers like second class citizens?This is perhaps closer to the root of the issue. Smokers are not being treated like second-class citizens. Smokers are provided a more healthy environment in which to breathe when they're inside of businesses open to the public. They have not been denied the right to smoke, they just can't do it in there. But everyone else in there also has the freedom to breathe healthier air.
Now, it's not that giving up one liberty will nullify all other liberties, the question is whether liberties need to be given up.IMHO we do, because we live in such close proximity to each other. Playing high volume music late into the night infringes the liberties of others. Dumping your sewage over your fence infringes on others, etc. To me these smoking regulations are great compromises. People are still allowed to smoke, aren't they? :)
I reject that any private property comes under state regulation or license. Private property owners can make the rules for their property and individuals can choose which businesses they want to patronize.You make it sound like this is something new. Private business has been regulated forever. We have OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/), for example, which can cause great inconvenience and expense for business owners. Most businesses have tons of regulations they must follow. Some are to protect their customers while others are to protect them from other businesses.

Perhaps the new smoking regulations *do* protect the minority. While smokers may number less than non-smokers, they were taking over all the air. In that way, non-smokers could be considered the minority whose rights (to a healthier environment) were being infringed.

[Gilby]

You know how hard jobs are to come by sometimes. Yes, the employee has a choice on whether or not to work at a certain place, but sometimes it's trumped by a choice of survival. It's not like they have a bundle of jobs from which to choose. I certainly haven't had that luxury. Probably more than often, it's a person's only job offer.

The only job offer that met certain specifications. I'm sure when you were looking for a job, that there were many jobs available, they just didn't meet your specific specifications such as how much it pays, what field it was in, what environment it provided, etc. Between the jobs available you chose the one that best met your needs, or you waited until another became available. You were never forced beyond your will into a specific job.

The job market is no reason to infringe on the rights of others.

[Gilby]

IMHO we do, because we live in such close proximity to each other.

You don't have the right to infringe on my property and I do not have right to infringe on yours. No liberties given up...

Playing high volume music late into the night infringes the liberties of others.

Correct. The sound is going into your property, thereby infringing on it. The person can play high volume music as long as it is contained in their property.

Dumping your sewage over your fence infringes on others, etc.

Correct. They put their trash on your property and violated it.

To me these smoking regulations are great compromises. People are still allowed to smoke, aren't they? :)

Let's see. Smoking ban. I believe the word "ban" means that they are not. If smoking were allowed inside a contained space, would someone have the choice to choose that space versus one that did not allow smoking? Yup. But with a ban, the person only has the one choice. Nobody can come in and create another space in which a second choice is made and tailored to this specific market.


You make it sound like this is something new. Private business has been regulated forever. We have OSHA (http://www.osha.gov/), for example, which can cause great inconvenience and expense for business owners. Most businesses have tons of regulations they must follow. Some are to protect their customers while others are to protect them from other businesses.

That is very unfortunate how the progression of tyranny happens.

Perhaps the new smoking regulations *do* protect the minority. While smokers may number less than non-smokers, they were taking over all the air. In that way, non-smokers could be considered the minority whose rights (to a healthier environment) were being infringed. They did not take over all the air. As documented even by Bruce, smoke free environments existed, without the forceful hand of government. Let the market choose.

[uni57]

Law has a basis in natural law, which is quite simple: don't violate the property of others, and honor your contracts.And also don't violate the welfare of others, right? Like, don't murder. Don't punch someone in the face. Don't tailgate someone. Don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Don't give someone lung cancer by deliberately polluting a confined space with a known carcinogen.

The smokers did this to themselves. They willfully and knowingly jeopardized the health of others -- and got away with it for years. This includes endangering the welfare of minors. Of children! Children eat out, too. Since when is it someone's "right" to destroy my health? The smokers could have been more sensitive to the health and comfort of others, but they chose not to be. So, we add smoking to the long list of "don't"s.

You know how sometimes you get gnat or even a fly buzzing around your table at a restaurant? It happens. They fly in through the door. And they want your food.

Well, I'm going to start carrying a can of Raid when I go out to eat. When I see a pesky flying thing, I'm going to take aim and spray it. Sure, the insecticide may waft across the room and be inhaled and eaten by my fellow dining patrons, but so what? They can choose to leave halfway through their meal. Besides, a little bit of insecticide won't kill you. Don't take away my rights!

[uni57]

The only job offer that met certain specifications. I'm sure when you were looking for a job, that there were many jobs available, they just didn't meet your specific specifications such as how much it pays, what field it was in, what environment it provided, etc. Between the jobs available you chose the one that best met your needs, or you waited until another became available. You were never forced beyond your will into a specific job.Seems like you've been very fortunate in your life. A person with no appreciable skillset may be forced to take whatever job they can get. Or how about a person with a family to support -- and the only way they can make ends meet is by being a waitress or a bartender? They have no other skill that would pay enough for them to support their family.

But then again, since we're talking about "choice"...

Today, in our smoke-free areas, die-hard smokers can choose not to work at all. They can smoke all day! But that's as much of a non-choice as a bartender -- in the past -- looking for work in a smoke-free bar.

[Unibugg]

Once upon a time I had a choice.. eat at home every single night or go to a restaurant and breathe someone else's tobacco smoke.

Now, thanks to laws that citizens voted for smokers have a choice. They can eat at their own homes every single night and light up at the table or go to a restaurant with the knowledge that they will have to dine al fresco or step outside to smoke.

So the tables are turned. And I for one prefer the compromise.

Smokers are still free to smoke.
And I am free to enjoy my dinner without choking or living with a headache that might last for days.

Bon appetite! Liberte!

[Gilby]

Don't give someone lung cancer by deliberately polluting a confined space with a known carcinogen.

Unlike the other situations you raised, this is different in that you chose to enter a place with a known carcinogen. Just like you chose to order a burger that may cause health problems. No one forced you to go to that place and no one forced you to order unhealthy food.

A person with no appreciable skillset may be forced to take whatever job they can get. Or how about a person with a family to support -- and the only way they can make ends meet is by being a waitress or a bartender? They have no other skill that would pay enough for them to support their family.

Pretty soon, being a bartender or being a waitress will be in line with the wages offered to other jobs that offer smoke free environments now that this one is forced to be smoke free. In the past, when the restaurants allowed smoking, there was a premium paid to the employee to compensate for this smoking environment. Now, the wage will adjust to be less than what was needed in the example you gave. The alternative is to find another job that has a similar risk level to make ends meet, if possible, and maybe even have to find a higher risk level because there is now more competition for this smaller market of riskier jobs. The employee is no better off. They are worse off, suffer a lower wage or a riskier environment.

[gkmac]

In the past, when the restaurants allowed smoking, there was a premium paid to the employee to compensate for this smoking environment.The premium would have probably paid for the extra washing powder they needed to keep their work-clothes clean.

But probably not for the cost of dealing with and trying to fix the health problems caused by passive smoking that would develop later on. And no amount of extra money would compensate for the reduced life-span of the employee... except maybe some more inheritence for the bereaved.

[yoopers]

Just like you chose to order a burger that may cause health problems.
Aww, man! Now what? Well, there go the burgers. :D

[Gilby]

The premium would have probably paid for the extra washing powder they needed to keep their work-clothes clean.

But probably not for the cost of dealing with and trying to fix the health problems caused by passive smoking that would develop later on. And no amount of extra money would compensate for the reduced life-span of the employee... except maybe some more inheritence for the bereaved.

I thought the example given was that they have no other choice and are forced to work there because otherwise they will starve to death (or otherwise be malnourished). Wouldn't the lifespan be longer if they didn't starve to death and instead took the job?

[maestro8]

Just curious, Gilby, how does the "free market" keep from spiraling downward into anarchy? Just where do you draw your lines, after all?

The worker can voluntarily choose to work in such an environment and agree to such in the contract they have with the property owner. They have choosen this environment because the risk caused by the environment is acceptable to them because of the reward (pay) they receive.
Sure, sure, but you're assuming the terminally poor are smart enough to make such decisions. You're also assuming these same people can afford to make those decisions. Those are huge assumptions, and they could possibly end up making many poor people even poorer.

They have the consequences of being sued from illnesses derived from this. Further, in a free market, you would still see restaurants being inspected and certified by an independent third party and you as a customer will check the certifications before eating there.
Great! So, we have a whole bunch of restaurants that are operating "just above the line" where people get deathly ill. Then, when the law suits come around, what will be the basis on which one sues? With no legal regulations on food quality, all a restaurateur needs is an "eat at your own risk" asterisk on the menu, and they're free and clear from litigation.

Think that's a stretch? Look at the bottom of the menu at any chain restaurant. Those asterisks are already there (re: eating undercooked meats and fish).

And bollocks to the "customer will check" business. Many fast food restaurants display posters detailing the 1000s of calories and 100s of grams of fat in their foods, yet we still have hordes of mouth-breathers streaming in to these places on a daily basis.

Either you're trying to speed up the process of natural selection or you're too confident in the Average Joe.

In other words, you're basing your argument on more regulations on the fact that the government caused problems from its past authoritarian regulations.
And it seems that you're basing your arguments on some reality where "government caused problems" never existed in the first place. It's a long way from here to there (where here is where we are now, and there is where you propose we go)... how are we going to make that journey? You're going to have to change a lot of laws, a lot of hearts and minds.

People aren't always quick to adopt radical changes (if at all...), so there's going to be quite a period of chaos if we were to drop all sorts of regulations. I doubt it will be pleasant for many people.

Okay, you've stated your end game. Could you please tell us how we're getting there?

[Gilby]

Just curious, Gilby, how does the "free market" keep from spiraling downward into anarchy?

Is anarchy bad? I know we are taught that it is, but is it?

Anarchy: without ruler.

Think of what the bad parts of anarchy are perceived to be. People going around stealing and violating property. So what is better, a few small tyrannical groups that can't reach very far who violate property, in which the people can then assemble and bring to justice (anarchy), or is it better to have one large tyrannical organization that has a huge reach and is hard for the people to assemble and bring to justice (what we have now)?

Just where do you draw your lines, after all?

Like I said before. Property is the basis of law. You own your body. You own property you have attained from your labor. No one can violate that.

Sure, sure, but you're assuming the terminally poor are smart enough to make such decisions. You're also assuming these same people can afford to make those decisions. Those are huge assumptions, and they could possibly end up making many poor people even poorer.

I'm assuming that a large number of people are compassionate enough to care for those who have terminal conditions and will help them in other ways before allowing them to have to choose a bad situation.

Great! So, we have a whole bunch of restaurants that are operating "just above the line" where people get deathly ill. Then, when the law suits come around, what will be the basis on which one sues? With no legal regulations on food quality, all a restaurateur needs is an "eat at your own risk" asterisk on the menu, and they're free and clear from litigation.

Operates similar to now, where the restaurant can operate just above the line until they get caught.

Market forces will eliminate places that provide less desirable services and goods.

Think that's a stretch? Look at the bottom of the menu at any chain restaurant. Those asterisks are already there (re: eating undercooked meats and fish).

That's because you still have the liberty to choose to eat meat cooked rare.

And bollocks to the "customer will check" business. Many fast food restaurants display posters detailing the 1000s of calories and 100s of grams of fat in their foods, yet we still have hordes of mouth-breathers streaming in to these places on a daily basis.

Is it some hidden fact that these places serve high calorie foods?

And it seems that you're basing your arguments on some reality where "government caused problems" never existed in the first place.
You see the underlying cause of the problem and fix the underlying cause instead of putting a band-aid on top of the problem and potentially cause other problems.
It's a long way from here to there (where here is where we are now, and there is where you propose we go)... how are we going to make that journey? You're going to have to change a lot of laws, a lot of hearts and minds.

Hopefully it'll happen peacefully instead of by some economic collapse, which unfortunately has been the way it's happened before in many other places.

People aren't always quick to adopt radical changes (if at all...), so there's going to be quite a period of chaos if we were to drop all sorts of regulations. I doubt it will be pleasant for many people.

Yes, it is best to have a transition.

The first step it to get the current government to follow the law and follow their charter (the constitution). I hope that is possible, but we will have to see.

[tomblackwood]

It's funny...Utah was probably the first state to pass one of these laws (the Utah Indoor Clean Air Act). I was both a Utah resident and a smoker at the time, but I don't recall feeling that my rights were stomped on. I recall wondering why it wasn't done sooner. When I think back now, it's amazing to me that smoking used to be allowed on airlines (and I happily obliged). Talk about poisoning people without their permission... And while I suppose in the utopian society you could always just opt to go to some other restaurant where smokers are not, it's pretty hard to apply the same criteria when you need to get from Seattle to Cleveland in a day.

But that was back then when I was un-enlightened to the risk that banning smoking poses to our free way of life. Now that I know I'm pissed.

I want Illinois to tell me what kind of New Year I should have. Will it be Happy?

[maestro8]

is it better to have one large tyrannical organization that has a huge reach and is hard for the people to assemble and bring to justice (what we have now)?
Is it better to have many nests of rats all over your property, or one big fat nest in the middle. At least in the latter case, you know where they're coming from...

I'm assuming that a large number of people are compassionate enough to care for those who have terminal conditions and will help them in other ways before allowing them to have to choose a bad situation.
Waiddaminute! You keep talking about "market forces" doing the work of correction. Compassion doesn't have a place in the market; when given a choice, people will generally chase dollars, not help poor families.

Market forces will eliminate places that provide less desirable services and goods.
Ah, but the consumer wants a cheap, fast meal... as long as places can deliver there, they won't care what else comes along for the ride... which is why I was saying most consumers don't make educated decisions. They're more interested in the fact that they can get a Big Mac for 99 cents, than the fact that it has 1,000 calories (numbers pulled out of my ass).

[Goats_On_Unicycles]

Well... I'm not feeling my rights are being stomped on.
Mainly because I'm not a hard-core smoker. Also cuz I'm not legal...
But I still think it should be a choice for the restaurant.
Not all places have to be smoke-full. Not all have to be smoke-free.

[gkmac]

I thought the example given was that they have no other choice and are forced to work there because otherwise they will starve to death (or otherwise be malnourished). Wouldn't the lifespan be longer if they didn't starve to death and instead took the job?What kind of a response is that?

As mentioned a couple of times earlier in this thread, lots of people are not exactly gifted when it comes to skills, intelligence or qualifications. Regardless of that, they must find a job to survive. Being in a low paid job such as waitressing or serving drinks in a pub would be hard enough in terms of income, but the fact that they should have to be forced to passive-smoke as well is something rather bad in my opinion.

Why should they have to pay the price in reduced health as well as a lower wage?

And even those who do get good qualifications and can find a better job, they must have been at college or university to get those qualifications, meaning they are unqualified whilst studying, and thus even they would have had to get similar jobs to pay the course fees.

[cathwood]

And also don't violate the welfare of others, right? Like, don't murder. Don't punch someone in the face. Don't tailgate someone. Don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Don't give someone lung cancer by deliberately polluting a confined space with a known carcinogen.

The smokers did this to themselves. They willfully and knowingly jeopardized the health of others -- and got away with it for years. This includes endangering the welfare of minors. Of children! Children eat out, too. Since when is it someone's "right" to destroy my health? The smokers could have been more sensitive to the health and comfort of others, but they chose not to be. So, we add smoking to the long list of "don't"s.


Children also live in the homes of parents who smoke. Sometimes they have children who have conditions like asthma and they still smoke. Perhaps smokere have too many rights.

[yoopers]

Children also live in the homes of parents who smoke. Sometimes they have children who have conditions like asthma and they still smoke. Perhaps smokere have too many rights.
When I see an adult smoking in a car with children buckled in the rear seats, I'm overcome with the urge to jerk the guy out of the car through the tailpipe and have a little wordless chat. Forcing children to breathe cigarette smoke in a car is nothing less than child abuse!

[gkmac]

I used to ride my unicycle in smoky bars every night. even my unicycle smelled. But that was part of the trade, I chose to be an entertainer in that environment. If it bugged me enough I wouldn't have done it.Once upon a time, there was an entertainer who played the trumpet in jazz-clubs. I guess in those years there was absolutely no such thing as a "non-smoking" jazz club, so whether he had no choice to play in those or just accepted the environment isn't something I know.
1100th post!
Unfortunately he ended up suffering a lot more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Castle#Illness_and_death) than just a dirty smelly trumpet.

Have you accepted the fact that the same could happen to you? The real possibility of a premature, slow, painful death would certainly have bugged me enough to not do it.

[Gilby]

Waiddaminute! You keep talking about "market forces" doing the work of correction. Compassion doesn't have a place in the market; when given a choice, people will generally chase dollars, not help poor families. Why not? The market is driven by self satisfaction. A completely voluntary exchange of property or use of property. So yes, people will chase wealth, but with their wealth, people do find satisfaction in helping others, whether it's monetarily, volunteering time, or providing other resources.

[Gilby]

What kind of a response is that?

As mentioned a couple of times earlier in this thread, lots of people are not exactly gifted when it comes to skills, intelligence or qualifications. Regardless of that, they must find a job to survive. Being in a low paid job such as waitressing or serving drinks in a pub would be hard enough in terms of income, but the fact that they should have to be forced to passive-smoke as well is something rather bad in my opinion.

Why should they have to pay the price in reduced health as well as a lower wage?

Like I said before, a premium is paid to those who choose to work in a smokey environment. They get paid more than if they took a job that had a smoke-free environment with a similar skill requirement. They can choose the smoke-free environment for lesser pay.

Now, when government comes in and forces the jobs of the bartender and waitress to be smoke free, the wage will go down, because now there is a bigger demand for that job, just like there was for the jobs that provided a smoke-free environment before. The premise to this situation was that the person who took the higher paying job in the smoke filled environment had no other choice than to take that job to make ends meet and to them, the future chance of health issues was worth the higher pay. Therefore, with a lower wage as the result of this legislation, that worker can no longer make ends meet with that job. They will have no other choice than to find a job that pays more because of an even higher risk that job imposes.

So if the intention of this legislation is for the good of the worker, then it really has the completely opposite result.

And even those who do get good qualifications and can find a better job, they must have been at college or university to get those qualifications, meaning they are unqualified whilst studying, and thus even they would have had to get similar jobs to pay the course fees.

There are lots of unskilled jobs available. Plus, college students have access to inexpensive loans which allows them to postpone labor to when they can be paid higher for their skilled labor.

[harper]

Are we again quickly losing sight of the fact that this is not about the rights of smokers but about the rights of property owners?

[JJuggle]

Now, when government comes in and forces the jobs of the bartender and waitress to be smoke free, the wage will go down, because now there is a bigger demand for that job, just like there was for the jobs that provided a smoke-free environment before. The premise to this situation was that the person who took the higher paying job in the smoke filled environment had no other choice than to take that job to make ends meet and to them, the future chance of health issues was worth the higher pay. Therefore, with a lower wage as the result of this legislation, that worker can no longer make ends meet with that job. They will have no other choice than to find a job that pays more because of an even higher risk that job imposes.

So if the intention of this legislation is for the good of the worker, then it really has the completely opposite result.
Smoke free environments have been around for a while. Do you know of any studies or research that support what you're claiming happens?

[UniBrier]

Washington State has some of the most stringent Smoke-Free laws in the country, it was passed by the voters no less. In brief: No smoking at all in any place accessible to the public and also not within 25 feet of any entrance, window, or ventilation system that may allow the smoke to get inside (also proving smokers can't estimate distance, they think 10 feet is 25 feet; there's a fishing joke comparison there but I'll pass...).

As much as I love going to smoke free establishments I think it is too strict.

One of the casualties is the Cigar Lounges. These are dedicated rooms with ventilation preventing any smoke getting into the adjacent rooms. I used to enjoy hitting them once or twice a year with friends or colleagues (not that I kept them in business as I only smoke less than a half dozen stogies a year).

There should be an exemption for dedicated, warm, and well-exhausted smoking rooms. That also would keep me from having to walk though the crowds of smokers and their cloud of smoke from all lighting up 25 feet from where I'm trying to get into

[yoopers]

Washington State has some of the most stringent Smoke-Free laws in the country, it was passed by the voters no less. In brief: No smoking at all in any place accessible to the public and also not within 25 feet of any entrance, window, or ventilation system
Wow, you guys are strict! In Illinois, it's 15 feet.

I'm going to carry a measuring tape and a fire extinguisher with me at all times now.

[UniBrier]

Wow, you guys are strict! In Illinois, it's 15 feet.
Read it and weep (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.160), note the definition of Public Space (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.160.020).

I'm going to carry a measuring tape and a fire extinguisher with me at all times now.Just carry a big stick and extinguish softly.

[Spudman]

I'm a little puzzled by those of you who said there are no smoke free restaurants in your cities. You mean there is absolutely no place where you are able to go get some food and not be gassed to death by cigarette smoke?

We just got a smoking ban here in Arizona about a year ago. Before that, we had three kinds of restaurants: Those with smoke, those with smoking sections, and smoke free ones (the majority, which is apparently very abnormal). I had not actually seen an establishment that fully allowed smoking everywhere until recently, but I didn't go to pubs (alcohol is bad for your liver, you know...)

I think that when restaurants were able to pick their smoking rules, everything worked out fine. The smoking sections didn't spill smoke into the non smoking sections, and there were plenty of places to go enjoy a fine meal without smelling cigarette smoke. Now that it's banned, the few smoking establishments where smokers could go relax are gone and my smoking friends are much more grumpier than they used to be.

[Gilby]

Smoke free environments have been around for a while. Do you know of any studies or research that support what you're claiming happens?
Pick up any economics textbook and read about supply and demand.

If there are two jobs that require the same skillset, but one of the jobs has something about it that is less desirable about it, then there will be less demand for that job. Supply and demand (the basic concept of economics) dictates that the price paid for this less desirable job must be higher since the demand for it is not there, like it is for the desirable one.

[yoopers]

I'm a little puzzled by those of you who said there are no smoke free restaurants in your cities. You mean there is absolutely no place where you are able to go get some food and not be gassed to death by cigarette smoke?
Rochelle is a smaller town of about 9500 people. We have the Butterfly, the Sunrise, Abraham's, and the Olive Branch family, sit-down type restaurants in town. Until today, all separated their smoking sections by space across the room. There were no physical barriers separating smoking from non-smoking.

All that until today...:D

I think I'll take Mary out to lunch to celebrate!

[Unibugg]

Supply and demand (the basic concept of economics) dictates that the price paid for this less desirable job must be higher since the demand for it is not there, like it is for the desirable one.

Must be higher and SHOULD be higher are two different things.
Obviously you're not a public school teacher.

[yoopers]

Then again, as soon as Super Wal-Mart is built, I'll probably forsake all restaurants and just eat chicken tenders at the deli counter from then on.

[Unibugg]

just eat chicken tenders at the deli counter from then on.

I think you are better off with the burger. Then again.. it is your choice.

[harper]

I think I'll take Mary out to lunch to celebrate!

Might as well take her to Dixon, DOC, for lunch. You're almost there.

[yoopers]

Might as well take her to Dixon, DOC, for lunch. You're almost there.We had Dixon folks at our home last night, the family of Ben's special friend. I'm sure Ben wouldn't mind going to Dixon to see her again.

[harper]

We had Dixon folks at our home last night, the family of Ben's special friend. I'm sure Ben wouldn't mind going to Dixon to see her again.

Were they natives or DOC immigrants?

[yoopers]

Were they natives or DOC immigrants?
Definitely not natives. By DOC, you mean Dept. of Corrections?

[harper]

By DOC, you mean Dept. of Corrections?

Yes indeedy. Although you are now further imprisoned by Illinois legislation, I wonder if you can still smoke at the Dixon facility.

[yoopers]

Yes indeedy. Although you are now further imprisoned by Illinois legislation, I wonder if you can still smoke at the Dixon facility.
I believe the Illinois prisons are included in the ban. Our Dixon friends have a brother that works as a prison guard at the Dixon facility. They said the brother made some comments that he would like to work elsewhere once when smoking ban hits. So, maybe the DOC would be an acceptable place to go for lunch. :) After that, we could take in Ronald Regan's boyhood home museum.

[JJuggle]

Pick up any economics textbook and read about supply and demand.

If there are two jobs that require the same skillset, but one of the jobs has something about it that is less desirable about it, then there will be less demand for that job. Supply and demand (the basic concept of economics) dictates that the price paid for this less desirable job must be higher since the demand for it is not there, like it is for the desirable one.
I'm not asking what the textbooks say. I'm asking if you know of any evidence that what you say happens when smoking bans are put in place, actually do.

[uni57]

Are we again quickly losing sight of the fact that this is not about the rights of smokers but about the rights of property owners?Is it? Can the property owner smoke in the restaurant after it closes and the employees go home? I think so. It's the patrons who are the ones not allowed to smoke.

Also, what about me spritzing some Raid from my table whenever there's a gnat after my food? Is this allowed? Gilby didn't answer. Why should some toxins be allowed to waft across the room to be inhaled by patrons and employees when other toxins are not? In fact, I think I would be arrested if I sprayed Raid in a restaurant. Why weren't the cigarette smokers arrested? Why are we arguing that they should be allowed to slowly poison people?

[harper]

I believe the Illinois prisons are included in the ban. Our Dixon friends have a brother that works as a prison guard at the Dixon facility. They said the brother made some comments that he would like to work elsewhere once when smoking ban hits. So, maybe the DOC would be an acceptable place to go for lunch. After that, we could take in Ronald Regan's boyhood home museum.

Just make sure Mary has a nice lunch and enjoys herself. Happy New Year, my friend.

[harper]

Also, what about me spritzing some Raid from my table whenever there's a gnat after my food? Is this allowed?

Dave-

The way we test these things is by pushing the boundaries. By all means take a can of Raid and spray it liberally around your dining area next time you go out.

[uni57]

Dave-

The way we test these things is by pushing the boundaries. By all means take a can of Raid and spray it liberally around your dining area next time you go out.I already said what I think would happen. I would be arrested for poisoning people. But you are saying that cigarette smokers should be allowed to poison people?

[Gilby]

Is it? Can the property owner smoke in the restaurant after it closes and the employees go home? I think so. It's the patrons who are the ones not allowed to smoke.

Can the property owner allow someone else to smoke in the restaurant? If not, then it is a violation of the property owner's rights.

Also, what about me spritzing some Raid from my table whenever there's a gnat after my food? Is this allowed?

Ask the property owner if you can do that.

In fact, I think I would be arrested if I sprayed Raid in a restaurant.
Very well, if you were not allowed by the property owner to do so.
Why weren't the cigarette smokers arrested?
They might be if smoking is not allowed by the property owner.
Why are we arguing that they should be allowed to slowly poison people?We're not. The argument is that the property owner can determine the rules for the use of their property. The patron and employee can choose what to put into their own body as the result of voluntarily going into this environment that allows smoking. Remember, you have no rights to going into the establishment. You only have the privilege of going in as the owner has extended this privilege to you. The property owner can establish what the environment is. If you don't like it, then don't act on the privilege extended to you.

[harper]

But you are saying that cigarette smokers should be allowed to poison people?

Yes. And motorists. And people who use their furnaces. And people who use plastics. And people who use electricity. And people who do laundry. And people who bar-b-que. And people who use paper products. And people who use rubber (oooo.........like unicyclists). And people who use computers and consumer electronics and batteries and on and on and on.

[uni57]

The argument is that the property owner can determine the rules for the use of their property.So, murder is okay? If the property owner says so?

Public or private -- you can't inflict harm on others.

How about this as a law -- Smoke all you want in a restaurant, but if a single non-smoker comes in (especially a child), then all smoking must immediately cease until the last non-smoker leaves. That way, the non-smoker can exercise their right to eat wherever they damn well please. And if there is a single non-smoking employee, then patrons cannot smoke while that person is working. Evereyone wins. Smoke all you want -- conditions permitting.

Yes. And motorists. And people who use their furnaces. And people who use plastics. And people who use electricity. And people who do laundry. And people who bar-b-que. And people who use paper products. And people who use rubber (oooo.........like unicyclists). And people who use computers and consumer electronics and batteries and on and on and on.I don't do any of that stuff, so there! Besides, there are regulations for minimizing the pollution that those necessary and ubiquitous activities create.

[Unibugg]

Why should some toxins be allowed to waft across the room to be inhaled by patrons and employees when other toxins are not? In fact, I think I would be arrested if I sprayed Raid in a restaurant. Why weren't the cigarette smokers arrested? Why are we arguing that they should be allowed to slowly poison people?

Of course it's because smoking has been tolerated by non-smokers for such a long time. Change is slow.

The response that spraying Raid would be ok if the restaurant owner allowed it is totally absurd. By the very nature of their business they have an obligation to provide the safest environment possible for all patrons.

Before the ban here in Florida, I thought an all out ban on smoking in restaurants was wrong. That restaurants should be allowed to choose. But I also knew that this would not change things. Nonsmoking restaurants would not survive as long as there were smoking restaurants because as long as one person smoked in a group most people would choose the smoking restaurant just as they might chose the smoking section in the same cases.

I still haven't changed my mind 100% about an restaurant owners rights to have a smoke filled establishment for patrons who want that. But I do know that until our mindset changes an all out ban is better. The longer citizens are allowed to live in a virtually smoke free environment the easier it will be for non-smoking establishments to remain in business even with smoking restaurants available.

However, I think ALL minors including employees should be prohibited from entering restaurants that allow smoking.

[Gilby]

So, murder is okay? If the property owner says so?

Yes, though change murder to killing, as murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another, in which case, the property owner didn't say so.

You have to remember what property is involved in such a situation. The building owner, in which they can choose to allow it to happen on their property. Then the person who is killed owns their body and if they agreed to playing a game of russian roulette, then they have chosen to allow it. Unlikely to be allowed without clear documentation that it was all agreed to, but nonetheless, it's lawful.

It's just like unicycling down a steep mountain at a unicycling event. We accept the risk associated with the activity involved, which could be death. Banning activities like that is the next logical progression using the same logic of these smoking nazis. It's for our own good of course, or so we're told.

Oh please government, save me from myself!

Public or private -- you can't inflict harm on others.

Without their permission, yes, you can't inflict harm to their property.

How about this as a law -- Smoke all you want in a restaurant, but if a single non-smoker comes in (especially a child), then all smoking must immediately cease until the last non-smoker leaves.

If that's what the property owner defines. Why can't the property owner say that smoking is allowed on his property and non-smokers are not allowed, or are only allowed if they agree to the environment?

That way, the non-smoker can exercise their right to eat wherever they damn well please.

Do you have the right to come into my house and eat? No. So what makes you think you have a right in someone else's property to eat at? You don't. You have no right to eat at any particular place, unless it's your property. The property owner can extend privileges to you to be able to eat there and you can accept that privilege if it meets your desires.

[monkeyman]

SThat way, the non-smoker can exercise their right to eat wherever they damn well please.

Expect me for breakfast on the 5th at 4:30 AM. I prefer my eggs over-easy.

[kerosian]

I hate the fact that their doing this, you know how many mom + pop restaraunts and bars will go out of buisiness because of this! Stupid laws, land of the free?, what a joke!

[gkmac]

The building owner, in which they can choose to allow it to happen on their property. Then the person who is killed owns their body and if they agreed to playing a game of russian roulette, then they have chosen to allow it. Unlikely to be allowed without clear documentation that it was all agreed to, but nonetheless, it's lawful.People who choose to smoke will buy a packet of cigarettes, which have clear documentation i.e. large friendly letters saying "Smoking kills" or "Smoking seriously harms you and others around you". They read the documentation, accept the risks and light up.

Yet pubs and properties with smoking areas didn't seem to have a disclaimer on the entrance saying something like "By entering this area you agree to be surrounded by smokers. This area contains polluted air which may seriously harm your health". Why did I never see those notices?Do you have the right to come into my house and eat? No.Golly. If I ever travel to Minnesota and look for a place to stay and eat breakfast, I certainly won't be asking you.

[Gilby]

Golly. If I ever travel to Minnesota and look for a place to stay and eat breakfast, I certainly won't be asking you. You can't just show up and force me to let you eat at my home, but for you and other unicyclists I would be glad to extend the privilege to be able to stay and eat at my home, on my terms of course, such as when it's a good time for me and as long as you aren't doing something that results in me asking you to leave.

You need to understand the difference between rights and privileges. If you own the property, you have all rights to the property. If someone else owns the property, you may be given privileges to the property.

Here is the chapter on Rights v. Privileges (http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/assets/chapter2.pdf) from Micheal Badnarik's book Good to be King.

[s7ev0]

The whole property issue has been niggling at me for a while since I last posted in this thread.

You were right, Gilby, to pull me up on my sloppy thinking re Proudhon and his views on property. I also lumped him in with "the rest of the anarchists" which (as I point out in another thread, but in relation to atheists) is like herding cats - all with minds of their own and not likely to form a single fighting body.

However, I am still worried about your premise that law is based on property. This concerns me because if it's true it pushes people to one side in favour of things (even if you mean property in the narrow sense of "land").

This to me smacks very much of the Thatcher "I'm all right, Jack" years where social welfare took a back seat to individual property accumumation, which left us (and the US I believe after a similar period) in the situation where we have a huge gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

The thing here is that ownership of property should not preclude the owner from having to adhere to laws regarding personal health/welfare of others who will use it (in particular if that owner offers the property for public use). Surely we shouldn't value property over people?

[johnfoss]

Are we again quickly losing sight of the fact that this is not about the rights of smokers but about the rights of property owners?This legislation, to my knowledge, was never about property owners. It was about protecting workers from having to breathe one particular type of carcinogens. In this case, the property owner is collateral damage.

I think part of the message is that if the business owner chooses to operate a business that's open to the public, it's not up to them to allow their customers to give each other cancer. Nobody is forcing said business owners to operate restaurants and bars. This is a free market, and there are plenty of other ways to make money, right?

I hate the fact that their doing this, you know how many mom + pop restaraunts and bars will go out of buisiness because of this! ...land of the free?, what a joke!When this country started out, we had a lot better set of freedoms than most other countries. I kind of doubt this is still the case, but the "uneducated masses", the ones who hoot & holler before the National Anthem is over, don't want to think about that.

As to how many mom & pops will go out of business? Very few if the pattern is the same as it's been in all the places that have gone before Illinois. We've had smoke-free bars here in CA for about 10 years now. I wasn't aware of any of them suffering due to changing smoking laws, as they affected all their competition at the same time. Except perhaps along the Nevada border...

[harper]

This legislation, to my knowledge, was never about property owners. It was about protecting workers from having to breathe one particular type of carcinogens. In this case, the property owner is collateral damage.



You are correct. I was suggesting that the property owners were the victims of the legislation.

[Gilby]

This is a free market, and there are plenty of other ways to make money, right?
Ah, no, it's not a free market. A free market would allow two people to form a contract without the state saying that they can't have certain terms, such as is the case with this awful legislation. Can I agree to be someone's butler and agree to have him smoke in front of me while I have full knowledge of the potential for health risks? Not anymore... Oh please, government, save me from choosing the higher paying yet riskier job. Can I be in a car with someone else doing a business task and we agree to allow each other to smoke? Not anymore... Can I even keep all the property that we agreed to transfer in a contract? Nope, can't do that either.

[johnfoss]

A free market would allow two people to form a contract without the state saying that they can't have certain terms, such as is the case with this awful legislation.Sorry, I don't follow. Two people *can* form a contract to do all sorts of things. This includes smoking in the home (CA at least) for example. But opening it up to the public is a choice.

I agree that there should be room for cigar bars or other smoking-specific establishments. Our governor would agree too. He has his infamous "cigar tent" in a courtyard at the State Capitol. Or at least had. Not sure if it's still there...

[Gilby]

Sorry, I don't follow. Two people *can* form a contract to do all sorts of things.Not of the examples given, in Minnesota. The US is very far from a free market. With all the subsidies, taxation, regulations, and such, it's a coerced market, mostly for the benefit of special corporate interests.

But opening it up to the public is a choice. You said this legislation was for the workers, not the public that go there. So which one is it?

[siafirede]

Without getting into a debate about the "free market" or "property rights"...

When D.C. went smoke free in clubs/restaraunts (bars), there has been no less attendance. It is great being able to not worry about having my jacket smell of smoke for weeks. I don't understand the argument that "mom and pop stores" or small bars will lose business because smoking is banned indoors. That has never been the case from what I have seen. The main effect it will have is on cig/tobacco companies, who will probably experience a slight decrease in sales when people who only smoke when they drink decide to smoke a little less often.

I am pretty sure Virginia will not go smoke free for quite some time though, seeing as how we are the tobacco state, and we wouldn't want to hurt the poor defenseless tobacco corporations from the big bad evil government.

[uni57]

Expect me for breakfast on the 5th at 4:30 AM. I prefer my eggs over-easy.Splendid! Truly free-range, organic eggs (http://www.cherrygrovefarm.com/eggs.html) and naturally-raised bacon (http://www.cherrygrovefarm.com/pork.html) from an heirloom breed of pigs. How about blueberry pancakes with organic blueberries that I picked myself (http://www.netpie.com/)? Some raw, organic milk (http://www.birchwoodfarmdairy.com/) from grass-fed Jersey cows? Is decaf coffee (http://www.sweetmarias.com/coffee.others.decafs.html#KomodoSWP) okay? It's organic and "Swiss water process" decaffeinated. I roast it myself and grind it (http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/windows/LPG2E.html) just before brewing. Do you like Kombucha (http://www.gtskombucha.com/)?

I can't wait! Bring Matt, too. So... the 5th of what?

[UniBrier]

I was at a stop light yesterday when the distinct smell of cigarette smoke came in through my ventilation system. I looked over and saw the driver of the car next to me was smoking with his window down.

There ought to be a law requiring smokers to always be downwind from non-smokers (knowing Washington State, it would probably pass if proposed).

[Unibugg]

The main effect it will have is on cig/tobacco companies, who will probably experience a slight decrease in sales when people who only smoke when they drink decide to smoke a little less often.

And probably a few who end up quitting as it either becomes more socially inconvenient for them or as they find themselves more and more in situations where they can appreciate smoke free air.

[harper]

I would like to see Charles Murray's fictitious plan to motivate people to quit smoking implemented as it was in Losing Ground.

[yoopers]

Mary and I had a great dining out experience today, albeit, up in Rockford so it wasn't at the hometown Butterfly. I still had a lovely double cheeseburger with ketchup, pickles, onions, horseradish, and jalapenos. Thing is, I completely forgot about the smoking ban as we entered the restaurant. Once we were seated, though, I suddenly recalled that the host didn't have to ask us if we wanted smoking or non-smoking. Sure was nice!

[UniTyler]

Once we were seated, though, I suddenly recalled that the host didn't have to ask us if we wanted smoking or non-smoking. Sure was nice!

I remember those days. Washington has had a no smoking indoors rule for a few years now, and I can hardly remember being asked that question. While I am somewhat leery of that right being taken away, it sure is nice (and the bowling alley doesn't smell like an ash tray anymore)!

[yoopers]

(and the bowling alley doesn't smell like an ash tray anymore)!We have completely avoided bowling alleys for years. Now it just might be fun to go again. I wonder if they have cheeseburgers there?

[yoopers]

While I am somewhat leery of that right being taken away,
Ty,

Smokers can still smoke. Eaters can now eat.

Oops, here we go again...

[UniBrier]

Everyone to my place by 8:00 tonight. Forgot to humidify the humidor so got to smoke a stack of cigars before they get too dry.

I'll save the best one for Yoopers!



Edit: And we're smoking outside, under the porch if it rains.

[yoopers]

Everyone to my place by 8:00 tonight. Forgot to humidify the humidor so got to smoke a stack of cigars before they get too dry.

I'll save the best one for Yoopers!



Edit: And we're smoking outside, under the porch if it rains.
Sorry, that's 10:00 p.m. my time, past my bedtime. You'll just have to enjoy a second one in my honor.

[harper]

Why is this thread still alive? Is Illinois no longer smoke free? I can't believe that an entire state legislature would suddenly come to their senses at once.

[yoopers]

Why is this thread still alive?
Probably because I'm gloating a bit. You always win some and you lose some. This time, I can relish in a little step my way.

Okay, gloat time is over. Back to your regularly scheduled debate threads, already in progress.

[Unibugg]

Actually I am really glad for this thread. It's helped me to remember what it used to be like and better appreciate the present.

Some things we take for granted and shouldn't. Thanks for the thread, Yoopers.

[johnfoss]

And probably a few who end up quitting as it either becomes more socially inconvenient for them or as they find themselves more and more in situations where they can appreciate smoke free air.Actually I think tons of people quit smoking with the help of these bans, as it takes away a lot of the temptation they might otherwise be exposed to. But I don't have any numbers on this, just anecdotal data of many people I know who have quit in recent years.

I was thinking about this debate today as I drove in pouring rain, and wondered why some of the other cars out there didn't turn their headlights on. It's not the law here in CA, though in NY if your windshield wipers are running, your headlights are supposed to be on. Another law that has supposedly been enacted "for our own good."

Which got me to thinking of a different one, mandatory seat belts. Remember all the complaining people did when those laws came around? Waaah, taking away our freedoms, etc.! Okay, here's the reality. Now that people are used to these laws, the # of highway deaths is way down in accidents where seat belts were a factor. You don't hear nearly as often about accidents where the dead person was "thrown" or "ejected" from the vehicle.

So, maybe it's better to respect peoples' freedom to not buckle up. And that's fine, for the most part. But if my insurance rates are going to go up because some people are either too lazy to protect themselves, or like most people don't realize what a difference it makes, no I'm a little more concerned about the bottom line.

More people getting killed for stupid, preventable reasons costs the rest of us (the smarter ones) more money. Once again money talks.

[harper]

Actually I think tons of people quit smoking with the help of these bans, as it takes away a lot of the temptation they might otherwise be exposed to.

Tons of people aren't very many. A ton of small people is 20. A ton of big people is 10.

[uni57]

Tons of people aren't very many. A ton of small people is 20. A ton of big people is 10.LOL, this is why we let you continue to hang around these fora. May I use this without crediting you?

[harper]

LOL, this is why we let you continue to hang around these fora. May I use this without crediting you?

Yes, but you must send a PM to John Foss asking him for more hottie T-shirts every time you use it in print.

[yoopers]

Yes, but you must send a PM to John Foss asking him for more hottie T-shirts every time you use it in print.
I believe we still have some of the Harper hottie temporary tattoos in our possession. I should sell them on eBay.

[maestro8]

I roast it myself and grind it (http://www.bunnomatic.com/pages/windows/LPG2E.html) just before brewing.
How do you make sure the beans are dead before you roast and grind them... I bet you don't! How incredibly cruel, Dave! You should be ashamed...

[uni57]

How do you make sure the beans are dead before you roast and grind them... I bet you don't! How incredibly cruel, Dave! You should be ashamed...I'm an atheist, so I just burn 'em alive. What do I care? Yes, JC is just one big thread. Besides, I have bigger problems -- my crack-addicted grandmother sells babies for $30 and even though I don't eat meat to save the animals my gf still got pregnant and I still don't know what to put in my GOD DAMN SLOW COOKER!!!! And I can't even have a freakin' cigarette with my meal. OKAY??? So back off!

[yoopers]

I'm an atheist, so I just burn 'em alive. What do I care? Yes, JC is just one big thread. Besides, I have bigger problems -- my crack-addicted grandmother sells babies for $30 and even though I don't eat meat to save the animals my gf still got pregnant and I still don't know what to put in my GOD DAMN SLOW COOKER!!!! And I can't even have a freakin' cigarette with my meal. OKAY??? So back off!
Dave, do you need a hug? Come here, big boy.

[Gilby]

However, I am still worried about your premise that law is based on property. This concerns me because if it's true it pushes people to one side in favour of things (even if you mean property in the narrow sense of "land").

This to me smacks very much of the Thatcher "I'm all right, Jack" years where social welfare took a back seat to individual property accumumation, which left us (and the US I believe after a similar period) in the situation where we have a huge gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

You're limiting what property is. Everyone is a "have" when it comes to property. They own their body. They have ultimate authority over the risk they put their body in and what they allow to be done with their body. They can use their body to accumulate other property, such as through contracting their labor in exchange for property. And finally, they have the right to their property to do as they want with it as long as they don't violate the right of other's property.

I'm not familiar with UK politics from the Thatcher era, but I'm guessing it was more of a corporatism environment like it was here in the US at that time (Reagan era) and still is (ie. where big corporations receive special benefits from the government... aka. fascism). Most socialists mistakenly think corporatism is capitalism and therefore say that the market doesn't work.

The thing here is that ownership of property should not preclude the owner from having to adhere to laws regarding personal health/welfare of others who will use it (in particular if that owner offers the property for public use).

It doesn't. You can't violate the property rights of others, and the law of torts all comes down to property rights. In the case of allowing smoking, no property rights are violated, because it is known by the people who chose to work or go there.

[JJuggle]

and I still don't know what to put in my GOD DAMN SLOW COOKER!!!!
Cholent.

[JJuggle]

I believe we still have some of the Harper hottie temporary tattoos in our possession. I should sell them on eBay.
I had no idea Harper hottie tattoos were available.

I'm just trying to imagine the look on my wife's face when I come home with a permanent one.

[johnfoss]

Tons of people aren't very many. A ton of small people is 20. A ton of big people is 10.To quote Jay Leno, "How fat are we?" A ton of people used to mean thousands? What's the world coming to?

[harper]

A ton of people used to mean thousands?

Sorry. I don't remember the day when people weighed a few ounces.

[uni57]

I don't remember the day when people weighed a few ounces.Ah! The good old days.

Those were the days, my friend.
We thought they'd never end.

Those were the days, oh yes those were the days.

[maestro8]

They own their body. They have ultimate authority over the risk they put their body in and what they allow to be done with their body.... And finally, they have the right to their property to do as they want with it as long as they don't violate the right of other's property.
Ultimate authority? Please explain.

If I could, I wouldn't allow satellites and airplanes to photograph my property from overhead. But I can't, and it happens.

As for risk, I'd prefer that radiation doesn't pass through my body. But I can't shut off the cell phone towers, power lines, satellite dishes and etc. that surround me.

There have to be some limits to property. I mean, if I "own" a plot of land, how far up or down does that ownership extend? From the core of the earth to the end of the atmosphere? Can I tax planes for flying through "my" airspace?

What about air? Do I own all the air on my property? Do I own the electromagnetic waves that pass across my property?

[Gilby]

Good questions.

If I could, I wouldn't allow satellites and airplanes to photograph my property from overhead. But I can't, and it happens.
If your property is in view of their property, then you really can't prevent them. In this case, your property is emitting radiation (light) that is visible to them, so they have the right to capture it from their property. They don't have the right to radiate onto your property to do so (such as using a flash or light).

As for risk, I'd prefer that radiation doesn't pass through my body. But I can't shut off the cell phone towers, power lines, satellite dishes and etc. that surround me.
You could if you prove strict causal harm beyond a reasonable doubt that the radiation is interfering with your just property.

There have to be some limits to property. I mean, if I "own" a plot of land, how far up or down does that ownership extend?
It depends on what you own. Most people in the US do not own the land as they don't have an allodial title to it. What they own are the rights to use the land, as entitled in the permit(s) they hold, and then they own any buildings and such that are on it. Unfortunately, the mineral rights and airspace is owned by the government.

If you had an allodial title to the land, you would own land to the center of the earth and the airspace above it.

What about air? Do I own all the air on my property? Do I own the electromagnetic waves that pass across my property?
No, you do not own the radiation that crosses your property, but you do own the right of not having radiation that causes harm to your property, assuming nobody owns the radiation before you homesteaded your property. For example, let's say I own an airport which emits sound. The property around me is not owned by anyone, but then you move in and homestead some property nearby. You can not have a claim against me because of the sound level emitted on the airport, but if I expand the airport and increase the sound level, you can then get an injunction. The same principles apply to other forms of radiation.

Another example, lets say I start to broadcast on a radio frequency that was not used. I therefore have homesteaded that frequency in that given area, which means I own that property, unless it harms your property. If you were to broadcast on that frequency and cause harm to the broadcast I own, then I could make a claim against you.

[maestro8]

Good questions.
Thanks for the answers.

With all the laws, regulations and whatnot in the USA, it really doesn't seem like we're allowed to own anything... even our own bodies. They sure do a good job at creating the illusion that we can own things, though. If people only knew...

I start to broadcast on a radio frequency that was not used. I therefore have homesteaded that frequency in that given area, which means I own that property
This is the problem with radiation. It is very hard to stop it from propagating everywhere.

The FCC would like a word with you regarding your pirate radio station.

[Gilby]

With all the laws, regulations and whatnot in the USA, it really doesn't seem like we're allowed to own anything... even our own bodies. They sure do a good job at creating the illusion that we can own things, though. If people only knew...

You are exactly right. In a society that controls your property, what do you own? If you don't even own anything, what are you? A slave?

While nobody can own the rights to your property, what do you own the rights to? Your body and any property you have purchased?

This is the problem with radiation. It is very hard to stop it from propagating everywhere.

Correct, but, if it causes harm, then you have the right to injunct it.

The FCC would like a word with you regarding your pirate radio station. Does the FCC own all frequencies? What authority does the FCC have anyways? If all men are created equal, then what authority does the FCC have? Isn't their authority equal to yours?

[maestro8]

Does the FCC own all frequencies? What authority does the FCC have anyways? If all men are created equal, then what authority does the FCC have? Isn't their authority equal to yours?
From what I know... the FCC has been given the power of the Federal Government to regulate much of the electromagnetic spectrum.

They don't own all frequencies, but they can assess fines against you if you violate their "terms of use". If you cross the FCC, they can bring the Federal court system into play, and it all goes downhill from there... property can be confiscated, people can be jailed, etc.

Sure, all men were created equal, but after creation, some men worm their way into positions of power, and we all know what power does to some people...

[harper]

Sure, all men were created equal, but after creation, some men worm their way into positions of power, and we all know what power does to some people...

...it warms them up.

[Gilby]

From what I know... the FCC has been given the power of the Federal Government to regulate much of the electromagnetic spectrum.

They don't own all frequencies, but they can assess fines against you if you violate their "terms of use". If you cross the FCC, they can bring the Federal court system into play, and it all goes downhill from there... property can be confiscated, people can be jailed, etc.

Yes, that's called tyranny. I don't appreciate it, nor should you.

Sure, all men were created equal, but after creation, some men worm their way into positions of power, and we all know what power does to some people...

Exactly. That's why property rights mean everything. In order to have liberty one needs to understand property rights.

Read the constitution, the declaration of independence, and understand what our government is set up to do... to secure our liberty. It's unfortunate that they have been able to do the exact opposite.

[johnfoss]

The FCC is supposed to "govern" the electromagnetic (broadcast) spectrum because it's a finite resource and, supposedly, somebody has to be in charge of doling out bits and pieces of it so broadcasters don't constantly "overpower" each other and fight over spectrum.

That's just for information. Not like I'm expecting Gilby to say "Oh, okay." :) Not sure how this is handled in other countries, but I assume most have something similar. Things may be wide open out in the middle of the oceans, for example.

Read the constitution, the declaration of independence, and understand what our government is set up to do... to secure our liberty. It's unfortunate that they have been able to do the exact opposite.Who makes a buck from securing other peoples' liberty? :cool:

[maestro8]

The FCC is supposed to "govern" the electromagnetic (broadcast) spectrum because it's a finite resource... so broadcasters don't constantly "overpower" each other and fight over spectrum.
Technology is making this a moot point.

The latest generation wireless standard (3G) puts all users on the same frequency at the same time. Digital techniques are used to keep the traffic channels discrete.

This technique can be used in broadcast radio, television, and anything else that requires broadcasting... it won't put the FCC "out of business", but it could make them quite useless.

[JJuggle]

it won't put the FCC "out of business", but it could make them quite useless.
There will still need to be a regulatory agency to monitor wardrobe malfunctions.

[Gilby]

The FCC is supposed to "govern" the electromagnetic (broadcast) spectrum because it's a finite resource and, supposedly, somebody has to be in charge of doling out bits and pieces of it so broadcasters don't constantly "overpower" each other and fight over spectrum.

I am a finite resource as well. That doesn't mean that they can regulate me and make me their slave. I understand that they do that, but they do not have lawful authority to do so.

And yes, the FCC was created because of the scarcity of the spectrum after they claimed the market didn't work. However, it did work before the FCC, by using the court system and property rights like I mentioned before, in the event of disputes on who had the broadcasting rights. What didn't work was when Herbert Hoover created a crisis by letting anybody register any frequency, location and amplitude, regardless of any overlaps.

[uni57]

For example, let's say I own an airport which emits sound. The property around me is not owned by anyone, but then you move in and homestead some property nearby. You can not have a claim against me because of the sound level emitted on the airport, but if I expand the airport and increase the sound level, you can then get an injunction. The same principles apply to other forms of radiation.I live on a busy road. In my lifetime, it has gotten much, much busier. Many cars have loud mufflers. All this adds up to sometimes not being able to hold a conversation standing in my front yard due to the noise. Have I no rights? I don't mind the occasional car whose muffler is in disrepair (maybe they don't have the money to fix it), but so many people today modify their exhaust system to deliberately make it loud. Have I no rights? Aren't there laws against loud mufflers or noise pollution or something? Shouldn't the cops be doing something about these cars?

(okay, it's my parents house -- I rent the second floor -- pretend I'm the property owner)

[maestro8]

Aren't there laws against loud mufflers or noise pollution or something? Shouldn't the cops be doing something about these cars?
I've had similar issues with a neighbor who modified his Harley such that you could hear it from a mile away. I read the vehicle code and determined he was definitely in violation. He also had mounted a stereo system on his handlebars and had to blast the music in order to hear it over his exhaust.

I called the police (non emergency line) and reported him. They took my report over the phone but declined to send a car to his house. For weeks, nothing changed... but luckily he moved shortly thereafter.

Sure, there are laws, but the cops can only do so much with their limited resources. It seems noise violators are on the bottom of their list, at least in my city.

What else can we do? Surely there must be another solution to the situation...

[maestro8]

There will still need to be a regulatory agency to monitor wardrobe malfunctions.
There is, and it's called the Christian Coalition of America.

[siafirede]

I live on a busy road. In my lifetime, it has gotten much, much busier. Many cars have loud mufflers. All this adds up to sometimes not being able to hold a conversation standing in my front yard due to the noise. Have I no rights? I don't mind the occasional car whose muffler is in disrepair (maybe they don't have the money to fix it), but so many people today modify their exhaust system to deliberately make it loud.

Couldn't help it...
The whistles go WOOOOO (http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nnzw_i4YmKk)

It's just for decoration. Just for decoration. It's like an alarm clark WOO WOO.

[JJuggle]

I've had similar issues with a neighbor who modified his Harley such that you could hear it from a mile away. I read the vehicle code and determined he was definitely in violation. He also had mounted a stereo system on his handlebars and had to blast the music in order to hear it over his exhaust.

I called the police (non emergency line) and reported him. They took my report over the phone but declined to send a car to his house. For weeks, nothing changed... but luckily he moved shortly thereafter.

Sure, there are laws, but the cops can only do so much with their limited resources. It seems noise violators are on the bottom of their list, at least in my city.

What else can we do? Surely there must be another solution to the situation...
Noise pollution is very low on the list of law enforcement priorities. We lived down the block from the Hells Angels NY headquarters and little was ever done to curb their 3am motorcycle revving.

My dad bought a bullhorn to yell at them from our window, but my mother dissuaded him from taking up this particular activity.