Can I Buy You a Drink and Light Your Cigarette? (Cathryn Crawford)

The Washington Dispatch ^ | January 2, 2004 | Cathryn Crawford

[Scenic Sounds]

It seems that everyone has an opinion on the smoking bans that have been put into place in the last year. From Dallas to New York City to California, smokers are no longer allowed to smoke inside bars and restaurants. These bans have been met with great resistance, not only from smokers, but from the owners of the bars and restaurants, who say that the restriction is harming their business and causing profit loss. The opponents of such a ban also say that the bans are unconstitutional, because they prohibit legal behavior in privately owned places of business.

Most people rightly characterize this issue as having two sides - those on the side of property rights and liberty, and those who are on the side of public health. (I am without the scientific qualifications to resolve that issue, but I am comfortable assuming that cigarette smoke doesn't become safer just because one person has inhaled it before it gets to me.) Granting that assumption, which deserves priority – the right of a proprietor to control what legal activities happen in his bar, or the right of a member of the public to live and work in the safest environment possible?

Those who endorse the public health side of this issue contend that health issues outweigh every argument. They believe that people have the right to always be in the safest environment possible (whether they want to be or not), and that legislation is the proper vehicle by which to ensure public health. Their basic belief is that nothing is more important than health and safety for everyone, not even the idea of personal choice. They are willing to have their personal liberties curbed because they believe that it will improve the quality of their lives.

However, I believe that it really comes down to personal choice and responsibility. When someone makes a decision (any decision), they must decide for themselves what risks are involved, and weigh them rationally against the benefits. This applies to the decision to eat, drink, or work in a certain bar or restaurant, just as it does when someone makes the decision to drive a car, eat junky foods, or drink alcohol – all activities which are potentially dangerous but very legal. A ban on smoking takes away the choices of all three parties involved – smokers, nonsmokers, and owners. It also assumes that people are not sufficiently reasonable or rational enough to make their own decisions regarding their health.

Are there are ways to allow both sides to have a say in public smoking? Of course there are. Why not just require restaurants and bars that permit smoking to post a notice advising prospective customers of the hazard?

Until smoking is banned altogether, the decisions regarding the right to smoke in privately owned businesses should be left up to the individual discretion of the owner. Otherwise, choice is removed and replaced with full control by the government, which invalidates the entire idea of private ownership.

Cathryn Crawford is a student at the University of Texas. She can be reached at CathrynCrawford@WashingtonDispatch.com.

[Old Professer]

In what dictionary do you find the word, bartend?

[Old Professer]

You can't even get those people to empty the bedpans, let alone the ashtrays.

[Old Professer]

Smoke kills germs, the stink is in the nose of the besmeller.

[Northern Yankee]

Ever get this feeling of late? LOL...

It just drives me crazy to see adults having to go outside to light a cigarette. Although I am not a smoker, we continue to treat smokers as second class citizens.

The most bothersome thing of all is that all this money that was going to be collected by the States from the cigarette companies never went where it was intended. The trial lawyers got their fill, as did the States. Extortion at the highest level.

My father used to smoke a pipe, and I loved the smell. It meant that dad was home in the evening. There was such a comfort to those of us in the family. (Dad died several years ago, but it wasn't tobacco related...) Unfortunately now the stigma is there for all smokers, that they are considered not worthy to smoke in most establishments.

I like the fact that Peter Jackson had the hobbits, and Aragorn smoking pipes in the LOTR movies. Didn't hear much from the PC crowd about that. Thank Goodness!

[Old Professer]

If the average pot-smoker smoked as many joints per day as the average cigarette smoker smokes, he would have been a hood ornament on a city bus years ago.

[SheLion]

The most bothersome thing of all is that all this money that was going to be collected by the States from the cigarette companies never went where it was intended. The trial lawyers got their fill, as did the States. Extortion at the highest level.

Oh boy! I must make you see the light here!  The Tobacco Settlement money is NOT being paid for by Big Tobacco and NOT the state governments.  That money is paid solely by smokers in the state that pay taxes on cigarettes!

Why do you think they keep bumping the cigarette tax?  To bleed more money out of us!

And when the smokers get smart and order offline or roll their own, they are not paying into the state coffers anymore.  So.......what does the state do?  They raise taxes on cigarettes to make up for the loss. Then, they also use this money to control, restrict and ban the smokers!  Yet, their paychecks are being paid for by the MSA money, which is paid for by smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes!

Its like this:

[SheLion]

If the average pot-smoker smoked as many joints per day as the average cigarette smoker smokes, he would have been a hood ornament on a city bus years ago.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

TOBACCO NEWCOMERS????!!!!!

Yes, your arguments vis-a-vis tobacco smoking and freedom are reminiscent of the things we've been arguing vis-a-vis marijuana smoking and freedom for years now. Welcome to the club.

[SheLion]

Yes, your arguments vis-a-vis tobacco smoking and freedom are reminiscent of the things we've been arguing vis-a-vis marijuana smoking and freedom for years now. Welcome to the club.

Yes! But tobacco has always been a legal commodity.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Yes! But tobacco has always been a legal commodity.

So was cannabis up until 1937. Your point?

[Poser]

I fully agree. You can smoke in my bar anytime.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Nice work Cathryn.

Now, watch the Crusade on fat people roll.

Same arguments, similar legislation.

If the health effects of smoking are detrimental to the work place vis a vis health care cost and loss productivity, the same arguments will hold water for obesity...whatever the final definition of obesity may be.

The IRS already got the ball rolling by defining obesity as a disease, and allowing peole to deduct diet plans, helth club memberships, etc. from their taxes.

[Gabz]

But tobacco has always been a legal commodity.

Not true - it was illegal in many states in the late 19th and early 20th century, even up to the years of prohibition.

[Northern Yankee]

I do sympatize...

I have been educated. Thanks for the enlightened (Pun intended?) view.

This whole thing has smelled fishy from the start. I do know that alot of smokers head over to our local indian gaming casinoes to buy cigarettes that are tax free.

It seems as though the Clinton administration went after "Big Tobacco" because they had failed miserably in the drug enforcement area.

[Gabz]

Same arguments, similar legislation.

But you forgot to mention same players and same money.

Not only are some of the sharks, oops I mean lawyers, that have started the lawsuits against the fast food chains the same ones that targetted the tobacco industry, they are bragging about how they are using that experience and money to get the next ball rolling.

Additionally, the RWJFoundation is kicking money into that battle and also against the alcohol industry.

[Dan from Michigan]

Public health...don't even get me started on those types.

Reminds me of the movie Demolition Man. Everything is illegal....caffine, uneduational toys, guns, meat, salt, swearing.

[Dan from Michigan]

Can I Buy You a Drink and Light Your Cigarette?

And speaking of which, I'll take a Guinness. Thanks.

[TigersEye]

I love smokers. Every time they buy a pack of cigarettes, they pay a few dollars tax that I won't have to pay. Thank you guys.

I haven't bought a pack of cigarettes for twelve years ... but I still smoke 10-20 cigarettes a day.

[Amelia]

Until smoking is banned altogether, the decisions regarding the right to smoke in privately owned businesses should be left up to the individual discretion of the owner. Otherwise, choice is removed and replaced with full control by the government, which invalidates the entire idea of private ownership.

Makes sense to me!

[Cathryn Crawford]

No assumption deserves priority. Science is divided on the effects of second hand smoke.

Read the entire sentence and you'll see that I wasn't dicussing the assumpution - I was discussing which one of the following options deserved priority.