ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNA AND OTHER STATES

United Pro Choice ^ | 3-6-05 | David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden

[Garnet Dawn]

My hero! I'm still using a quote from him for the opening statement on my blog! Maybe a little crude, but he says it all:

Denis Leary: "Smoking takes 10 years off your life. Well, it's the 10 worst years, isn't it, folks? It's the ones at the end! It's the wheelchair-kidney-dialysis-f*cking years. You can have those years! We don't want 'em, all right!? And with that in mind, light up, everyone, and have a good day."

_________________________________________

As Dennis Leary said long ago, "People, who cares, those are the DIAPER YEARS!" I agree with Dennis. I LOVE Dennis! I can't wait for Rescue Me to start again. He is my kind of guy. LOL! I'm going to save his picture to my files!

[Just another Joe]

Why is it that you cannot seem to understand that when a "private" property owner puts that property into service as a "public" business, he or she no longer retains all of the rights previously enjoyed when it was not a "public" business?

Why is it that you can't understand that unless there is a pressing need due to a health hazard, or they are constitutionally required, the govt should not regulate ANYTHING.

Why is it that you cannot seem to understand that the RIGHTS of the property owner outweigh the likes, or dislikes, of the general populace.
The tyranny of the majority should not prevail over the RIGHTS of the minority.

[Lucky Dog]

Do you have the same objections to taxes on beer, wine, liquor, perfume, etc.? If not, then it seems a bit hypocritical to merely object to those on tobacco products. If you do not object to those taxes on other nonessential products, then why are you only carping about those on tobacco?

Sorry, but your "beautiful reply" did not even come close to addressing my question "perfectly." It was not even in the same ball park. The point was about the hypocrisy of of complaining about tobacco taxes and ignoring similar taxes on other completely non-essential products that are also heavily taxed.

You seem to have forgotten that tobacco usage is the issue being discussed.

No, I haven't forgotten in the slightest. The original whine in this post was about all of the business restaurant and bar owners had supposedly lost due to the failure of smokers to patronize their businesses after smoking bans were effected by law.

A number of "posters" have tried to make the point that, in their opinion, the business owners should have the right to continue to have smoking sections if they so desired as a "property right." Of course, such a position ignores that anytime a property owner turns his or her property into a business open to the public, he or she willingly surrenders such a right among many others.

From this departure point the discussion has wandered to taxes on tobacco, to health detriments resulting from smoking and second-hand smoke, supported, or not, by various studies, etc.

In a nutshell, the upshot of this thread appears to be that a great many smokers seem to feel that regardless of any objection by anyone else (on any grounds) or any law to the contrary, they should have the "right" to inflict their "smoke" on anyone, anytime, any place they choose. Whether this position is disguised as a position on "property rights," "taxation," or any of the other issues brought up here, it boils down to the same point.

The real issue is a "balance" of "rights." The rights of non-smokers to be free of the byproducts of smokers in public businesses and other public places versus the "right" light whenever and where ever a smoker feels the need. The law is, currently, clearly on the side of the non-smoker.

[Lucky Dog]

The tyranny of the majority should not prevail over the RIGHTS of the minority.

Agreed. However, neither should the voluntary, nonessential desires of a minority be classed as a "right" to inflict an undesired and potentially harmful substance on the majority. The majority has RIGHTS, too.

[A CA Guy]

Insanity, I live in California and there are more new businesses opening up than you can shake a stick at.

Some older venues are having trouble because of the change in life styles of the people.

As an example, Sizzlers are suffering, Carl's Juniors are installing dish TV to get sports to compete with the sports bars that are now the main successful places to own.

Anything not new isn't frequented these days often in California.

There are no economic losses, hotels are charging their highest rates and getting it.
Restaurants are mostly full.
Recreation is up.
Despite high gas prices, there are lots of cars with people merchandising inside from shop to shop.

You need a laugh track for this article.

[Garnet Dawn]

You are confusing our society's moral laws with legal products. Alcohol is not prohibited in restaurants and bars. Drunkenness in public is prohibited because the offender has impaired capabilities and judgment. Tobacco is a legal product and has existed for many years without being legislated. Smoking does not impair the user's behavior. If you choose to make the activity of smoking morally unacceptable, that is your problem.

Stop comparing apples to oranges!

Patrons have the choice to select restaurants that do not serve alcoholic beverages. Patrons also have the choice to choose establishments that welcome or do not welcome children. (Poorly behaved children in a restaurant are far more obnoxious to many patrons than smoking could ever be.) They should also have the choice between smoking and non-smoking establishments.

Owners of restaurants and bars should also continue to have the choice of catering to the clientele of their choice.

Has it ever occurred to you that smokers don't like having you around either?

______________________________________________________

Let's take these examples and see by comparison what points are similar to smoking bans in restaurants. First, pornography is legal in most places for adults to purchase. However, there are legal restrictions on where and how it can be displayed by the business owner selling it. (A "legal substance," or item, if you will, that is restricted by law) Second, prostitution is legal in Nevada (not so in most other places in the US). However, even in Nevada, it is legally restricted by more than just "health" regulations. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where and how it can be consumed) Thirdly, public drunkenness is prohibited nearly every where in this country. However, "private" drunkenness is perfectly legal. Additionally, nearly all states have a prohibition against having an open container of alcohol in a moving motor vehicle. (Another "legal substance," if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed) Fourthly, gambling is legal in some states in certain locations but not others. (Another "legal substance," activity, if you will, restricted as to where it can be consumed) In short, there are all kinds of restrictions on property owners that operate "public business" and "legal substances" or "activities" as to where and how they may occur. There is no legal reason for tobacco to be any different.

[Just another Joe]

The majority has RIGHTS, too.

There is no 'right' to not be inconvenienced.

One more time, the preponderance of scientific studies support the fact that there is no harm done, on an otherwise healthy person, by ETS.
This means that it is only an inconvenience to you.

[Just A Nobody]

"My main concern is too much government intervention. Government is just digging into our lives more every day. You would think they had much bigger things to worry about."

I agree totally!

Rather than go back and post to another I will post to you.

1. Have you read "For Your Own Good" by Jacob Sullum?
The anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public
health. It actually goes back centuries. The best part are the arguments against smoking. Almost verbatim, minus the "junk science" stats.

2. Is that a Congresscritter that is doing most of the arguments? There are so many references to "elected representative" and lobbying of legislatures, I was thinking maybe...

Also, I am looking to move. I thought N.C. but after your post, I'm not so sure. Would VA be better, IYO?

[Garnet Dawn]

The original article was based on fact, and well researched statistics. Had it been another bogus health study, using taxpayer dollars to create fictional anti-smoking statistics with predetermined results, you would be convinced. This debate is getting tiresome.

You refuse to respect the perspective of the smoker, therefore, smokers will continue to disrespect yours. We don't even want to be around non-smokers. If you don't like a place where people smoke....pick up your lazy feet and leave. Today, there are many more non-smoking areas than smoking ones.

You are not the one being backed into a corner by narrow minded, for-your-own good, power-greedy people. Take a look at the sky where you live, and what you breath every day, during the next smog alert.

If you didn't like the report...create one that rebuts it.

One day, something you enjoy will be banned. I hope you will remember your attitude toward smokers....not addicts....smokers, who enjoy a simple pleasure that is not fattening, immoral or illegal!

Of course, the special interest groups would never allow it, but I have a solution. If the govenment would keep it's ugly nose out of life-style choices, every restaurant could be turned into a private club, with a membership fee of, say, $1. Everyone could choose the kind of envirioment they preferred and no one would have to be burdened by the effort to co-exist with people they do not choose to be around.

______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/illinoissmokers/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice! _____________________________________________

"You seem to have forgotten that tobacco usage is the issue being discussed."

No, I haven't forgotten in the slightest. The original whine in this post was about all of the business restaurant and bar owners had supposedly lost due to the failure of smokers to patronize their businesses after smoking bans were effected by law.

A number of "posters" have tried to make the point that, in their opinion, the business owners should have the right to continue to have smoking sections if they so desired as a "property right." Of course, such a position ignores that anytime a property owner turns his or her property into a business open to the public, he or she willingly surrenders such a right among many others.

From this departure point the discussion has wandered to taxes on tobacco, to health detriments resulting from smoking and second-hand smoke, supported, or not, by various studies, etc.

In a nutshell, the upshot of this thread appears to be that a great many smokers seem to feel that regardless of any objection by anyone else (on any grounds) or any law to the contrary, they should have the "right" to inflict their "smoke" on anyone, anytime, any place they choose. Whether this position is disguised as a position on "property rights," "taxation," or any of the other issues brought up here, it boils down to the same point.

The real issue is a "balance" of "rights." The rights of non-smokers to be free of the byproducts of smokers in public businesses and other public places versus the "right" light whenever and where ever a smoker feels the need. The law is, currently, clearly on the side of the non-smoker.

[TAdams8591]

This is truly excellent work. Thank you for the ping. I only had time to skim over it quickly but will be back to read it more thoroughly.

[djreece]

You are severely mistaken that smoke eaters are so effective that nonsmokers can't tell when people are smoking in a restaurant. I can't believe you seriously believe that.

Frankly, I think smokers brought the draconian regulations on themselves through decades of assuming they had the "right" to pollute the air in workplaces, lunchrooms and restaurants. I do not necessarily agree with as far as the laws have gone, but in California the laws were passed through the initiative process--a vote of the people. A lot of nonsmokers were simply fed up with rude smokers who presumed to pollute the air anywhere they went.

In answer to your question, yes, I actively avoid casinos on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe or in Las Vegas for precisely the reason that I enjoy the freedom of being able to breathe clean, smoke-free air.

[SheLion]

You are severely mistaken that smoke eaters are so effective that nonsmokers can't tell when people are smoking in a restaurant. I can't believe you seriously believe that.

Are you calling me a liar?  Before Maine was forced to go smoke free, my favorite Tavern down town has 4 big smoke eaters on the ceilings.  The smell of STALE beer and smoke was greatly reduced.  I use air purifiers in my own home, they are that good.

Frankly, I think smokers brought the draconian regulations on themselves through decades of assuming they had the "right" to pollute the air in workplaces, lunchrooms and restaurants. I do not necessarily agree with as far as the laws have gone, but in California the laws were passed through the initiative process--a vote of the people. A lot of nonsmokers were simply fed up with rude smokers who presumed to pollute the air anywhere they went.

And I am sick and tired of RUDE people such as yourself that thinks the world should rotate on their ass.

In answer to your question, yes, I actively avoid casinos on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe or in Las Vegas for precisely the reason that I enjoy the freedom of being able to breathe clean, smoke-free air.

Well.... bully for you!

[SheLion]

Also, I am looking to move. I thought N.C. but after your post, I'm not so sure. Would VA be better, IYO?

Gabz recently moved to VA. They are quit happy there so far.

You might want to FReep mail her and get more information. I know that VA is a gorgeous state.

[SheLion]

You need a laugh track for this article.

So you travel up and down the state on a routine basis to find this out?  And you are calling Dave Hitt and the two guys that did all the studies and research on this paper liars?

I don't know about you people that call yourselves Conservatives.  As long as Freedom continues to ring for you, you are a happy camper and to hell with the rest of us.

Thanks a lot.  It's a wonder our party survives with the likes of you.

So you can spew what you want, but I don't see YOUR opinion voiced in a link anywhere.  It's easy to say the words.  Much harder to prove what you say.  You must think all of the following are liars!

California Smokers Use Prohibition Tactics to Get Around Ban

While cops try to sniff out the worst offenders, in many cases they're butting up against organized opposition. Bartender phone trees warn each other of impending busts, powerful fans blow away tell-tale scents of "smokin' in the boys room" and tin cans double as ashtrays in case of an unexpected visit by police.

click here

SMOKING BAN IMPACT ON CALIFORNIA RESTAURANTS

That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bars does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California.
Otto J. Mueksch
President, Californians For Smokers Rights 

Lots of Room At The Inn

San Francisco Examiner, April 19, 2001

* A hotel-industry study released this week shows that San Francisco's
hotel-occupancy rates have shrunk to 1994 levels. City hotels are
operating at 74% capacity. Rooms priced at more than $160 are about
69% full. While those numbers aren't disastrous, they are a far cry
from the stuffed hostelries we've been used to the last few years.

CALIFORNIA: 5-year-old ban in bars leaves owners, customers fuming

5 January 2003

"I think if the government helps me one more time I'll be out of business," Newlove said as most of his customers nodded in agreement.

article here

[SheLion]

This is truly excellent work. Thank you for the ping. I only had time to skim over it quickly but will be back to read it more thoroughly.

Thank you so much.  And your respect is beautiful!  I truly appreciate FReepers like you! :)

[Lucky Dog]

You are confusing our society's moral laws with legal products.

No, I was not. In each exemplary, comparative case that I cited, I pointed out that the case in point was legal in some jurisdictions but still legally regulated as to where and how it (the product or activity) was consumed or used. Alcohol is a legal product in many, but not all jurisdictions. Prostitution is a legal activity in some jurisdictions which does not impair the "user's" behavior. The same is true of pornography. Your judgment of the "morality" of these examples has nothing to do with the exemplary nature of their regulation which I was citing for comparison with tobacco usage.

My citation was manifestly not a comparison of "apples and oranges." Rather, it was a comparison of behaviors that are all regulated by law as to the place and time in which the behavior may be indulged.

Patrons have the choice to select restaurants that do not serve alcoholic beverages.

You are correct, but your analogy fails. Contrastingly in your example, unlike smoke, patrons are not forced to "indulge in" the behavior of alcohol consumption merely by frequenting that establishment. Patrons who do indulge and "over-imbibe" to the detriment of those around them are asked to leave. The same is not true of smokers.

Patrons also have the choice to choose establishments that welcome or do not welcome children. (Poorly behaved children in a restaurant are far more obnoxious to many patrons than smoking could ever be.)

You may be correct. However, there are no health studies (disputed, or otherwise) that support any conclusion, whatsoever, that "second-hand" exposure to obnoxious children is hazardous to anyone's health.

They should also have the choice between smoking and non-smoking establishments.

They do, "public" businesses or "private" clubs/homes.

Owners of restaurants and bars should also continue to have the choice of catering to the clientele of their choice.

Do not "owners of restaurants and bars" ("public" businesses, of course) currently "cater" to just one one type of sports fan, music type lover, etc.? In deed, they do. However, in none of the cases do these owners have the right to expose their clientele the results of behavior by other clientele that is prohibited by law.

Has it ever occurred to you that smokers don't like having you around either?

As long as I am only indulging in legal and nominally polite behavior, I do not care. Similarly, I do not care if smokers are around under the same circumstances.

[Lucky Dog]

There is no 'right' to not be inconvenienced.

Similarly, there is no right to smoke anywhere and any time one chooses.

...This means that it is only an inconvenience to you.

In like manner, restricting where and when you may smoke is only an inconvenience to you. It seems to be a clash of "inconveniences," does it not?

Such "clashes" are usually resolved through the legal system, either legislatively or judicially. In this case, they have been. The fact that the resolution is not to your liking does not make the settlement any less Constitutional or "freedom reducing" than any other, similar resolution in a different area.

[Just another Joe]

The fact that the resolution is not to your liking does not make the settlement any less Constitutional or "freedom reducing" than any other, similar resolution in a different area.

You refuse to understand.
It is not about my, or your, likes or dislikes.
If a business owner wants to make his business nonsmoking, as you say you have done, I have no problem with that.
Where I have a problem is when government steps in, lacking scientific proof of a health hazard, without an amendment to, at least, the state constitution, to FORCE a business owner to be a completely smoke free environment.
The government has NO business, lacking scientific proof of a health hazard, enforcing ANY type of ban.

Have you ever seen a disclaimer on a restaurant menu saying that undercooked eggs can be a health hazard? Yet they will still serve them any way you want them up to, and including, raw.
Should the government step in and ban the serving olf undercooked eggs? It's a verifiable, scientifically proven, health hazard.

I do not, as you seem to pontificate, want to smoke my cigarette, cigar, or pipe anywhere, anytime, any way I wish.

Until such a time as the preponderance of evidence pointe to a health hazard from ETS, I want the decision of smoking or smoke free to be left to the business owner.

It's the way it SHOULD be and the way it WOULD be if government didn't overstep it's bounds.
That simple.

[Lucky Dog]

The original article was based on fact, and well researched statistics.

Does this statement, even if true, somehow change the point of the article? (The original whine in this post was about all of the business restaurant and bar owners had supposedly lost due to the failure of smokers to patronize their businesses after smoking bans were effected by law. )

This debate is getting tiresome.

Does this statement mean you are withdrawing from the debate?

...Everyone could choose the kind of environment they preferred and no one would have to be burdened by the effort to co-exist with people they do not choose to be around.

That option exists today. The fact that restaurant owners choose to keep their businesses open to the public rather than turning them into private clubs means that they are subject to restrictions such as smoking bans. It remains a matter of their choice.

[Lucky Dog]

You refuse to understand... The government has NO business, lacking scientific proof of a health hazard, enforcing ANY type of ban.

On the contrary, I understand perfectly. I just happen to disagree.

As I have observed with several examples, the government has enforced bans or restrictions in a number of cases without "scientific proof." Your only counter has been that tobacco is a "legal substance." Well, so is pornography. Nonetheless, this legal "substance" has a great many restrictions on it for business owners. I see no difference in principle between the two situations.

It's the way it SHOULD be and the way it WOULD be if government didn't overstep it's bounds. That simple.

The key difference seems to be where you (and your fellow smokers) think the "BOUNDS" of government should be versus where the majority of the population thinks they should be. Given that none of your objections have involved any of the individual guarantees in the Bill or Rights, it would appear that your position is only an opinion versus the opinion of many more of your fellow citizens. In a democratic republic such as ours, you remain entitled to hold your opinion but not demand that others adhere to it. In contrast, the rule of law as enacted by the representatives of the people at variance with your opinion rightly requires you to adhere to its position, diagree or not.