Posted on 11/16/2005 7:05:02 AM PST by SheLion
If you've gotten used to smoke-free bars, here's a new concept to wrap your mind around: smoke-free cigar lounges. This innovation comes to us courtesy of Washington state's voters, who recently approved an initiative that bans smoking in nearly every indoor location except for private residences.
The ban makes no exception for businesses whose raison d'etre is tobacco consumption, even if they have ventilation systems that whisk smoke away as soon as it's produced. By forbidding smoking within 25 feet of entrances and windows, it even threatens to eliminate sidewalk smoking sections and quick outdoor cigarette breaks.
As these provisions suggest, the real motivation behind government-imposed smoking bans is not to shield customers and employees from secondhand smoke, although that rationale is popular with the general public. For the activists and government officials who push the bans, the main point is to discourage smoking by making it inconvenient and socially unacceptable, transforming it into a shameful vice practiced only in privacy and isolation.
That doesn't mean everyone who voted for the Washington ban, which will be the most restrictive state law of its kind in the country when it takes effect on Dec. 8, is eager to save smokers from themselves. By and large, I'm sure, the ban's supporters simply wanted to avoid tobacco smoke without having to make any sacrifices.
For example, they did not want to have to choose between tolerating smoke and passing over otherwise appealing bars and restaurants that allow smoking. Instead they decided to force the owners of those establishments to change their policies by threatening to fine them and take away the licenses on which their livelihoods depend.
Contrary to the propaganda put out by the initiative campaign (which raised about $1.4 million, more than 100 times as much as the opposition), support for the ban probably had little to do with the possible long-term health effects of secondhand smoke. It's hard to believe there are many people who sit in smoky bars and worry that, if they stay there for 30 years, their tiny risk of
lung cancer might increase slightly.
People who object to secondhand smoke are much more likely to be worried about the immediate smell and discomfort. But they feel that if they pretend to believe the smoke is not only bothering them but might be killing them, their complaint becomes a legally enforceable right.
There is nothing noble about this impulse to impose one's own tastes and preferences on everyone. "People ... stood up and said we believe this is the right thing to do," an American Cancer Society spokesman told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer after the vote. "We're proud to stand along [with] others who are trying to protect their community."
How much courage does it take, in a state where nonsmokers outnumber smokers by four to one, to declare that the minority's desires should count for nothing, even when business owners want to accommodate them? How admirable is it, in a state where 80 percent of restaurants already are smoke-free, to insist that the rest follow suit?
The employee protection excuse does not make this demand any more reasonable. As a nonsmoking Seattle bartender told The Seattle Times, "You know what you're getting into when you work in a bar. If I had a problem with smoke, I'd get another job."
Secondhand smoke is, in any case, not the main concern of those who promote smoking bans in the name of "public health." Laws like Washington's are "one of the most effective ways to provide the strong incentive often needed to get smokers to quit," according to John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health.
"We know tough indoor laws are a motivator to quit," a spokesman for the Washington Department of Health told the Everett Herald. "We want to help people do that." How could smokers be anything but grateful?
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
We need to start discrimination lawsuits against these pukes.
Your State Information: (up to date)
View your tobacco taxes, a comparison of state excise taxes on cigarettes to state excise taxes on beer and wine, MSA payments to date, State laws, and links to other state-specific information.
Alabama Information / Alaska Information / Arizona Information / Arkansas Information / California Information / Colorado Information / Connecticut Information / Delaware Information / DC Information / Florida Information / Georgia Information / Hawaii Information / Idaho Information / Illinois Information / Indiana Information / Iowa Information / Kansas Information / Kentucky Information / Louisiana Information / Maine Information / Maryland Information / Massachusetts Information / Michigan Information / Minnesota Information / Mississippi Information / Missouri Information / Montana Information / Nebraska Information / Nevada Information / New Hampshire Information / New Jersey Information / New Mexico Information / New York Information / North Carolina Information / North Dakota Information / Ohio Information / Oklahoma Information / Oregon Information / Pennsylvania Information / Rhode Island Information / South Carolina Information / South Dakota Information / Tennessee Information / Texas Information / United States Information / Utah Information / Vermont Information / Virginia Information / Washington Information / West Virginia Information / Wisconsin Information / Wyoming Information
"People who object to secondhand smoke are much more likely to be worried about the immediate smell and discomfort."
Does this mean I can now complain about the woman wearing the cheap perfume that stinks to high heaven and gives me headaches?
Gotta love Sullum's reasonability.
Please do!!!!!!
I wish! But the anti's don't care about that. All they want to do is make the smoker's lives as miserable as possible while still using our tax dollars to keep their lives happy and comfortable. It's enough to make one puke.
Funny that the socialists who whine and wring their hands over our "loss of rights" vis-a-vis the War on Terror, have no problem taking away the rights of others when it suits them.
Especially when it's their own home-grown brother who chooses to smoke a legal commodity!
the real problem - and how things have got so far out of line, is that smokers will carp about being picked on, then go right ahead and reelect those doing the picking.
it is hard to think of an election that the margin couldn't have shifted has smokers voted en masse for their own interest.
THANK YOU!
Time to move against Channel#5. That garbage always makes me want to urinate ~ then, after we get rid of that stuff, let's prohibit all anti-smoking activists from using internal combustion engines or eating barbequed food.
This Washington ban was voted on.....and look what happened.........
yep. it's amazing that people would subsidize their own persecution. but it has happenned over and over again...
The Republic is dead. I would like to personally thank the Freepers that support this socialism. Welcome to your new socialist utopia.
But smokers are outnumbered 4-1 in Washington.
Basically smokers are really subsidizing their own persecution through exise taxes. The promoters of these bans are very highly funded through taxes and grants from such leftwing outfits as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Our side soes not have the funding to counter the propaganda. It gets very frustrating whrn you know you have the truth on your side but have no means of getting it in front of the public.
a minority can often prevail if it is viociferous and persistent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.