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.
I'll be honest; my initial reaction was "yes". After all, it was a benefit to me and didn't hurt me at all, right?
But then I sat down and thought about it. Carefully. And I had to ask myself if it was the right thing to do. After putting my conservative hat on and actually reading the language of the initiative (novel concept, I know) I changed my vote to "no".
I think the reason this passed is that too many people went with their initial reaction and didn't stop to think it through. Sadly, that's how most of our initiatives are decided.
"The problem with democracy is that..."
...it is a stepping stone to socialisme, which is precisely why we are not a democracy. The wisdom of our Founders is being stomped on by the current electorate.
Thank you for putting on your conservative hat and actually paying attention.
Just got around to this post and I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
On second thought,I think I'll just light up and think about it.
Hey, you're still alive! LOL Haven't seen you around for a while, Randall. Think the last time I talked to you, your mom had knocked over (and wiped out) your fledgling tobacco plants.
I still say the 'freedom of assembly' route is the way to go for lawsuits.
WHAT? How could they do that? I thought anything on Indian land was exempt from the 'white eyes' laws?
The irony here is, I'd be willing to bet far more American Indians are tobacco smokers than any other 'born-here' racial group. Every time I traveled out west, every one I saw smoked.
What you need to do, if this is such a burning issue with you (and believe me, I understand why it is-I'm pissed off about it, and don't live there) is to somehow get your message across to those who would be inclined to go to those casinos, via flyers, newspaper ads in the classified section, getting on local talk radio, whatever. You'll probably just be pissing into the wind, though, because, as you say, smokers everywhre are becoming desperate to go out somewhere and relax among other smokers. And the Indians of course know that.
Then comes the Food Free resturaunt- Guess that would end those lawsuits against the Fast Food places- you drive through- they give you an empty bag with some napkins in it.
You wouldn't be suggesting that current smokers adopt PETA or Greepeace tactics
I did consider writing letters to the editor or something... because not everyone is aware that the tribes were actively funding this... Whether I actually will do it, I don't know...
What's the point, you know? I feel for my local pub I used to go to, because their sales will hurt, their jobs and tips will suffer. Those working the casino bars are just out tryin' to earn a check too. They weren't involved in the Tribal PAC... And people go to the casinos for a lot more than just to find a place to smoke. It's just depressing. I want to go out to my local pub a few times before this gets enacted, so I can smoke and tip them well... they'll need it.
Well....not ragging on you here, Hair, really I'm not-but-there's an old saying that if you're apethetic & you won't do anything to try to change things-you're part of the problem. I personally had a hand in helping the Toledo smoking ban amendment passed (to allow smoking in bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, and any small (LOCALLY OWNED) restaurant with ten employees or less. Also, any place that is willing to spend the money to build a separated smoking room with ventilation may do so). Proud of it, too. Of course, since it passed, the usual suspects (AHA,ALA,ACS) are now pushing for a statwide ban, because the Toledo vote-their first loss in the state-pissed them off. But the business owners are at least organized now.
Point taken!
I have already smoked a few and pondered this article.
Maine: Would smoke-free casino succeed?
If you want to gamble in Maine, leave your smokes at the door.
Don't blame me - I voted NO on 901. And, for the record, I am a militant non-smoker.
Sorry about the typos in my last post to you-guess I need glasses. LOL Although I had a hand in fundraising for the business owners that were backing the amendment (and they were still outspent on ads 4-1 or 5-1), my crowning achievement , I have to confess, was purely a stroke of luck. I wrote a letter to the editor of one of the local weekly papers (with a wide circulation among people who can't stand the Blade) as I knew the Blade (rabidly smoker-hater, would never have published it). I stated the amount the heads of the ACS, the ALA, & the AHA in every state got for a salary, compared to the NATIONAL heads of TRUE non-profit orgs like the Salvation Army. I told how the parking lot at the national headquarters for the ACS was filled with expensive SUV's, Lexus, Mercedes, etc. I then stated the amount the 3 usual suspects were spending on ads to get the amendment to fail. I ended it by saying, "Isn't it indeed a pity that all this money (including those exorbitant salaries), raised mainly by your donations, can't be used for research, as it was intended?" They published my letter four days before the election-therefore, they had no time for rebuttal-they would've had to lie, anyway, since everything I said was the truth. The amendment passed by less than a thousand votes. So, I like to think that my letter influenced a lot of people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll bet it did.
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.