The Hazards of a Smoke-Free Environment

CNSNews.com ^ | May 26, 2003 | Robert W. Tracinski

[Gabz]

Thank you.

[philetus]

Right now the gov is being their mommy and they are happy.

Wait until the gov starts being their psychotic, perverted uncle.

[Gabz]

I'm sorry - my post in response was supposed to be longer.

Thank you.

It's amazing how many anti-smokers have jumped all over me about what I did because they determined I was the offender.

Yet, these same people brag about doing the same thing because someone was smoking in an establishment they entered and did what these people did to me.

I just do not understand those kind of people - I would never sit in the non-smoking section and complain I couldn't smoke or enter a non-smoking restaurant and complain.

I'm a smoker, but there are plenty of places I went to that were non-smoking before the Delaware ban, because I loved their food. In Dover, Delaware getting good Thai, Vietnamese or Mexican food is difficult unless you cook it yourself. But there were times I didn't feel like cooking it.

[Lorianne]

Well if they had a smoking section, you are entitled to site there and smoke. Period.

Duh?

Likewise if they have a non-smoking section, there should be no cigarette smoke in it. Period.

And anyone is entitled to leave if their expectations aren't being met. The customer is always right if you're planning on doing business. Before the smoking bans, there were many occasions I sat in a "non-smoking" section which directly abutted smoking sections upwind (like on decks and terraces which blew the smoke into the non-smoking section). When that happened I'd get up and leave without paying even if I'd already ordered. And I'd make sure they knew exactly why they were losing my business.

Business owners really just want the business and most are eager to please both smokers and non-smokers. It's just damn hard to do, so I really feel for them. But, I'm not going to pay $60+ to eat with the smell of cigarette smoke. So I ended up not eating at quite a few places.

I still support the right of a restaurant to have smoking if it wants.

[Gabz]

I appreciate your comments, and your position.

My problem is with the outside seating - the establishment has no control over wind direction.

In Delaware the only place for smokers to be is on the outside - and this was NOT the choice of the businesses - the state said so because it was decided the majority of residents were in favor of a total smoking ban.

It may sound rude, but my attitude is - fine - you got your smoke free bars and restaurants, use them, indoors. Those establishments that have outdoor areas should be be allowed to leave them to the smokers without harrasment.

[Just another Joe]

Would you be agreeable to a taxpayer referendum on the matter of outdoor public places regardless of the outcome?

As long as the property is owned by the government entity - yes.

[gtech]

I have no problem with them asking you to put the cig out, it's their establishment, they can ask anything they want. I also have no problem with your refusal to stay there after having been asked.

I am having a similar debate over the new law in FL. Here is my last email:

This isn't about a right to smoke. I have no problems with bans on smoking in public buildings, and I have no problem with a property owner banning smoking on his own. In fact I welcome it. There is no "right" to smoke. However, I have a problem with a property owner losing his right to decide whether to allow an otherwise perfectly legal activity or not, by big-government intervention.

We both agree that we hate the smell of smoke. We both agree that we would rather eat at a restaurant that prohibits smoking. We disagree only on the method to get what we want. You want to government to do it for you, and I think that is leftist thinking and your otherwise good judgment has escaped you on this issue. When "they" want to use this new government power to take away your too-big-SUV or McDonalds cheeseburgers, you might begin to understand it's the same people using the same principals. It may be too late.

Let me ask you this: Since loud music damages hearing, should the government require that night-clubs limit how loud music can be played in order to protect the health employees of these establishments? Or, do the people who choose to work at these loud places assume the responsibility for their own health? What about the patrons? Shouldn't we protect them? What if they don't have the good sense to limit their exposure to loud music? Is government the answer?

Last point. You do not have a "right" to go to any restaurant you want. You can be denied entry based on the clothes you are wearing, or almost any (non-discriminatory) criteria, and can be asked to leave any at any time (no shoes, no shirt, no service... no weapons... no overly loud patrons... no smokers.... etc ). You do not have the "right" to someone else's private property, even if it's publicly accessible. A property owner has (or used to have, SHOULD have) the right to choose what he allows and what he doesn't without government interference. If you can legally do it on your front porch where everyone can see you, then you should be able to allow (or dis-allow) it in your private establishment. Public property, and places where you have no choice to be (court, DMV, etc) are different.

But... it's now the law of the state and it's in the constitution. As ill-advised as it is, the people have spoken and I lose. The problem is we all lose, and we are ever closer to a statist government. It makes me glad that I don't have kids, because the mess we're leaving behind is not the country we grew up in.

[Just another Joe]

but would they involve the government if they were NOT hired because they were smokers? How about if they were charged a higher health insurance rate?

Both have already happened and the smokers, while rightly ticked off, did not involve the government. The went after the culprits themselves with letter writing campaigns, boycotts, etc. They did NOT involve the government.

[Gabz]

Very powerful e-mail.

I understand your point with regard to their right to ask me to put out my cigarette, although I do not agree with it. Just like government mandated smoking bans imposed on private establishments, the rules are being changed in the middle of the game.

I was offered a seat in the smoking section, an area set aside to make me comfortable (mandated by the government, I might add) and after waiting to be so accomodated I was told I would no longer be accomodated.

People who choose to sit in the smoking area of a restaurant should have no expectation of a smoke-free dining experience. Had I lit up in a smoke-free area, that would have been a different story.

[Just another Joe]

Once it affects others, even on an inconvenience level, then others have a say. That's called living in a society of laws.

This is where your thinking is flawed.
Just because of inconvenience, you would create a law that restricts the liberty of 25% of the population.
Just because of inconvenience people chew up and spit on the constitutional guarantees of the 2nd amendment.
Do you see where this flaw in your thinking leads?

[Gabz]

OOPS - apologies - I hit POST prior to finish my comments regarding your email.

You bring up good points in regard to loud music. I made some similar comments regarding those who work in radio on another board and was torn to shreds by numerous anti-smokers about it.

The gist of my comments were that when I worked in adio most of the folks I worked with were partially deaf, mostly from having their headset volumes set too high - and the more more hearing loss they had the higher the volume they needed to hear through the headsets. I always kept my headset volume at the lowest possible for me to hear the necessary "cues" for my next move.

In a totally sarcastic manner I called for a government mandate on volume control of headsets at radio stations because those workers were just as entitled to a safe work environment as any other worker.

I was accused of stooping to an all time low of trivializing the health hazards of working in a smoke-filled environment.

I understand the Legislature passed the enabling legislation for the smoke-ban amendment in Florida yesterday. Apparently some of the particulars of it have the anti-smoker groups that spent so much money propagandizing it extremely upset.

[Taliesan]

You are one of the few on FR to get this exactly right. The porperty owner has the right to set policy on his property; the community has the right to set policy on public property. The only rational policy for public places (taxpayer owned places) is for smoking to be banned where there is a probability of non-consenting people inhaling the exudate.

The only moral policy for private property is governmental silence.

[gtech]

I understand your point with regard to their right to ask me to put out my cigarette, although I do not agree with it. Just like government mandated smoking bans imposed on private establishments, the rules are being changed in the middle of the game.

I was offered a seat in the smoking section, an area set aside to make me comfortable (mandated by the government, I might add) and after waiting to be so accomodated I was told I would no longer be accomodated.

People who choose to sit in the smoking area of a restaurant should have no expectation of a smoke-free dining experience. Had I lit up in a smoke-free area, that would have been a different story.

I think we agree more than we disagree. It's extremely poor customer service, wrong-headed, and insulting. In fact, even as a non-smoker, I would join you in refusing to patronize the place if that's how they treat any of their customers. I only disagree that they didn't have the full right to do so. They own (run) the property, and are free to make bad decisions about the rules they set. They are free to suffer the ramifications of such decisions too.

[Gabz]

I agree totally with you in regard to private property, but not totally when it comes to public property.

I have no problem with indoor smoking bans in public buildings, nor do the VAST majority of smokers, but that is where our agreement ends.

The smoking bans have forced smokers to the outside and as smokers are taxpayers as well I have a difficult time with the idea of outdoor smoking bans or even restrictions. there are far worse things in the outside air than a bit of tobacco smoke.

There are also complaints regarding the litter of cigarette butts on the streets and sidewalks, and while I agree that littering should not occur, when it comes to cigarette butt litter, much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the anti-smoker zeolots for the smoking bans. With the onset of more and more smoking bans in indoor areas there has been a drastic decrease in the number of receptacles for the proper disposal of smokingmaterials.

Where it used to be common for a business that forbade smoking inside to provide a receptacle outside its doors, it has now become rare to find such.

When the government forces a private enterprise to forbid smoking within its confines, the least that same government can do is provide the establishment with a receptacle for the patrons to extinquish their materials prior to entering. The government mandates have forced the smokers onto the streets - the government should be responsible for assisting in the litter control. After all, those same government entities are addicted to the smokers' tax dollars more than the smokers are addicted to the products.

[gtech]

In a totally sarcastic manner I called for a government mandate on volume control of headsets at radio stations because those workers were just as entitled to a safe work environment as any other worker.

I was accused of stooping to an all time low of trivializing the health hazards of working in a smoke-filled environment.

Of course they did, it didn't fit their agenda, but the point is a valid one. I expect a similar response to my questions.

I understand the Legislature passed the enabling legislation for the smoke-ban amendment in Florida yesterday. Apparently some of the particulars of it have the anti-smoker groups that spent so much money propagandizing it extremely upset.

Good greif. I can't imagine what they have to complain about. I've read the bill and it is quite strict. It allows for only the exeptions as provided by the ammendment. While it is not as strict as the one originally proposed by the FL House, it appears to be as restrictive as the ammendment called for.

As a non-smoker I'm going to enjoy the new smoke free environment, but I will forever hate the cost in freedom at which it came, and the inevitible future anti-freedom measures it will spawn.

[Gabz]

You're right - we do agree more than disagree ;-)

Neither my SIL nor my niece smoke, but never had a problem with joining us at a local place we used to frequent and sit in the smoking area in the bar.

Yet whenever we go out for dinner together, I will request the non-smoking section to accomodate them.

Both of them are opposed to the Delaware smoking ban, and the one in Florida and California and NY - because they believe it should be up to the owner.

2 weeks ago my niece shocked me when we walked into a restaurant in Virginia and were asked if we wanted smoking or non and she piped up and said "smoking." Later when I asked her why she did that - of the 4 of us that were having lunch, I 'm the only smoker and can go for a couple hours without a cigarette - her response to me was that it was nice to know that people, particularly private businesses, still had choices. She's 19, so apparently there is still hope for the new generation.

FRegards

[Gabz]

Based upon your attitude regarding the ban I would venture to guess you voted against it last November even though you are a non-smoker.

I haven't been to Florida in a number of years, spent all my summers in the 70's and very early 80s in Sarasota and still have family and friends there.

I'll make a deal with you - I'll let you know the next time I'll be down and we can have dinner in one of those smoke-free restaurants you will be enjoying and then we'll have a couple of beers in one of the stand alone bars that permit smoking!!!!

[gtech]

Based upon your attitude regarding the ban I would venture to guess you voted against it last November even though you are a non-smoker.

Not only that, I tried to convince as many others as I could to vote against it too. There was too strong an effort to get that thing passed though, including tv spots with kids begging viewers to support it. Unfortunatly, there was no visible counter-effort to portray it as the anti-freedom, government opression it really is.

I'll make a deal with you - I'll let you know the next time I'll be down and we can have dinner in one of those smoke-free restaurants you will be enjoying and then we'll have a couple of beers in one of the stand alone bars that permit smoking!!!!

That's a deal!

[Protagoras]

Ah the "nude in public/sex with dogs" argument. I wondered how long before a fascist pretending to be a conservative would show up on this thread claiming rights which do not exist.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Right now, I am in my second week of quitting. Of course, last night, I almost rolled my damn patch up and considered lighting the thing, I wanted a smoke so badly.

What I want to offer now is the occasional lucid thought I'm now having about smoking, that I haven't otherwise had in the past 25 years - and that is that the damn things are useless. My body doesn't have to have them for nourishment, nor do they act to relax me, or make me a little more convivial like a glass of wine or a frosty wheat soda. What the habit does is make me want to smoke in order to get rid of a craving which comes about due to my not smoking - it is a vicious cycle which feeds itself, for no damn purpose at all. It doesn't do a thing for me, it decreases my lung capacity and diminishes my taste buds, making me season my food even more heavily. Since my last one a week ago Thursday, I sleep better, food tastes better, and I feel more energetic and optimistic.

And no, it wasn't those stupid "truth" commercials, surgeon general warnings, or rantings learned by my kids at school - it was my realization that it wasn't doing anything for me but making my breath and clothing stink, while robbing me of lung capacity.