NPR: The Great (Smoking Ban) Debate

NPR's Justice Talking ^ | Jan. 29, 2003 | email

[Max McGarrity]

Joe Cherner vs. Jacob Sullum
 
If you are going to be in New York City on February 5 (next Wednesday), you are invited to take part in a live taping for National Public Radio (NPR) about smokefree workplace legislation.
 
What:  NPR's Justice Talking (audience participation encouraged)
When: Wednesday, February 5, 2003, 6:30pm-8:00pm
Where: Baruch University's Newman Conference Center (151 East 25th Street), Room 750
Who: Jacob Sullum, Senior Editor, Reason Magazine   vs.
         Joe Cherner, President, SmokeFree Educational Services, Inc.
How: Reserve your place at www.justicetalking.org/upcoming.asp (click on "join the audience")
         or call Joy Cerequas at 212-316-3636
 
Cherner will argue that ALL workers deserve a smokefree work environment.  Sullum will argue that business owners should decide their own smoking policy.

Currently airing on more than 70 stations in the U.S., NPR's Justice Talking is quickly becoming America's source for insight on the hot-button legal issues we all read about, think about and talk about every day.  The weekly, one-hour program is moderated by veteran NPR correspondent Margot Adler and features the nation's leading advocates who face off in down-to-earth, free-wheeling debate.  Taped before a live audience, each debate begins with a feature report that provides the human story behind the topic, prepared by a talented team of public radio correspondents.  Margot Adler asks her own challenging questions and then fields questions from the diverse and knowledgeable audience. 
 
Recognized by the New York Times for its "quality and depth," Justice Talking has been the recipient of several awards including the Nancy Dickerson Whitehead Award for Excellence in Reporting, the New York Festival's Gold Medal Award, and the Civic Mind Award for excellence in public education about the law.

"Justice Talking ... is a substantive and thought-[provoking program that ... captures the tough challenges legislators face in coming up with policies that balance public [concerns].  By giving both sides equal time, the program explores the complexities of the issue ... [it] is an example of journalistic excellence"  Leslie Stahl

Join the debate!  Attendance is free but seating is limited, so visit www.justicetalking.org/upcoming.asp and click on "join the audience" to reserve your place.

[Max McGarrity]

So you condone mob rule. How about when the same "mob" comes for handguns, will you still think tyranny by the majority is a good thing?

[185JHP]

Setting a noxious weed on fire in a public place has nothing to do with the 2A. BTW if any of you nicophiles think it's just a matter of "you never have any fun and you don't want us to", it isn't. If it was just resentment at your pleasure of "enjoying" the nic high, patches and gum would also be banned.

[qam1]

The would-be public air defilers (Second hand gunsmoke is just as bad as SH cigarette smoke) have a problem with this debate - we know that they have options, other than the most sensible one (quitting Giving up their Guns): 1. Patches  Paintball 2. Gum  Bows & Arrows 3. Learn some self-control - wait until you are in what we deciced is your own air before you indulge your addiction  hobby

[qam1]

They forgot the alternate solution. Companies going to China.

Speaking of which, You can smoke in all bars & Restaurants in China, Russia and Iraq but not in America. Which one is the free country again?

[qam1]

We all know about the evils of smoking in any public place and how inconsiderate smokers are.

For the 1OOOOOO1th time, A bar or restaurant is a private business on private property not a public place

And, just as business owners can't determine their own rules for the minimum age to buy booze, whether employees should take the time to wash hands after bathroom use, or whether employees with TB, jaundice or other diseases should handle food,

Apples & Oranges. Those laws are to protect the customer of the business from immeadate health hazards the customer has no way to determine themselves. Those laws are NOT supposed to protect the customer from themselves. For instance if a customer for whatever reason didn't want to to wash his hands before eating his meal there is no such law forceing him to do so.  

they shouldn't be allowed to poison the air of customers and employees

HUH? Your arguement made no sense. You are talking about buisness owners not the customer themselves.

just because some are so weak as to be slaves to a terrible addiction.

Again for the 1OOOOOO1th time, It's not about if we can or can not "Hold" out or not from having a cigarette. Of course we could and do all the time when we have/want to.

But you don't just go out to a restaurant to eat or a bar just to drink or a casino just to gamble. We can do all those at home for a much lower cost. We go out because to relax and have a little fun. (I know for someone who is misable 24-7 like yourself  I know "fun" is a hard concept for you to understand ) and being treated as a second class citizen isn't fun.

Now that NPR is involved, however, we probably will learn the terrible effect that workplace smoking has on fairies. I used to listen to NPR but changed the station every time they begin a story about fairies being close to normal. It is amazing how often they broadcast that message.

That's funny since Cherner is one of those "Faires" as you so eloquently put it and a real flaming one at that and you are aligning yourself with that "Fairy". Well I guess in your case it's literally true when they say Politics makes for some strange bedfellows.

[Max McGarrity]

So you think only ONE Amendment is valid? They've already perverted the Fifth, which is supposed to keep the authoritarians from taking PRIVATE PROPERTY for PUBLIC use without just compensation and you applaud that...what makes you think your beloved Second is safe?

[185JHP]

My point was there's no link between an imagined "right to smoke" and the obvious meanings of any of the first ten amendments. We've made heroin illegal, and those who like it/advocate its use might caterwaul, but it's not protected. We could make tobacco illegal just as easily. While cigs are definitely Olfactory Assault Weapons, their use is not protected by the Constitution.

[Max McGarrity]

You're misstating the encroachment--as is typical of anti-smokers. You're right, there is no "right" to smoke, just as there is no "right" to breathe air free from smoke, but there sure as hell IS a right for a business owner to permit a LEGAL activity on his PRIVATE PROPERTY. If the government wants to take his PRIVATE PROPERTY for PUBLIC USE, the business owner must be compensated for it. That's not happening, and it's in direct contradiction to the Fifth Amendment. If you can't see that, you're blinded by your hatred of tobacco.

When they came for the smokers...

[185JHP]

You're trying to conflate banning smoking with a "taking." Banning smoking is not a "use", and the idea that any compensation is due is laughable. Smoking bans are just a great example of the government doing what it's supposed to do - governing. No tyranny of a minority allowed, when the smoking bans kick in. BTW I went to a city today that has a total ban on smoking in restaurants - it was great.

[Max McGarrity]

I guess we'll see who's right re "takings" when the lawsuits begin. (It's already happening in Montana.)

Private property is NOT public property, even though the public may be INVITED.

[JimRed]

...his family consists of him, his male partner and two little girls.

Absolutely no problem; I've always said that male homosexuals should only be allowed to adopt or foster parent girls, and lesbians only boys. That way only those sincerely interested in providing a loving home will want to be involved. The NAMBLA slime will stay away.

[Max McGarrity]

Point taken, but if Cherner has his way, his way will be just as "normal" as the typical nuclear American family (or more so), and your preference will be lost in the political correctness. Far as I'm concerned, he's just a low life hypocrite, no matter what his "orientation."

[qam1]

You're trying to conflate banning smoking with a "taking." Banning smoking is not a "use", and the idea that any compensation is due is laughable.

Amendment #5 - Eminent Domain is in effect here. By banning smoking on private property the government is essentially taking that property away. This is especially true if the property due to a previous lighter smoking ban had a separate section build just for smoking. Many buisnesses on private property spend upwards of $40,000 to build seperate smoking sections which are now essentially useless. It would be no different than if the government banned the sport of Golf, Yeah sure the government didn't technically sieze anything but essentially the golf course owner's land has been taken away. Eminent Domain won't apply for new restaurants but for ones that are already in exsistance it does.

Smoking bans are just a great example of the government doing what it's supposed to do - governing.

Oh, Great another pseudo-conservative hypocrite fasicist who believes it is wrong to take away freedoms except if they are other people's freedoms you don't like.

Let me guess you are a Howard Dean supporter.

No tyranny of a minority allowed,

OK, Since there are more people who don't own guns than those that do and unlike second hand smoke guns have actually killed people lets use that to justify banning them.

And BTW, In many bars/restaurants/casinos the majority of customers are smokers.

BTW I went to a city today that has a total ban on smoking in restaurants - it was great.

Not if you are the owner of the restaurant that lost a lot of buisness.

And BTW I went to the woods today that has a total ban on hunting - It was Great