Posted on 06/20/2008 12:31:19 AM PDT by stevelackner
I know there are people out there who may disagree with me on this one. But here I go anyway. Mind you this is not an issue that affects me personally as I am not a smoker.
First and foremost, because any article dealing with smoking must add in a few caveats I will take this opportunity to state what should already be obvious. I obviously believe that those addicted to smoking should try their harderst to quit. No doubt about that. You will not hear arguments from me disputing the dangers of cigarette addiction.
Now that I got that out of the way I can get to the issue at hand. Smoking bans have started becoming popular as cities decide where smokers can and cannot engage in their vice. I understand the rationale behind banning smoking in certain places of work. For example, an office setting with a bunch of cubicles is not a place for smoking. I tend to think that in today's day and age big companies would themselves ban smoking without the government forcing them to do so. In general I do not like government meddling in what is none of their business. I do not like the idea of the government telling a business owner how to run his or her business. Cigarettes are a legal and heavily taxed product (a tax which hurts working class people who smoke more than anyone else). But truthfully I will not get terribly vexed if the ban is not overly draconian, where it is banned in places that make at least some sense. I am generally opposed to smoking bans but I would nonetheless be willing to look at individual city bans and judge them independently and fairly as to whether the law is excessive.
One of the popular places for cities to ban smoking these days is bars. This is one of those bans that makes little sense to me. Bars are not health food stores. They are in the business of selling alcohol. When you enter a pub you should not be expecting for the same aura as 24 hour fitness. If a bar owner decides he wants to allow smoking in his bar I see no reason why he and his customers should not be allowed to smoke. If enough people do not like the environment created or are discomforted by the smoke then non-smoking bars should open up for them. But no one is being forced to go to a bar in the first place. The only rationale people give for this ban is that the bartenders are subjected to second-hand smoke. Truthfully, I do not think bartenders in smoking bars are dropping dead right and left from lung cancer. If they do not like the environment that many bars offer by allowing smoking then maybe bartending is not the greatest business for them. Nobody forces anyone to become a bartender. I am sure there will always be no shortage of bartenders willing to work in a smokey bar. The fact is that a bar is private property and smoking is a legal activity. Patrons can decide whether they want to support a smoking bar or not. I have always felt this way about banning smoking in bars. Recently a new study was done that validates my opinion but for a whole new reason.
The new study claims that banning smoking in bars is not only sort of stupid, it is actually dangerous. Two researchers from the University of Wisconsin named Scott Adams and Chad Cotti published their findings through the Journal of Public Economics this month. The two researchers claimed that while "using geographic variation in local and state smoke-free bar laws in the US, we observe an increase in fatal accidents involving alcohol following bans on smoking in bars that is not observed in places without bans. Although an increased accident risk might seem surprising at first, two strands of literature on consumer behavior suggest potential explanations — smokers driving longer distances to a bordering jurisdiction that allows smoking in bars and smokers driving longer distances within their jurisdiction to bars that still allow smoking, perhaps through non-compliance or outdoor seating. We find evidence consistent with both explanations. The increased miles driven by drivers wishing to smoke and drink offsets any reduction in driving from smokers choosing to stay home following a ban, resulting in increased alcohol-related accidents. This result proves durable, as we subject it to an extensive battery of robustness checks." In other words, bar smoking bans are actually dangerous. Let me now ask you one question:
What's worse, some smoke in a bar or a drunk driver plowing into another vehicle?
agreed. Not a hazard to others that is not allergic to the smoke.
Thus it should be up to the store how he runs his business.
Better check your premises. In the British colonies smoking in taverns was ubiquitous, only they smoked their tobacco from clay pipes instead of rolled in paper. Through the mid-Atlantic colonies tobacco was their first cash crop.
Sounds as though your brain has just been fried, I would suggest to lay off the drugs. But what do I know… I don’t smoke or do drugs.
It’s really simple:
Don’t like smoke? Don’t go in there. Barkeep’s loss.
Don’t like nekkid women? Don’t go in there either. Stripper’s loss.
The only thing you risk, really, is your smugness.
I remember when I was in 6th grade and returned from Kansas (our former home) with three or four dollars worth of candy cigarettes. I more than doubled my money selling the contraband to friends. Had I done such a thing today, I'd have probably ended up in juvenile detention.
Well, I’m all for private property rights for bar owners to decide whether they allow smoking or not.
But to say that it increases deaths due to idiots driving drunk...
Sooooo, this guy is saying that it is more harmful because the drunk driver, the one who would obviously be driving drunk ANYWAY, has to drive drunk FARTHER?
HUH?
who cares if you concede the point or not?
It's not a "public space". It's private property owned by an individual or corporation to which persons unknown to the owner are allowed to enter at their discretion as long as they comply with any rules laid down by the owner.
Not a single penny belonging to anyone who doesn't go there has funded the place, so they don't have any standing to try to participate in deciding what gets done inside.
Dude, this is America.
We don’t smoke fags, we marry them.
Get with it.
More drunk driving miles, thus statistically more accidents.
According to law it is
It is both a place of public accomodation and a place of employment
As such, it is subject to immense regulation
You don’t see the solution, do you?
Ban public drinking.
Damn Nazis.
Why, yes!
I’d like to include several perfumes and colognes too. I react strongly to many - particularly when the woman uses far too much. I have a hard time breathing and can’t wait to get in the open. Better include a ban on Kimshe while we’re at it - I can’t stand the smell and if it’s too strong I’m close to getting sick.
I am a smoker, but have patronized non-smoking establishments without a problem I just have a real problem with Big Brotherism. In this case, if a person doesn’t want to hang out in a smoke filled bar - they shouldn’t go in.
Personally I prefer a neighborhood bar and grill to a tavern or inn. The only thing they have in common is booze.
I don’t go in.
So why do you want to control what's in there, then? Just like controlling things?
Why don’t you look at my posts. I said it should be up to the bar owner.
Smoke all you want. Smoke whatever you want. Smoke where you want.
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.