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?
Uh... OK. I guess I misread that.
I wouldn’t know what a tavern or inn was like a few thousand years ago.
Interesting argument.. I thought I would look that up:
Perfume ban
First attempt to ban perfume was in 1904 http://www.scentedpages.com/press_archive/press2.html
Pimping your blog is nothing but narcissism.
Nanny State Ping
In the neighborhood bars I have frequented in my lifetime the folks there could care less about the smokers......
Its only the snobs like you and your upscale haunts which are going to be the demise of the corner bars that surround the blue collar towns like Detroit........
You don't give a rip tho because those are the neighborhoods you wouldn't even drive thru without locking your doors...........
Not true, smoking Tobacco in its original state is native only to the Americas, and began growing in 6000 BC......... google it, I did.
Really? People had access to tobacco before they invented "fire water?"
They had tobacco about 6,000 YEARS before Christ, to be exact.
Were you 'Smokin' In The Boys Room' and missed that day in History class? ;) http://www.tobacco.org/History/Tobacco_History.html
thanks, bfl
Well played. :)
If you can point to a reference to a public drinking establishment prior to 6000 BC which is the estimated date that tobacco started its growth in the Americas then I will concede your point..........
its a bastardizaion of law just as the 2005 "Emminent Domain" decision by the U.S. Supreme court that allowed a city in Connecticut to force the riverfront homeowners of New London to sell to a land developer so's he could develop the property thus generating more revenues for that city..........Only in America. You love that too don't you?
The U.S. Supremes just granted the interned terrorists at Gitmo legal status under our laws..........
Thats ok too because after all, its now law.......
If you think that billions of dollars are being spent to ban smoking because "it is offensive to others", you are a pure unadulterated retard. A self centered one no less. As if people spend billions of dollars and hours of their time to make you comfortable. Retard is probably a compliment. Read the anti-tobacco playbook....
I like your style. Please stick around.
There are people here who wouldn’t know conservatism if it bit them in the nuts.
He's been around for a couple months now posting articles but has never once commented on what he has posted nor entered discussions.........
yea, I noticed that too. Nothing but posting articles and no comments from him.........
“Step outside”
It’s my bar, you don’t like smoke, stay away. If enough people feel that way, I’ll go out of business.You have no right to dictate how to run someone else’s business
“They have also banned spitting on the sidewalk and letting your dog take a dump in my yard”
Apples and oranges.The sidewalk is public property and your yard is YOUR yard. My bar is none of your frigging business
Thanks for picking up on that.
I didn’t know.
Thanks! I now support the right to smoke amendment!
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.