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?
Man, the addicts are itchy tonight.
“Man, the addicts are itchy tonight”
and the social engineering nazis are out in force
Name one
you
Class of ‘77 here, bud. I stopped going to bars decades ago. I now play in Vegas, where no one is whining and complaining and everyone is happy. It’s nice being around people like that.
Using your reasoning, a dog craps in your yard, ban dog ownership.
A bar is private property. It is not public property.
Yes, for one, it might make you accidentally skip out on the tab.
Answer: Getting drunk drivers off roads. A lady with whom I worked buried her father-in-law a couple of weeks ago as a result of an accident caused by a person on his fourth DUI. Her sister-in-law was also severely injured.
B.S. strawman.
Huh?
And now your world is perfect.
Smoking bans are a back door to alcohol prohibition.
Whatever will you do when they ban drinking in bars? That is next.
The last refuge and best tool of the fascist.
Not near as itchy as the control freaks.
Pretty soon, the itchiness is going to gravitate to folks' trigger fingers.
What will you do then?
Define “drunk”.
Good evening, elk. The drunk driver I was referring to in my prior post (I was told) had a blood alcohol limit of 4 times over the legal limit. How would you define “drunk?” Not being in control of oneself? That would make it different per individual.
One is drunk when one admits one is drunk.
In any event, there would be plenty of reasons to take one off the road prior to that conclusion without creating a whole new series of crimes.
Yes, indeed.
You are much better at words than I am.
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.