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?
He will expose the jackal pack, the blame America firsters, the appeasing surrender monkeys, the duped liberal, and the misguided media. He will hold nothing back when taking on the Kool-aid drinker who refuses to call the Repulican or Democratic parties to task. Liberals are forewarned that the truth may hurt, so view at your own discretion. STEVELACKNER.COM
I'm glad someone is finally going to do something about those damned Repulican(s) !
While I understand your point, I don't totally agree.
When I'm tending bar you are drunk when I say you are drunk.
that had to be painful...nice post
Thanks for the ping!
Unintended consequences of the goody goody nanny state/health nazis
That’s some history!
If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water.
If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.
From the translation it is evident that the “tavern” was the woman’s home.
Later taverns and inns were established on roads to serve travelers - giving them a place to sleep, eat and drink. I haven’t been able to find much concerning establishments meant primarily for drinking alcoholic beverages except for a few references from ancient Greece and Rome - and they seemed to be limited to the upper classes. Working people didn’t have much spare cash to spend on entertainment. They did drink, and sometimes part of their pay was in beer - as in ancient Egypt.
Bars and Pubs didn’t seem to become common util in Europe until about the beginning of the 17th Century, after tobacco use came into vogue and the working class had disposable income.
Good. If everyone was like you there wouldn’t be a problem.
Hanging on to the carpet to keep from sliding off the face of the earth.
Great find!
I was greatly bothered by smoke on planes, but I didn't welcome the ban. I remember Northwest began offering non-smoking flights, and was happy to give them my business. That to me is the solution to the problem.
Though a non-smoker myself, I am offended by rude behavior towards smokers. I'm old enough to remember, though, when the shoe was on the other foot, and the non-smoking minority was often on the receiving end of arrogant attitudes and behavior.
Nope, it's just stupid IMO.
Personal freedom of choice with a legal product being lost means personal decision is lost and is being lost because the complaints of a few rabid ("me, me, ME and that's all that's important" types) hold the future and isn't a very comfortable direction in a free society that is based upon personal freedom by dictate via our sacred doctrine of origin.
Ahhh, the good ol' day's when we could not only enjoy life but avoid the undesirable parts of it on a personal decision and appreciate God's given freedoms to chose for ourselves and still be a legal and prominent part of society and just know via common courtesy,then act appropriately and be comfortable in our endeavors in life and use discretion while enjoying our personal pleasures.
Nowadays, the masses via modern day government is the promoted and sought after directive.
Yep, just stupid.
Well said.
Paid for and bought for by the proprietor and as long as the tax payments are up to date, a legal ownership worthy of respect of owner discretion.
Don't like my property? Then you are not welcome and if this continues to be your mindset, GET LOST post haste from my property!
That's because you have been handed a lot of personal and corporate liability, which is a separate but related problem.
A glorious event, now negated by codified hysteria.
Yep. It should be celebated.
“Of all the evils in the world, mostly caused by governments, this is the dumbest one to champion.”
You got that right! What is it with these posters on FR championing private property rights and the property owner’s inherent right to persue happiness! It’s not like we don’t have a living document called the US Constitution. Heck, even the USSC agreed with you in Kelo!
Not only that but it is quite possible for a low income smoker to spend 1% of his income on cigarette taxes. A wealthy person would have to chain smoke hand rolled cigarettes rolled in gold paper to spend 1% of their income on cig’s. Same is true for other “vice” taxes like alcohol. They are taxes that hit the poor harder than the wealthy, not only because of choices, but just due to sheer economic scale.
“The best thing that could have happened!Banning smoking in bars has allowed me to again have a social life and interact with people when and where I wish to.”
Of course, you were free to risk your own capital and effort to open up a non-smoking bar before the ban. Of course, that would have meant that you were not so weak that you expect the government to force those who did take the risks and did the work to cater to your preferences. Only the weakest in society demand the government force others to cater to their drinking preferences.
The rest of us are fine with working within the market without government interference.
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.