Smoke-Filled Room No Place for Children

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 03-13-02 | Oklahoman Editorial Writer

[Osage Orange]

Oklahoman Editorial: Smoke-Filled Room No Place for Children

2002-03-13

Unto us has come another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

This is when a law, movement or cause, usually fostered by political liberals, results in something that was not intended by its promoters.

Examples from the past include a rise in gun sales and National Rifle Association memberships when liberals try to restrict firearm ownership. Another example is a rise in unwed motherhood when the government showers welfare payments on households where only one parent is present.

A classic but timely example is the post-Watergate campaign finance "reform." This resulted in a system liberals said was so bad that they demanded more of the same.

The latest instance took place in Canada, where the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, banned smoking in establishments in which minors are present. The intent of the law is to separate children from the dangers of secondhand smoke. The consequence was a ban on children in some of those establishments.

What will be the unintended consequences of a ban on smoking in public places throughout Oklahoma? Such a ban is being pushed by the state Board of Health. The board may vote on the proposal Thursday, but the ban couldn't take effect without legislative approval and the governor's OK.

The board's proposal is extreme and should not be ratified by the Legislature and governor. A more modest proposal might be acceptable to all parties.

Smoking bans in public buildings often result in a throng of smokers at the entrances. Nonsmokers must walk through a cloud thicker than anything they encountered before, when the smoke was less concentrated.

Reason magazine reports that the Winnipeg ordinance went into effect on Jan. 1. "By Jan. 2, however, it was apparent that the consequences of the new law were not exactly what the lawmakers had envisioned. A number of Winnipeg establishments had opted to keep the smoke and ban the kids instead."

Imagine a sign with a picture of an adorable child surrounded by a red circle with a slash across it. The unwelcome mat for kids went out almost immediately after the law took effect.

A doughnut shop manager said he banned smoking for one day and lost half his business. Then he restored smoking and banned minors. His business doubled.

Some adults -- smokers and nonsmokers alike -- are apparently attracted to places where the chance of encountering a screaming two-year-old or a multi-pierced teen is slim to none.

Thus, a law designed to protect children from the evils of tobacco resulted in smoke-filled, child-free environments. Naturally, citing discrimination, the good-intent people have demanded that businesses such as doughnut shops be accessible to kids. They said the doughnut loophole must be filled!

Reason, a Libertarian publication, sees more than unintended consequences in this equation. Irony is present as well:

"There is a certain glazed tastiness in watching anti- smoking obsessives equate children's good health with facilitating their access to fried dough covered in sugar and stuffed with jelly."

[Publius6961]

Oh boy.
The only safe response to this is no response.

[Osage Orange]

How so? Frankly I think it's funny....kinda like watching someone paint themselve into a corner.

FRegards,

[Ward Smythe]

....kinda like watching someone paint themselve into a corner.

With lead base paint.

[gracie1]

There is a certain glazed tastiness in watching anti- smoking obsessives equate children's good health with facilitating their access to fried dough covered in sugar and stuffed with jelly."

Boy the irony in that statement is so sweet it raises my blood sugar a good 100 notches!

[SpottedBeaver]

Smokers or non-smokers aside, it should be quite obvious. Who has the most purchasing power? Children or Adults? Who would you want to hang out in your business?

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"Smokers or non-smokers aside, it should be quite obvious. Who has the most purchasing power? Children or Adults? Who would you want to hang out in your business?

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

I suppose...if I was running a coffee shop..I'd want the adults hanging out....But if I was running an arcade, or a skate park..I'd want the kids hanging out, but of course packing their parents money. ha!!

FRegards,

[Gabz]

"There is a certain glazed tastiness in watching anti- smoking obsessives equate children's good health with facilitating their access to fried dough covered in sugar and stuffed with jelly."

BWAHAAHAA!!!!

leave it to Reason Mag to come up with a line like that!!!!

[SpottedBeaver]

I suppose...if I was running a coffee shop..I'd want the adults hanging out....But if I was running an arcade, or a skate park..I'd want the kids hanging out, but of course packing their parents money. ha!!

You're right. I was thinking more of the donut example in the article. You wouldn't want to alienate the original source of the dough. ;)

[Max McGarrity]

That is a great line and you're right about Reason.

[Mitzi]

I love the idea of a child-free environment!!!!!!

[Just another Joe]

Naturally, citing discrimination, the good-intent people have demanded that businesses such as doughnut shops be accessible to kids.

So, they can ban smokers but not minors.
Hypocrites.