"Big Tobacco"

[Carl.]

Um...no. A business bought legally and that is running within all the upmteen hundred rules that the government already set in for health codes and all IS part of the society within which they operate. The society or even the particular block isn't horrid because there's an establishment that allows smoking. It's just a place where people can smoke. So what? How does it infringe your YOUR rights that there is a place that allows smoking?

The umpteen hundred rules didn't change the fact that you barely couldn't go at ANY restaurant without breathing second hand smoke. Result: now there is an umpteen hundred + 1 rule that banned smoking. Now the fact that you don't agree with said rule, or that this is a private business doesn't invalidate that rule, or any the umpteen hundred other ones.

 

[Pupik]

Ironically, we've gone from "Big Tabacco" to "Big Government".

In any case, I feel the smoker's public use rights are negated by the fact it harms others. If the government's key role is to prevent people from coming harm, then it has a right to step in. Why shouldn't I be protected from people who don't care for their own bodies. Yes, an obese person or a drunk isn't taking care of themselves, but they aren't directly harming anybody else by the moment they are taking part in their activities. A smoker is indirectly affecting those around them by smoking in a place where people wish to be free from smoke.

The smoking area of a restaurant doesn't seal off the smoke very well. Smoke still wafts it's way over. In fact, I've been to places where people light up in the non-smoking area of the restaurant, just because it's too much of a problem to smoke outdoors. This is why I'm glad there's a smoking ban in Florida restaurants. Wanna smoke? Go outdoors, there's tables out there. Some restaurants converted to all-out bars, serving no food, so they could keep thier partrons.

In any case, people voted for it (myself included), it didn't just come from out of the blue (as far as I know).

As for cigarette taxes, I don't see any legal justification for adding taxes to cigarettes. They could be $10/pack and the indigent and minors would still try to buy them.

 

[Carl.]

I see, like customers not wanting to deal with the responsibility of deciding which restaurants to visit.

If there was such a decision to make, it would have been fine. But the decision was: go to a restaurant and breathe smoke, or stay home. That's a bit different.

 

[Swift]

The umpteen hundred rules didn't change the fact that you barely couldn't go at ANY restaurant without breathing second hand smoke. Result: now there is an umpteen hundred + 1 rule that banned smoking. Now the fact that you don't agree with said rule, or that this is a private business doesn't invalidate that rule, or any the umpteen hundred other ones.

Yes, it is invalid. Just because something's a law doesn't make it correct. Remember Jim Crow?

It's infringing directly on the rights of owners to operate their property as they see fit. As long as people aren't forced to go in, they should be able to do whatever they want with it as long as it's legal.

In any case, I feel the smoker's public use rights are negated by the fact it harms others. If the government's key role is to prevent people from coming harm, then it has a right to step in. Why shouldn't I be protected from people who don't care for their own bodies. Yes, an obese person or a drunk isn't taking care of themselves, but they aren't directly harming anybody else by the moment they are taking part in their activities. A smoker is indirectly affecting those around them by smoking in a place where people wish to be free from smoke.

That makes a great point for banning smoking in publicly funded areas.

 

[Famine]

Yes I do. A business being private doesn't exonerate it from having to follow the rules set by the society within which they operate.

Is smoking a legal activity?

 

[Danoff]

If there was such a decision to make, it would have been fine. But the decision was: go to a restaurant and breathe smoke, or stay home. That's a bit different.

Yes, one has to decide whether it is worth breathing second hand smoke to go to a restaurant. The public answered that question with their wallets. The answer was largely yes.

If the answer had been no, restaurants would have voluntarily changed their policy. Since the answer was yes they did not. But to have the government force a policy change - remove freedom - for the convenience of people who didn't even mind it enough to be bothered to stay out of the restuarant is sick.

In any case, I feel the smoker's public use rights are negated by the fact it harms others

Prove it. And once you done that, explain to me why if it was such a great harm, people didn't seem to mind going to restaurants anyway.

 

[Swift]

If there was such a decision to make, it would have been fine. But the decision was: go to a restaurant and breathe smoke, or stay home. That's a bit different.

I'm sorry. Are restaurants the ONLY places to get food?

 

[Carl.]

Yes, it is invalid. Just because something's a law doesn't make it correct. Remember Jim Crow?

It's infringing directly on the rights of owners to operate their property as they see fit. As long as people aren't forced to go in, they should be able to do whatever they want with it as long as it's legal.

Is smoking a legal activity?

Is cooking in a dirty kitchen an illegal activity?


No? Well, then restaurant owners shouldn't have to respect any rules in regard to their kitchen's salubrity, since they own it. If he feels like it, he can wash the counter where he cuts meat on a yearly basis, right? As long as no one can prove that this was the cause for them getting ill, everything is fine and dandy then?

 

[Danoff]

Is cooking food in a dirty kitchen an illegal activity?


No? Well, then restaurant owners shouldn't have to respect any rules in regard to their kitchen's salubrity, since they own it. If he feels like it, he can wash the counter where he cuts meat on a yearly basis, right? As long as no one can prove that this was the cause for them getting ill, everything is fine and dandy then?

As long as his customers know his food isn't clean I don't see a problem.

 

[Carl.]

Yes, one has to decide whether it is worth breathing second hand smoke to go to a restaurant. The public answered that question with their wallets. The answer was largely yes.

If the answer had been no, restaurants would have voluntarily changed their policy. Since the answer was yes they did not. But to have the government force a policy change - remove freedom - for the convenience of people who didn't even mind it enough to be bothered to stay out of the restuarant is sick.

If most people were consequent and responsible, people would have stopped smoking in the 50s. Strange that people being kept from being stupid sickens you. Of all the things going wrong in the world, it's quite strange that this seems to be the thing that concerns you the most.

Prove it. And once you done that, explain to me why if it was such a great harm, people didn't seem to mind going to restaurants anyway.

You've got it wrong. If you are exposing me to your smoke, YOU have to prove me that it isn't harmful to me.

So much for personal responsibilities.

 

[Danoff]

If most people were consequent and responsible, people would have stopped smoking in the 50s. Strange that people being kept from being stupid sickens you. Of all the things going wrong in the world, it's quite strange that this seems to be the things that concerns you the most.

It doesn't concern me the most. It's just one of many things wrong.

You've got it wrong. If you are exposing me to your smoke, YOU have to prove me that it isn't harmful to me.

So much for personal responsiblities.

If I claim you shot me, who has the burden of proof?

 

[Swift]

Is cooking in a dirty kitchen an illegal activity?


No? Well, then restaurant owners shouldn't have to respect any rules in regard to their kitchen's salubrity, since they own it. If he feels like it, he can wash the counter where he cuts meat on a yearly basis, right? As long as no one can prove that this was the cause for them getting ill, everything is fine and dandy then?

So instead of dealing with the exact question at hand, you decide to try to deflect it with another scenario. Interesting.

If an owner knowing sells goods that are tainted, then he's at fault because the customers had NO CHOICE in the type of food they were getting. Smoking on the other hand, the customers KNOW that there is smoking and can choice not to patron an establishment. See the difference?

 

[Danoff]

If an owner knowing sells goods that are tainted, then he's at fault because the customers had NO CHOICE in the type of food they were getting.

I would modify that to say they had "NO KNOWLEDGE" that they were getting tainted food. Just like he can't pump noxious gasses into the room without their consent either.

 

[Carl.]

It doesn't concern me the most. It's just one of many things wrong.



If I claim you shot me, who has the burden of proof?

That's not a very good parallel...

My claim that I've inhaled second have smoke isn't really hard to prove. Put me in any room with a smoker, and it's not hard to demonstrate that I'm inhaling cigarette smoke, I don't need evidence to back that up.

 

[Swift]

I would modify that to say they had "NO KNOWLEDGE" that they were getting tainted food. Just like he can't pump noxious gasses into the room without their consent either.

I'll go along with that

You've got it wrong. If you are exposing me to your smoke, YOU have to prove me that it isn't harmful to me.

So much for personal responsibilities.

Stop man...seriously...I'm going to fall of my chair at work and that's not cool!

My claim that I've inhaled second have smoke isn't really hard to prove. Put me in any room with a smoker, and it's not hard to demonstrate that I'm inhaling cigarette smoke, I don't need evidence to back that up.

You need evidence to prove that it's HURTING you. And that you had no other choice but to be in that place and breathe that air that the person was smoking in. In a courthouse, police station or even DMV, this makes PERFECT sense. But not on private property.

 

[Carl.]

So instead of dealing with the exact question at hand, you decide to try to deflect it with another scenario. Interesting.

If an owner knowing sells goods that are tainted, then he's at fault because the customers had NO CHOICE in the type of food they were getting. Smoking on the other hand, the customers KNOW that there is smoking and can choice not to patron an establishment. See the difference?

Please don't accuse me of deflecting the question when you don't see the comparison I'm making.

Right now, if for some sick reason I wanted to (knowingly) eat food at a restaurant where the kitchen isn't properly maintained, I couldn't. Perhaps prices could be lower, since it would cost less to maintain the restaurant. But no, restaurant owners have to keep their kitchen clean to a certain extent, it's part of the "umpteen rules" you were talking about.

I guess this kind of rule is wrong too, since it's infringing on the owner's right to do anything as he see fit, because that his property?

 

[Carl.]

Stop man...seriously...I'm going to fall of my chair at work and that's not cool!

Could you tell me what is so funny?


edit: I think had enough ot that for today. I'll let the dust come down a bit, and come back tomorrow, for the sake of keeping this dicussion civil.

 

[Swift]

Please don't accuse me of deflecting the question when you don't see the comparison I'm making.

Right now, if for some sick reason I wanted to (knowingly) eat food at a restaurant where the kitchen isn't properly maintained, I couldn't. Perhaps prices could be lower, since it would cost less to maintain the restaurant. But no, restaurant owners have to keep their kitchen clean to a certain extent, it's part of the "umpteen rules" you were talking about.

I guess this kind of rule is wrong too, since it's infringing on the owner's right to do anything as he see fit, because that his property?

You are deflecting it because you don't acknowledge what I or Danoff said about the whole "clean kitchen" thing.

I would modify that to say they had "NO KNOWLEDGE" that they were getting tainted food. Just like he can't pump noxious gasses into the room without their consent either.

Bang, done. Problem solved as far as that goes. However, I wouldn't be mad at all if a restaurant had rats in the kitchen. I simply wouldn't eat there.

Could you tell me what is so funny?

Ok, you say that second hand smoke is hurting you. Danoff said, "prove it". You said, "I'm breathing it. I don't have to prove anything beyond that." Come on. Prove that second hand smoke is a direct threat to your health in the environments that we're talking about and you have won half of your case. But since no study I've ever read has concluded that people get cancer for sitting in restaurants that allow smoking...

If we went buy your logic, then almonds would be illegal because they contain arsenic, naturally.

EDIT: Danoff, clean out your inbox! 💡

 

[Danoff]

...
I guess this kind of rule is wrong too, since it's infringing on the owner's right to do anything as he see fit, because that his property?

Yup. It's just not as big a deal because nobody actually wants to exercise their freedom to eat unclean food. Lots of people, on the otherhand, want to exercise their freedom to destroy their lungs.

 

[Famine]

Answer the question please, Carl.

Yes I do. A business being private doesn't exonerate it from having to follow the rules set by the society within which they operate.

Is smoking a legal activity?

As it happens, cooking food for human consumption in a dirty kitchen IS illegal, in public or in private. Is this a comparable situation to smoking?

 

[Dave A]

I agree that smoking should be banned in public funded places, as Swift put it earlier, in a private business is another matter, then you have to take into account if the business operating owns their property or not.

Scenario 1: Mr A owns company B located in his offices at site C, Mr A owns site C as a result is it fair for Mr A to not be allowed to smoke in his own building if he wanted to do so? No I don't think it is fair, I'm a non smoker, I don't like breathing in second hand smoke but I don't think thats fair. Lets alter the scenario a bit, Mr A works from home, he smokes while he's working downstairs in his office. Mr A's oldest son starts to work for him, also from his home, he too is a smoker and likes to smoke while working, but now all of a sudden they arn't allowed to smoke in the office, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Now you take that office away from the house, and turn it into a seperate building, still owned by Mr A and his sone still comes to work for him, neither are allowed to smoke despite the fact both are smokers and one of them owns the building they are in, it's the same as the office located at his home, only this tie you have to go outside to get to it. Again, the owner of the building should ultimately have the say.

Scenario 2: Mr A owns company B located at site C, Mr A rents site C, as a result is it fair for Mr A to not be allowed to smoke in a building he rents? That is fair, the person who owns the building has the right to decide what goes on inside it, if he doesn't want any smoking inside, so be it.

 

[Pupik]

Prove it. And once you done that, explain to me why if it was such a great harm, people didn't seem to mind going to restaurants anyway.

If concentrated amounts of carbon monoxide and carcinogens don't mean anything to you, fine. Not to mention I don't like bits of ash in my food.

Swift, show me where such a law has resulted in losses for restaurant owners.

If such a law has produced an increase of profits for bars, as Pako said, I can hardly imagine how it could result in losses for restaurants.

It's been financially beneficial for both restaurants and bars here, I've heard. The only ones losing are the few restuarant owners that took the matter to court...and lost. One guy has been fighting the measure for years, and finally gave up. On the other hand there were a few resturant chains and mom-and-pops in support of the law, who made a company-wide decision to abolish smoking sections altogether, and in advance of the law.

Whatever, this is a case where I'm glad the goverment has stepped in, since the measure was put to a public vote first.

 

[Danoff]

Whatever, this is a case where I'm glad the goverment has stepped in, since the measure was put to a public vote first.

Ah, the old "majority knows best" argument. Check out the signature.

 

[Pupik]

Ah, the old "majority knows best" argument. Check out the signature.

Democracy in action, I say. It's one of the few laws that actually passed. We're still waiting for the state class-size amendment, slot machines, and increased minimum wage laws to take effect since they were voted upon in 2002. (Not that I supported the last measure.)

If the majority of the populace also knows what good for them, such as clean air in a place of restricted airflow and food preparation, how could this be a bad thing? An alternative was offered, serve food outside to smokers. I don't see the issue here.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

You're completely missing the point (i thinks).
Dannoffs' point was that the minority has rights too. Just because the majority won doesnt mean that they were right or they have the right to take away an individual's rights. It is everyone over 18's legal right to smoke, and just because the public and the government thinks that it is horrible for their health while they should be worrying about much more serious things, they have no real right to take it away.
Serving food outside doesnt work in winter or in crowded/overpolluted cities.
And this law doesnt really help the real issue either, secondhand smoke in private homes. There it is much more concentrated and the people living there breathe it in 24/7, really affecting their health.

 

[Famine]

If concentrated amounts of carbon monoxide and carcinogens don't mean anything to you, fine. Not to mention I don't like bits of ash in my food.

Then choose to eat somewhere that doesn't allow smoking. If it's not shown to be a deterrent, by people not going to places which allow smoking, then how is the market supposed to react to it? By not doing anything - if it's not a customer-loser, they won't change the policy - and instead the people can go there anyway, complain after the fact and get government to step in and take freedom of choice away from landowners in a capitalist democracy, not realising how much of their OWN civil liberties they've just got rid of.

It's been financially beneficial for both restaurants and bars here, I've heard.

"I've heard"? Oh, that settles it then...

Since the end of March 2004, smoking has been illegal in workplaces, including pubs and restaurants in the Republic of Ireland.

It was the first country in the world to introduce such a nationwide ban.

[...]

drinks giant Diageo is bemoaning a 6% drop in Guinness sales as a result of Ireland's ban...

Research from BDO Stoy Hayward suggested the hospitality industry will pay the price of a ban.

It said that 32,000 jobs will go as customer numbers fall by 7.6%, leading to a drop in profits of more than £230m ($426m).

"Dublin alone has lost more than 2,000 jobs in a population of over one million," said Shay Bannon, business recovery and restructuring partner at BDO.

[...]

A leading cigarette company has revealed that its sales have fallen sharply in the Irish Republic since smoking was banned in workplaces earlier this year.

Gallaher - which makes Silk Cut and Benson & Hedges cigarettes - had reported on Wednesday that sales in the UK had risen by more than 3% since April.

The group, which has about 50% of the Irish cigarette market share, said tax increases and the smoking ban had contributed to a 7.5% fall in the total cigarette market.

Okay, so you might not care about the last one too much, but, just for curiousity's sakes...

9.4 BILLION cigarettes are sold each year in the UK. That's a billion pounds in duty. Remove 7.5% of that and you've lost £75 million of revenue in a single year. How will a government replace that loss of income? By shifting it from a voluntary tax - only the users of cigarettes are taxed - to an involuntary one, such as income tax.

 

[SRV2LOW4ME]

9.4 BILLION cigarettes are sold each year in the UK. That's a billion pounds in duty. Remove 7.5% of that and you've lost £75 million of revenue in a single year. How will a government replace that loss of income? By shifting it from a voluntary tax - only the users of cigarettes are taxed - to an involuntary one, such as income tax.

Famine, you hit the nail on the head with that one. Thats also the reason I see behind them not making it illegal to smoke, only saying where you can't.

Here in Canada, they say smokers put a strain of 6.6 million on the health care system with smoking related medical conditions, which is why there is such high taxes on smokes. We worked it out to roughly $5 and change of tax per pack, times that atleast 5 (on average) packs per week...$25 x 52 weeks = $1300...now multiply that by the millions of people that smoke and you have a government that is making money off smokers. Even if only 3% of the Canadian population smoked, they're still walking away with $1,293,400,000 in profit! No wonder they're not making it illegal, why cut down your money tree if its producing record crops.

A little off topic, but sort of on the same lines. The only other tax increases they've put on us here are on beer/liquor, cigarettes and gasoline. Basically, everything most people use to have fun or to enjoy themselves with. I sometimes think the government would rather see us work and sleep then do anything else. Of course, then they're raise taxes and put some kind of tax on sleeping too.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ummm.... I never said that. Must have meant to quote Pupik, it's nice to know I'm in your thoughts.

Doh! Stupid son of a...


I am glad to hear that some people got to vote on this as here in Kentucky we did not. It was decided on by a city council that was urged to create this ban by an external group made up of people who were NOT even residents of the commonwealth, much less the individual cities.

Now, can someone explain to me how an anti-smoking organization from New York can come to Kentucky and persuade our city councils to pass smoking bans in the heart of tobacco country? We grow the most tobacco in the country (or used to, I think it has changed) and had the highest smoking rate. Polls showed that it was close as to who wanted it and who didn't.

The fact is that long before it passed multiple restaurants had gone non-smoking voluntarily. The entire Applebee's chain did. At least half the fast food places were going that way. It was no longer necessary for this to pass in order for people like Carl to find a non-smoking restaurant.


An interesting story is how this English-style pub (run by an actual Englishman) that my brother and I liked to go to allowed smoking and one night we are in there eating and drinking (mostly drinking) with our wives. Both our wives smoke and were doing so. This place was a redone house and actually had separate rooms. We had chosen an empty room so we could pretty much keep our conversation private. This couple comes in with two kids and starts going room to room looking for a place without smoke (in a pub!). Well, they happened to look in the room we were in at a time when no one had a cigarette. A little while later my slightly drunk wife lights up without thinking. The husband gets up and turns the ceiling fan on high and both our wives start freezing. My brother stands up and turns it off as soon as my wife puts her cigarette out and we just sit and enjoy our drinks. A little while later they get up to leave and tell the waitress they were just getting drinks as they had reservations elsewhere. So, after both parents drank alcohol they left to drive with two kids in the car.

I am curious, who goes to a pub-style establishment looking to avoid smoke? Then who takes kids into what is advertised to be a local bar, and then drives them around after having a couple of drinks?

As a side note: that pub shut down six months after the smoking ban went into effect. I guess no one thought the bangers and mash was any good without the cigarette. Of course I can't prove the ban caused them to shut down, but the coincidence is better evidence than anyone has that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer.


And someone was asking for documented evidence that businesses have been harmed by smoking bans. This guy found enough to devote two whole Web pages to links.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/banlinksarchive1.html

I hope that's enough.

I guess the struggling businesses, waitresses, and bartenders are a necessary evil so that you can walk on to other people's property all you want and never smell smoke. Maybe you should give bigger tips the next time you go to a bar and enjoy the clean air and notice hwo much easier it is to get a seat at the bar/table.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

Are you serious?
Well those sound like really... strange... parents. I mean, what kind of parents
A) Go to a pub to avoid smoking
and
B) Drink in front of kids then drive with kids?
And they were quite rude to you too, they could have just asked you to please put it out or left quietly.
I am surprised at how much the ban has hurt businesses. Really surprised. I mean, its just a cigarette!
Then again, Ive never tried them, and Ive heard their addictive so, I just changed my mind--Im not that surprised.

 

[dbartucci]

Here in Canada, they say smokers put a strain of 6.6 million on the health care system with smoking related medical conditions, which is why there is such high taxes on smokes.

A little off topic, but sort of on the same lines. The only other tax increases they've put on us here are on beer/liquor, cigarettes and gasoline. Basically, everything most people use to have fun or to enjoy themselves with. I sometimes think the government would rather see us work and sleep then do anything else. Of course, then they're raise taxes and put some kind of tax on sleeping too.

Hmm, I heard that smokers contribute positively to the health-care system as they put in more than they take out, as they usually die before their health care costs are greater than the amount paid over their working life.

Sin taxes are easy to raise because no one objects too much and the demand for these goods is quite inelastic, meaning not sensitive to price changes, so behaviour won't change much. The drawback is it tends to affect lower income people more severely as they tend to spend a great absolute amount on these goods and certainly a greater proportion of their disposable income.