Sen. Dillon’s SB 399 imposes a smoking ban in public places. One potential I see is that the Department of Health is charged with enforcement. I don’t know if the same issues would apply, but I recall some problems with enforcement of fireworks prohibitions having to do with the State Fire Marshall being charged with enforcement and local law enforcement feeling like they were preempted from acting when they saw a violation.
Cigarette smokers will, no doubt, feel that their rights are being infringed upon. I wonder if a case can be made for requiring the continued allowance of cigarette smoking in a public place that is consistent with a continued outright ban on marijuana smoking?
Health departments are not going to like having to enforce a smoking ban. From what I hear of Ohio news, local Ohio health depts. have spent a lot of time and money trying to enforce their statewide smoking ban.
Once again a colossal waste of taxpayer money, an enforcement nightmare, and another opportunity for overbearing busybodies to impose their will upon the rest of us.
What do ya say we let the government worry about something a little more important than whether or not I’m lighting up on a public street?
This isn’t about non-smoker or smoker rights. This is about the rights of private business owners to decide best how to run their businesses. Non-smokers do not have some sort of right to go into a private business establishment and not be subject to smoke. Likewise, smokers do not have a right to go into a private busienss establishment and smoke.
Seems like there was a social stickiness of sorts to business owners banning smoking. Back before government imposed smoking bans, I don’t think businesses were really eager to ban smoking entirely — I think they felt they had to cater to smokers to a greater or larger extent. Smoking bans in offices and then restaurants have changed social expectations.
Just idle curiosity, but I wonder what the difference would be in total businesses who didn’t allow smoking in these two scenarios:
Scenario 1: No smoking bans were ever imposed by the government.
Scenario 2: Blanket smoking ban imposed for two years after which it is lifted and businesses can ban smoking or not as they choose.
Public attitudes,now against smoking, have changed dramatically,and that’s what’s driving the anti-smoking mandate,imo. Government and business are just trying to keep up.If someone smokes within range of a non-smoker now it doesn’t go unchallenged,and whoever is in charge of the sullied space is notified. Back in 50s and 60s,which I remember well, smoking was assumed just about everywhere, and smokers were always accommodated,and if you didn’t like it,you kept quiet.It was assumed that only the smoker was at risk,and simply dividing space into smoking and non-smoking was thought to be a reasonable accommodation for everyone. That’s the way it still is in lots of Europe,especially France.
It also used to be assumed that the person entering an establishment assumed all the risks that went with it. When you step on the rink to play hockey, you might get roughed up. In the same way, if you stepped into a restaurant that permitted smoking, you might catch some second-hand smoke. No more.
I don’t smoke, and I don’t like second-hand smoke, so I go to places that I know have a voluntary no-smoke policy. Works real well: I get what I want, smokers get what they want.
We aren’t a very reasonable, tolerant, or accommodating society, when you get right down to it. We’re all or nothing. We love to tell others what not to do. Oh for a little thinking like a la Voltaire- “I may not smoke, but I’ll respect your right as a business owner to determine the policy that suits your customers”.