According to an article by Mike Smith, writing for the Associated Press, Representative Charlie Brown says he will introduce legislation to ban smoking in public places state wide.
Smoking would be snuffed out in almost all enclosed public places in Indiana, including restaurants, bars, bowling alleys and casinos, under a bill a powerful state lawmaker plans to push in the upcoming legislative session.
“It is a public health issue,†said Democratic state Rep. Charlie Brown of Gary, chairman of the House Public Health Committee. He said his primary aim is protecting the health of non-smokers who work in places where smoking is allowed.
(I wonder if Mike died a little bit inside when he wrote “smoking would be snuffed out”.)
Smoking is a tricky one, civil liberties-wise. Your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose, as the saying goes. If smokers could find a way to keep their smoke out of my air, I would have more sympathy for their arguments about their rights being infringed when these smoking bans are implemented. But then, you get a whole new layer when you start asking whose air it is at a public establishment with employees: Do patrons have a claim on the air? Do employees have a claim on the air? The owner of the business? The landlord of the business?
As I’ve said before, libertarianism doesn’t deal well with pollution. It’s hard to keep particulate matter out of the air and water, it’s hard to determine when and how much that particulate matter is damaging someone else, and it’s hard to find a cost-effective remedy for such damage once it has been caused. Smoking is a form of pollution.
Another question is to ask whether smoking regulations are better handled at the federal, state, or local level. I don’t have strong opinions there. It’s not based on strong convictions, but I suppose I’d like to see a regime where smoking is permitted at places with other “vices” — bars and casinos and the like, but not at other public venues.
(As a matter of my own personal comfort, I would like it if I never had to encounter cigarette smoke anywhere. I hate the stuff — it smells awful, it makes my clothes reek, if my wife goes somewhere smoky, I end up having to smell it in her hair, and I have unpleasant memories of the smoke filled car on family trips when my parents used to smoke. Generally, when I have to encounter it, cigarette smoke decreases my quality of life to one extent or another.)
I didn’t think anything of smoke-filled places until I moved to the Twin Cities in 1992. EVERYTHING there was smoke-free. They even made it to where people couldn’t smoke within 100 feet of public building doors.
I am 100% behind a state-wide ban. That way the laws are all equal in every community in Indiana. It would just work better that way.
As a matter of point a number of new restaurants up here are purposely smoke-free.
Which ones do you think get most of my families business?
BTW I remember being stuck in the trucks with all my parents employees as one of the few non-smokers. Their attitude was enough to make me realize that certain rights should be curtailed if they can’t understand my right to clean air!!!!
Trucks and smoke seem to go together. I spent a summer loading semi-trailers with folks who wanted to smoke inside the trailer — 95 degree days inside a semi-trailer filled with smoke isn’t pleasant.
I hope Mr Brown gets a good lesson about “public places” by being banned from entering the ones that are privatly owned.
This is one of those issues that was (and still should be) very simple, but alas is now another legislative clusterfrick and a political football.
If I own a business, be it a bar or whatever, I have the right to allow any legal activity on my property I deem fit. If you don’t like smoke, go to a non-smoking bar. You don’t have a “right” to patronize my establishment, period.
The problem is that smoke refuses to stay in the smoking side; and often the tables are side to side.
Case in point, I went to Olive Garden with my family and they sat us in the non-smoking section. Then they sat this old battle-axe in the table next to us. She started to light up. I asked her to refrain for my kids’ sake and because this was a non-smoking table-and she informed me she was in the smoking section. I asked the manager to tell her not to smoke-he said that was impossible! The place was too busy to move and our food had just been delivered. Needless to say that heartless woman chain-smoked until we left.
And that is one of just countless examples of where I have been promised what should be a smoke-free environment-just to have my air bastardized by their cancer sticks! Smoking and non-smoking sections DO NOT WORK! The only thing that works is making that filthy habit have to happen outside-away from the entry doors. I don’t want to smell like a cigarette-if I did, then I’d smoke!
And after living in an area where basic lung rights were respected in places where the public would gather-I guess I am for the rights of polluters being curtailed!
Another pet peeve of mine is smokers who just let their cigarettes burn. I had a smoker roommate in college who didn’t bother me all that much because he worked those cigarettes for all they were worth, sucking them down and letting relatively little smoke go.
At the time, that was quite a contrast from the college girls at the bars we’d go to who would light the cigarette, take a puff, and just let the thing burn and smoke.
Tim Zank said:
Uh… no. It is perfectly legal for you to have sex with another consenting adult, but definitely not legal in the middle of your bar or restaurant.
I don’t get where smoking is the least bit tricky. If I walked into a bar and started spraying hair spray all over the place, I would be quickly hauled away.
Why one noxious substance and not another?
Guess one way to end this is have all the non-smoking waitresses who are forced to serve smokers file a class action suit for an unhealthy workplace environment…not that I’m for lawsuits and all…
While I can appreciate all of your horror stories, and the endless inconvenience to you having to put up with us smokers, I still can’t get it through my head why you all find it so difficult to patronize places that simply don’t allow smoking. It’s not as though there is a limited amount of places to patronize.
I especially like the rev’s “basic lung rights”. Now that’s a catchy new phrase! Look that one up in your law journals Doug. Brenda, you can offer up one ridiculous scenario after another, but the simple truth is, everyone has the opportunity to patronize any business they want to, and if they are uncomfortable in an establishment because of smoking, then for christ’s sake don’t go there. Go somewhere you like and feel comfortable instead of trying to radically change the existing business and other peoples lifestyles to suit yours. It’s a perfectly legal product. How about a little common sense instead of being everyones nanny???
And again, the second hand smoke argument in court I think would require names, examples, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that 2nd hand smoke killed anyone, wouldn’t it Doug? I don’t believe we’ve seen a death certificate anywhere yet that stated cause of death was “second hand smoke”.
Death certificates state the immediate cause of death along with contributing causes. I’ve handled enough death certificates to know that contributing causes often are not listed at all. The certifier of the cause of death may or may not be in a position to know whether second hand smoke contributed to the death. Whether you want to believe it or not Tim Zank, second-hand smoke does kill. This is a workplace issue, not merely a patron issue. In some areas, people make decent wages working in the hospitality industry, factories, etc. Should they have to seek out other employment for the sake of allowing a very small number of employees and patrons to pollute the air in restaurants and other venues?
In 2006 Ohio had a referredndum in which a smoking ban (despite being outspent by big tobacco by a 3 to 1 margin) passed by a 58-42% margin. I would think that Ohio is probably one of the most comparable states demographically to Indiana and I would suspect if it went to a vote here, it would pass by a similiar margin. I can give dozens of reasons why I would love to see it happen here (some have already been mentioned earlier in this blog) Just seems to me if this is what the people want (as in the case of Ohio and I strongly suspect the same would be true here)
it’s harder to make a case to not do this.
Also, a disproprtionate percentage of people that are opposed to smoking bans are elderely and are of my parents generation; younger generations are more open to such bans. Just seems to me it’s a matter of time until most/all states ban smoking.
http://no-smoking.org/nov06/11-09-06-1.html
I would be thrilled if this bill passed. But given that it has *no* chance of passing in the Senate, I’m surprised it gets any press at all.
Dim tank, I know you suckle at the teat of your liartarian daddies, but try to understand this: I HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS ANYONE ELSE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE TO STOP GOING TO A PLACE I ENJOY JUST BECAUSE A FEW PEOPLE CAN’T STEP THE FUCK OUTSIDE. IF YOU ARE A BUSINESS OWNER, YOU DO NOT RETAIN ALL RIGHTS OF “PRIVATE PROPERTY” WHEN YOU OPEN YOUR BUSINESS TO THE PUBLIC. YOU SACRIFICE THOSE RIGHTS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPERATE A BUSINESS. THAT IS THAT.
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ARGUE THIS. YOU CAN NOT.
Thanks! I’ll get you a t-shirt with that slogan on it-what size do you wear?
Rev. AJB says:
November 16th, 2008 at 0:04 -06006
I especially like the rev’s “basic lung rightsâ€. Now that’s a catchy new phrase!
………………
Ahhhh,just where are these ‘basic lung rights’ written as rights??
9th Amendment:
Doug says:
November 16th, 2008 at 8:05 -06006
9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
……………….
The problem would seem to be,just who decides what those rights might be and are some rigths more equal than others.
Pila says:
November 15th, 2008 at 20:14 -06006
Whether you want to believe it or not Tim Zank, second-hand smoke does kill.
……………….
The proof for this is where?
Here are a couple of studies that say otherwise.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sqg22d00
Title
ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE AND LUNG CANCER MORTALITY IN THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY’S CANCER PREVENTION STUDY II
Conclusion:
This study found no evidence of an association between
self-reported ETS and lung cancer risk among nonsmokers.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/166/18/1961
(NOTE: MI is heart attack)
Lifetime Cumulative Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Never Smokers
Results From the Western New York Health Study, 1995-2001
Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1961-1967.
Results
After adjustment for covariates, exposure to SHS was not significantly associated with an increased risk of MI.
These are not tobacco funded studies.
For instance:
The study below was reviewed and approved by Michael J. Thun, M.D., Vice President, Epidemiology. and Surveillance Research, American Cancer Society.
Lifetime Cumulative Exposure to Secondhand Smoke and Risk of Myocardial Infarction in Never Smokers
Results From the Western New York Health Study, 1995-2001
Results
After adjustment for covariates, exposure to SHS was not significantly associated with an increased risk of MI.
Hey Damian, some friendly commentary on your post:
1) my Mom reads Doug’s blog sometimes. Your opening sentence was… hmm… a touch graphic for a 72 year old school teacher; not to mention that starting off with a personal attack rarely lends credence to a person’s argument (which is too bad because the argument itself was valid).
2) the reason print isn’t always in all caps is that it is too difficult to read, so instead of adding emphasis to your text you are ensuring that many people just skip over it
3) Tim can argue anything. :)
Not that anyone made me the blog sheriff.
Tim: “…I still can’t get it through my head why you all find it so difficult to patronize places that simply don’t allow smoking. It’s not as though there is a limited amount of places to patronize.”
There is not a limited amount today, because of the actions taken before today. There didn’t used to be ANY non-smoking restaurants. When my children were little – in the 80s and 90s – and did suffer from asthma and more serious lung problems, we rarely could go out for dinner, because smoke did not stay in the smoking section, as has been noted by another poster. Many times, we had to leave, and then of course never return, because our daughter was made ill – not ill-feeling – but actually unable to breathe – when smoke from the smoking section drifted to our table. Of course, the manager was always “SO SORRY, BUT NOTHING I CAN DO”. So, effectively, we had no right to expect to be able to eat in an environment that would not make her sick.
The bans are forming other new words too.We now have “smokeasy” and “Chanticide”
Please allow me to clarify a few things. I consider myself a “courteous” smoker. Over the years (I’ve been smoking for about 35 years) I have adapted to smoking away from those it offends or may cause harm. I don’t smoke in my home, I step outside, and I don’t smoke in my car when others are with me. I have no problem with smoke free restaraunts, and even when I could smoke in them I deferred, if it would obviously bother somebody.
What draws my ire, is the incessant overbearing militant type activists that feel it necessary to stamp out smoking in every square inch of the country. With all things, there is common sense middle ground tht can be acheived, but I see none of that. If a nightclub or a neighborhood bar (no kids-only PAYING adults) wishes to cater to a smoking crowd, or takes it upon themselves to cater to a non-smoking crowd, what is wrong with that?
Let’s drop the health issue on this aspect, as a night out in a bar that allows smoking will not give you lung cancer. Granted, it will make your wife’s hair smell, and your clothes smell, but these are inconveniences brought about by your choice to attend a certain place.
It’s patently unfair to tell someone to whom they may or may not cater to when running a business offering a legal product. We have regulations way beyond what is necessary in virtually all walks of life.
Everyone has choices in life, all I ask is that we use a little common sense and decency, over-reaching “laws” and inventing new rights does none of us any good.
For those of you still hell bent on forcing everyone to quit, consider the law of unintended consequences as well. Taxes on tobacco products amount to about $20 billion (with a B) annually and about 1/10th of that actually gets spent on smoking cessation programs, while the rest is spent on numerous other taxpayer funded projects and programs.
The farming of, curing of, and production and sale of tobacco related products employs hundreds of thousands of Americans and generates billions in sales. You’re talking about incinerating (pun intended) a lot of employment also.
Lastly, let’s think about the consequences (assuming the statistics are true about smokers life expectency) of 50 million smokers that quit, will live 7 years longer aprox.
Think of the financial burden 50 million more folks will add to YOUR tax burden for social security, medicare and medicaid alone.
It’s an admirable goal to help everyone live longer and healthier, but be careful what you wish for, because in the big picture it’s going to be very expensive for all of the rest of you later on.
Damian, thanks for not letting me down, I know I can always count on your rational and thoughful input.
Again, this is not merely an issue regarding patrons of bars and restaurants. The issue also involves employees of those places as well as other places of business.
Does inventing new rights include the invention of a “right to smoke”?
Surgeon General’s report concludes that second hand smoke kills: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html
We’ve always had a “right to smoke”. It has NEVER been illegal or even frowned uon until the last 20 years. What you are suggesting is taking that right away. As for the employee’s argument, I find that tenuous at best. Their are plenty of places to work in a smoke free environment, if it bothers you, get a different job.
Again, there is no “right to a job I really like”….You have the right to seek work anywhere you like.
There are risks inherent in many lines of work, and as noble a goal as it may be to protect everyone, everywhere from any harm, it’s just not realistic. We’re not talking about coal miners that have nowhere else to work but in the mines to feed their families, we’re talking about bus-boys, waiters and bartenders that hold job’s about as long as a semester. Part of life is making choices and taking risks. I realize that’s not real popular today what with all the promises to keep everyone healthy, wealthy, happy, employed and responsibility free from cradle to grave, but it’s what this country was founded on and built on, making choices and taking risks.
Relax, the busboys and waiters and bartenders will be just fine.
Tim Zank said:
That argument never flies with me… like defending the (former) right to beat your wife and the (former) right to own slaves. Just because it has been legal in the past does not make it inalienable.
Brenda, That’s what I mean by “militant activist mentality”. Comparing cigarette smoking to beating your wife, or slavery is just asinine. We don’t have any common sense anymore. If something honks you off, you equate it to some off the wall analogy like that.
That’s why nothing ever get’s accomplished anymore, people like you are absolutely certain you are right and everyone else is a frickin’ idiot for not seeing it your way and agreeing with you. With you there’s no room for compromise, it’s all black and white and using ridiculous comparisons (that I suspect you really know are not valid) proves it.
Let me ask you this, say I open a private club. It’s Tim’s Smoking Club, and for $5 you can come in and talk, play cards, and smoke. Would you accept that?
Or would you (or certainly someone else) sue for a non-smoking ordinance because:
1. Everybody has a right to talk?
2. Everybody has the right to play cards?
How about in 5 years from now (the way things are going) when I invite 4 friends over to play poker in my home and all but one of them smokes? Will I be getting a visit from the smoke police? We are putting #4 at risk, no??What if I have a Christmas Party and they catch me and a few of my guests smoking in the garage?? Jailable offense or just a fine? Take my house away maybe?? After all I would be putting others at risk, no?
Just where do you stop?
Uh Tim… I wasn’t comparing cigarette smoking to beating your wife (or slavery)… I was deriding your implication that because something has always been legal it somehow means it always *should* be legal. I could have just said “Cultures change and laws change with them.” but I wanted to be illustrative.
While I hate, loath, and detest cigarette smoking, I actually don’t take much issue with it in bars. Since a patron is typically there to practice one vice, I don’t see a lot wrong with practicing others while there. That’s one side of the argument (and don’t get me wrong, when I say “vice” that doesn’t mean I’m against alcohol, it happens to be one of my personal favorites when it comes to vices). However, the argument about the ban being for the bartenders and wait-staff also holds true.
I’m in Illinois, and I LOVE the smoking ban. It’s nice to go into a restaurant and be able to taste your food.
Tim, that “smoke police” thing is a strawman. In these laws, the definition of a public place is well-defined, so you’re not going to get busted if you smoke when your neighbors are over. If there is a smoke police, they are the increasing number of companies that, in the name of keeping health insurance premiums down, will fire you for smoking — anywhere.
Also, one group smokers in Ohio do not have lobbying on their behalf is casinos. You can bet (sorry) the state’s casinos would throw big money against a smoking ban because they’ve absorbed every smokestack who won’t go to an Illinois casino anymore. Also, Blue Chip now has to compete against a native-owned casino right across the state line, one that might be excepted from any smoking ban Michigan might want to incur.
Yeah, I remember my parents dangling the “carrot” in front of one of their employees twenty years ago to get him to quit smoking. He wanted his family to be covered on the plan and my parents figured out that it would cost the same to cover his whole family if he were a non-smoker as it was costing them to cover JUST HIM as a smoker. They told him they would be willing to pay for his whole family if he qould just quit so the price would remain the same for the insurance premiums-otherwise they could not afford it. And he couldn’t afford the difference to be taken from his check to have it that way, either.
He never quit and we, the public, ended up picking up his kids’ medical bills.
Let’s see, where to begin?
Just because some activity is legal, that doesn’t convey the status of “right” to said activity. It would be more of a “granted privilege”. That said, it isn’t the “right” of people who don’t partake of said privilege to remove it from others either. Want a smoke-free bar? Buy one and run it yourself. Non-smokers everywhere should flock to your establishment (they won’t, but they should).
I commute with a smoker. He smokes when he drives. I do wish he would do as Tim does and refrain. He cracks the driver’s window to draw out the smoke (which is good), but in doing so he fills the passenger side of the car (due to ventilation dynamics) with hot air in the summer and cold air in the winter. Now, the summer is tolerable, but during the winter I take a blanket, earmuffs, a hood, etc. just to stay somewhat warm around my head. Of course, it’s OK near my feet because the heater is on full blast. Toast and freeze. Yeah, that’s fun.
Frankly, anybody who smokes is a sissy if they don’t smoke (unfiltered) Turkish cigarettes. If you don’t get the whole effect of hot, acrid smoke being drawn down your throat every time you take a drag, then why bother? Filters just minimize the effects of the tars and nicotine that your body is addicted to. So why deny yourself, they full monty? Buy Turkish, or quit.
Tim,
Do you take issue with laws about sexual harassment? If not, why not?
If I run a strip club, does that mean I can violate sexual harassment laws? After all, if they don’t like it, they can get a job somewhere else.
Arguements about the health of the people visiting a business are just plain stupid, I’ll agree with you there. They can choose where to eat or drink.
The issue is that we have decided that people have a right to a safe workplace. The laws about smoking should reflect that.
It SHOULD be possiable to have a smoking bar or other business, I agree here as well. You just need to make sure that the employees are not exposed to the smoke. There are bars that have a smoking area, and the bartender is behind glass like a bank teller. No reason that shouldn’t be allowed.
One of the big problems with these laws is that too many people get tied up in their own agenda. Take DST. Too much of it was an arguement about what people liked. Time zones are a scientific and commerce issue, not a “I like late sunsets” issue.
The same should be said about these smoking laws. Any arguement based on people’s dining enjoyment should be ejected, period. Keep the debate on what is right for employees and employers.