BlueRaines

December 11th, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^

This was the main topic on the radio this morning (97.1 I think) and it seemed that most of the callers were for it. Personally I hate the feeling when I come home from the bar and I smell like cigarettes. Even worse is when you wake up the next day and you still smell. Not to mention the health risks of second hand smoke.

I am for the smoking ban. However, I am sure there will be some establishments that will still allow smoking and will pay the fine for it to draw in that crowd. I have heard of that happening in other states (NY I think) that have passed a smoking ban.

tdumich

December 11th, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^

in 20 years people will be amazed they ever allowed it in the first place. you used to be able to smoke on airplanes back in the day. how ridiculous does that sounds now?

Blue in Yarmouth

December 17th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^

In Canada it has been banned for about 4 years in public buildings. Even as a smoker I find it hard to believe it was ever allowed.

Now they have also banned it in vehilce carrying children. If a parent is carting their children around and the cops see that they are smoking they can be fined on the spot.

Again, I smoke, but I like the laws for protecting those who don't.

TIMMMAAY

December 11th, 2009 at 1:10 PM ^

And it's fucking bullshit. I can't even go to my favorite bar for lunch (it's really nice, and generally has more smokers than non)and have a smoke now. We may as well ban fucking Christmas trees, they offend some people too. That's all I have to say about it, liberal b.s. pisses me off.

MrVociferous

December 11th, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^

Sitting next to some people in a bar or restaurant that are drinking isn't going to do jack squat to my personal health. But sitting next to some people in a bar or restaurant that are smoking does affect me. That's the difference.

Trebor

December 11th, 2009 at 2:22 PM ^

The point is, if you are going to start legislating everything that can cause potential harm to the public, you'll be eliminating a vast array of things. Should we ban coal-burning power plants? You can get cancer from the smoke. What about cars? Where exactly are you planning on drawing the line?

There are things far more dangerous to the general populace than cigarette smoke. This legislation does nothing beyond making people more comfortable in enclosed buildings by eliminating smokers. The health benefits are, for all intents and purposes, negligible. Unless you spend every waking moment with a chain smoker, you will more than likely die of something else unrelated to second-hand smoke. This does nothing to help children of smoking parents, who are probably the people most susceptible to the negatives of second-hand smoke.

BiSB

December 11th, 2009 at 2:44 PM ^

as a cost/benefit analysis.

We need electricity and transportation, so we're more lenient with carcinogens from coal plants and cars. (It's worth noting that the government regulates the ever-loving hell out of power companies, and many states have emmisions requirements for cars).

Now, if you can provide one good reason for why smoking is positive, or point to one benefit it provides society, to offset the fact that it causes heart disease and emphysema in people whose only mistake was to stand next to you, then I'll concede.

If it didn't hurt people, I wouldn't care.

Ernis

December 11th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^

It adds to some people's enjoyment of life.

If you don't want to go to a smokey bar, go to a smoke-free bar.

The government could have imposed more intelligent licensing regulations to incentivize businesses to not allow smoking -- causing businesses to pay society for the negative externalities that smoking causes would both increase the number of smoke-free establishments and help pay for the healthcare costs of people affected negatively by cigarette smoke.

Let's face it: this ban is a publicity stunt, an easy fix and a hot topic that makes it look like the government is doing a good job. These issues are intended to distract us from things like, for example...

The State of Michigan, last year, monetized the annuity from the big tobacco lawsuits to cover the enormous gaps in their budget. This was a yearly cash inflow of tens of millions of dollars that would last many, many years .... sold for a quick fix. And it's not like our budget has got any better, so what are we going to do now? But that's not a hot topic. Don't care about that, please. Here, look, shiny object.

BiSB

December 11th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^

I worked in Michigan politics for several years. I've seen the sausage made, and it's never pretty. FWIW, they've been securitizing the Tobacco settlement in chunks over the last five years, it isn't a new thing. They've tapped pretty much every pot of money they can find, and they still have to use some "questionable" accounting to balance the budget every year. I can tell you why that happened, but it's really boring and partisan.

The legislature absolutely passes "shiny object" legislation (see, for example, the Free Puppies and Warm Apple Pie Act of 2009). I worked quite a few of those types of bills. But this bill is a "real" one that is going to make a significant impact in the state.

imdwalrus

December 11th, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^

It adds to some people's enjoyment of life.

So you're saying that personal enjoyment offsets cancer, emphysema, allergic reactions and a laundry list of other potential health problems that can all be attributed to secondhand smoke?

That seems just a little selfish.

Trebor

December 11th, 2009 at 3:39 PM ^

I agree on the electricity and transportation, but where is the research money on cleaner technologies? Why continue building coal plants when nuclear, wind, solar, etc. produce far, far less (nearly zero) negatives to people? The long-term costs certainly aren't any higher. What about electric vehicles?

Jinxed

December 12th, 2009 at 8:07 AM ^

actually.. lowest long term, highest short term.. especially taking into account the expected increase in fossil fuel costs due to developing nations only being able to generate their increasing power demands that way.

As far as risks go.. you're forgetting about climate change and the environmental impact of CO2. Go ask the French if nuclear power is dangerous.. they generate most of their power that way. Chernobyl was a very crappy plant design and no one died in 3 mile island.

jabberwock

December 12th, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^

I wasn't forgetting about environmental impacts.

How long does it take for nuclear waste to "disappear"?
Where is all that waste going to be located? YOUR backyard?
Billions are spent finding/fighting locations and then storing the waste. . . forever.

Accidents DO happen, and the short AND long term costs are catastrophic.
Yes, Chernobyl was a crappy plant design, but gee that was years ago, it's probably safe to build a day care center there now, right?

Maybe CO2 emissions ARE ultimately more costly, but nuclear energy is hardly a magically low long term cost solution. Just because the French are doing it (who have a limited number of affordable options) doesn't mean it's cheap or green.

I'm not against it, just trying to be realistic.

Jinxed

December 12th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^

There is no need to store the curent waste. It can be re-processed and re-burned down to Cesium-137, which in ~100 yrs has lower radioactivity than the original uranium. We have laws in the US preventing this. Japan, China, UK, France, Russia, India and even Iran, have no such laws (not sure about Germany)..

I'm not sure what your comment regarding Chernobyl means.. The USSR had a very flawed design.. we don't graphite moderate here; never have and never will. Our nuclear reactors are basically failsafe with countless safety systems and redundant backups to those systems.

When nuclear plants release pollution or radiation, it's an accident, it makes the papers, and it gets fixed. When a fossil fuel plant does, it's called Tuesday.. (a single coal plant has released more radiation into the environment today than all nuclear plants in the world combined.. there is uranium and thorium in coal..)

Nuclear power offers us the ability to not worry about our energy supply for a thousand years(at least).. Between the uranium that we already have, reprocessing, and then harvesting trace uranium from the sea.. we have enough fuel for about a million years.. Instead of that.. we have a bunch of morons trying to figure out the best place to rise another stupid wind-farm

BiSB

December 11th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^

Coal plants are the cheapest to build, and the electricity they generate is cheaper than the alternatives. Private companies build them, so the invisible hand guides them to the cheapest option.

(But I think at this point we've gone OT of the OT...)

mgowin

December 11th, 2009 at 6:19 PM ^

Whether it affects those around you or not is besides the point. The idea that because something can be banned because it is bad is absurd. In a truly free society people have to be accountable for their own decisions. Our country is repressive to individual freedom because most people do not want the burden of deciding for themselves.

The owner of the bar/pub/club should be able to decide whether to allow smoking or not. If he does not want smoking then the smokers will go to other bars. Then the market will decide whether there are smoking bars or not. In this case the people would have decided and no more legislature would be needed.

In Tennessee you can carry concealed weapons into bars (if you have a permit). If the bar owner does not want guns in the bar, then he places signage at the exits stating that weapons cannot be brought in his/her bar. If you want to carry a gun into a bar then you simply go to another bar.

We need to decide for ourselves. All government is repressive, decide for yourselves what is wrong or right.

aawolve

December 11th, 2009 at 1:19 PM ^

where the owners choose to allow smoking. If anyone has concerns regarding smoking policies, they should approach the management at the establishment in question. If the owner continues to allow smoking, do you think he gives a fuck about you? Vote with your wallet, don't legislate. Next up, fast food taxes. Anal sex is a high risk activity health wise that I choose not to engage in, but if someone wants to dabble in it on their own time, I say have at it.

AKWolverine

December 11th, 2009 at 3:45 PM ^

to restaurants or hotels that want to be racially segregated? Or is that something that is OK to "legislate?" Just to nip any overreactions in the bud: no, I'm not saying smoking is as bad as segregation or something. But if the rationale is rooted in private property rights and the market being a better moderator than the government of what goes on in private establishments, where's the distinction?

NYWolverine

December 11th, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^

you pretty much answered your own question when you said "I'm not saying smoking is as bad as segregation..." The rights of private enterprisers vs. the rights of the populus have developed in this country with the development of the judiciary's opinions on equal protection and due process. These are constitutional safeguards at issue. And all the universe of equal protection and substantive due process cases, as constitutional issues worth litigating, began with reconstruction and the issue of former slaves.

On issues of racial prejudice as they affect contracts, the economy, housing and employment, the standards for private enterprisers have become quite clear cut. There is a strict standard of reviewing the legality of the discriminatory practice.

However, with respect to the more post-modern "exclusive groups" of prejudiced people, such as homosexuals, the overweight, the elderly, and now to some degree, smokers, case law is underdeveloped. The standard of review holds the line of requiring a rational basis for the discriminatory practice.

Your question, therefore, would have been much more provocative had you compared the liberty of private enterprise to discriminate on the basis of weight, gender-identity or age vs. the basis of smoker/non-smoker.

AKWolverine

December 11th, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^

The '64 Civil Rights Act (which is what prohibits racial discrimination in private businesses like restaurants) was not passed under 14th Amendment authority (which is where DP and EP live). Nor was it passed under Congress' 13th Amendment authority to extinguish the badges and incidents of slavery (it couldn't have been. see the Civil Rights Cases) It was passed under Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. Yep, its commercial litigation. There are, in fact, no *constitutional* restraints whatsoever on a private actor's right to discriminate based on race (or anything else). Due process and equal protection restrict only state actors, which a restaurant is not. So your reference to those principles is truly off-point and irrelavent.

Besides, what we are really talking about is the private property rights. I did not couch my comment in the affirmative rights of non-smokers (it therefore doesn't matter whether they are similar or dissimilar to fat people, old people, or gay people). I take it as a given that everyone thinks the govt. should be allowed to tell restaurants they can't be segregated. But, as the above paragraph outlines, those laws are *not* of constitutional dimension. My point was that we don't care so much about private property rights when we are talking about segregation laws, and we trust the govt. more than the marketplace in those contexts. So why not here?

M-Wolverine

December 12th, 2009 at 1:20 AM ^

If privately owned, not getting government funds, then yes, I have a big problem with the government controlling people's right to interact and congregate. If the government wants to make sure that such places do not get tax breaks, or any sort of government benefits afforded to other businesses? Here here. But if the Masters doesn't want women, or the local country club, paid for only by member dues doesn't want black people, or the local bar doesn't want to let redhead in, that should be their right on their private property. Just as it's my right to NEVER give them any business, and to protest their practices as outdated, wrong-headed, and draconian. If it's public/government discrimination, then it should be squashed out, because the government is for, of, and by the people. If we can let the KKK march and spout garbage, and survive as a country, we can survive this.

AKWolverine

December 12th, 2009 at 5:22 AM ^

To send the fire department if there's a fire on that private property (assume no potential damage to other property)? Send the police if someone breaks in? Maintain the roads in front of it? Provide courts if there's a dispute over title to the property? Print and register the deed to the property in the first place? These are all "government benefits afforded to other businesses."

It goes way beyond tax breaks: there really isn't much to the notion of private property without government. So saying 'people can do what they want with their private property, but government doesn't have to help them out' is an empty proposition. Withholding "government benefits" from a private business destroys the concept of its private property altogether.

Look, I'm not saying the government *ought* to legislate everything, I'm just suggesting its a little odd to invoke inherent private property rights in this situation; if duly elected officials think its best to ban smoking, I'm totally fine with that.

Steve in PA

December 11th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^

PA did this a few years back.

I don't smoke, but still hate this idea. I hated coming home from the bar stinking of smoke, but didn't think I had the right to tell other people how to run their lives just to not inconvenience me. If it would have made more sense (and money) some bars would have been smoke free.

I would have supported minimum sentencing (5 days for 1st offense and increasing) for selling tobacco to minors since they are not at the age of consent yet, but not taking away the choices of adults.

Prohibition doesn't work...ever.

Bryan

December 11th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^

Have you ever looked at the ceiling in that place? It's black because of the all the smoke.

It will be nice to be able to go to the bar and not reek of smoke the next morning. However, when I am out smoking doesn't really bother me, but the smell afterwards is what is so bad.

Bowling alleys will never be the same

4godkingandwol…

December 11th, 2009 at 1:12 PM ^

... live out in Washington state now, and it is absolutely the greatest feeling being in a bar without smoke. When I went back home (to the D) last year, I couldn't sit in a bar for 30 minutes.

NYWolverine

December 11th, 2009 at 4:05 PM ^

We passed a no-smoking law in NY years ago, and now it is hard to imagine walking into a restaurant or bar and lighting up. On trips back to Ann Arbor, it is always shocking when the smell of cigarettes first hit me as I walk into a bar. The loss of that smell and the ambience of smoking will in due time prove an excellent use of the state's police power.

There is absolutely nothing beneficial to sitting in a confined space with a massive volume of cigarette smoke. And this is coming from a "social smoker", who should really just quit already.