A conversation I had with a friend on Facebook inspired me to write about this subject. He had joined a movement urging the state of Michigan to ban smoking in businesses including bars and restaurants. I for one would be ecstatic if everyone stopped smoking altogether but I don't think the government should have that power over businesses.
First of all, smoking is legal. Why should the government be able to tell a business owner that they can't have something legal occurring in their establishment? I told my friend this is a very slippery slope. He agreed but said that it is one we need to approach. So what's next? Will businesses that serve alcohol be required to obtain a person's car keys or give proof of an alternative mode of transportation before serving them alcohol?
This is already happening in some states but I think this is certainly not the time for Michigan to give it a whirl. Our economy is about the worst out there. If bars were no longer able to allow their patrons to smoke, I suspect a whole lot more people would be going to Canada, Ohio or elsewhere out of state for their business or they'll just stay at home and drink and smoke. The other outcome would be the bars would ignore the new restriction, get hit with a fine and end up out of business.
I say if smoking is legal it should be up to the business owner as to whether or not to allow it. If they want to exclude the smokers, that's their right but if they need the smokers or even want them, why shouldn't they if it is a legal activity? Anyone who has a problem with smoke need not visit the establishment.
I'll be interested to hear others opinions on the subject.
Do you really think not being able to smoke in public will affect the demand for cigarettes? This is something people do even though they know it can cause them to die horribly. It's expensive but the increase in cost of cigs doesn't decrease how much people smoke. They just use more of the money that should be going elsewhere (like nutritious food for their kids).
People who are on oxygen and are fully aware they could blow themselves and everyone they love up by smoking still smoke. There is a saying, even if a smoker quit 30 yrs ago, if they found out the world was going to end tomorrow, the first thing they want is a cigarette. That's called strong addiction.
I know people that have more willpower than I have ever seen who can't seem to kick it. Do you really think that telling them they have to smoke outside is going to make them stop? Young kids start smoking all the time even though they are fully aware of the risks. If the government really cared about the health issue, and the majority of Americans really wanted it stopped, we would make it illegal.
Jill, your post started out intelligently and then went and did 180 degree turn into stupid. You just explained how people smoke no matter how, then you suddenly go and suggest that making it illigal would magically stop smoking, despite presenting all your anectodal evidence to the contrary.
Yes, it would be illogical to think it wouldn't. People do manage to quit smoking - this would provide one more reason for them to try. Meanwhile, people also choose whether to take up smoking - this would provide one more reason not to. Furthermore you're more likely to smoke if you've grown up in a 'smokey' environment - this reduces the number of such environments which would probably have some impact. Don't take my word for it though - just look at surveys, polls, interviews etc. done in countries considering such a ban - you've had many smokers in favour of the ban in part because they think it may help them to quit.
Similarly if the price of cigarettes doubled, I wouldn't expect the amount people spent on cigarettes to double.
If you want to argue that it's ridiculous for just 1 single person more out of millions to not smoke as much instead of smoking more due to the ban on smoking in public though, go ahead.
Edit: And if you still are sceptical, here are a few quick links courtesy of google for a country that introduced a smoking ban in public places fairly recently:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/consumer_goods/article2769617.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7023841.stm
My anecdotal experience is the opposite. Lots of examples of alternate-generation smokers. Don't know what studies have shown in terms of actual data, though.
I never said making it illegal would stop people. Pot is illegal, people still smoke it. All sorts of drugs are illegal, people still use them. I'm just pointing out that the government needs to be consistent. Either make it illegal or stay the hell out of the privately owned businesses.
I would be upset at all if they made smoking illegal. It is bad for all involved other than those making money off from it. I just think it is a horrible idea to give the government power to go in and tell privately owned businesses they can't allow legal activities.
I still think the example of loud music is a good one. It damages your hearing. It's legal. Should the gov be able to ban it for our own good? What's the difference?
Actually tobacco sales do tend to decrease somewhat in places that have bans that cover large areas (like a state) which is of course why J&J is in large part funding the anti-tobacco campaigns as they want to boost their sales of smoking cessation products. For them it's nothing more than a covert marketing campaign.
Of course it doesn't force the long term smokers to quit and probably never will, just the light smokers tend to quit for the most part. There are a good many people who only smoke when they go out for drinks and no other time. I know a number of such people myself.
As I now use e-cigs the bans don't affect me personally, but I still do not agree with these sorts of laws and never will. I don't care if it's smoking, certain dog breeds, or red rubber baby bumpers, they're nothing more than the revocation of yet another liberty and always remind me "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".
Actually it is illigal to play music above certain volumes near residental areas. The police will come, and fine you. And if it is after 9pm then much lighter noise will get them on your case (then it is public disturbance).
There are several completely different issues that we keep on jumping between:
1. Should you be allowed to harm others when engaging in self destructive behaviour (drunk driving, playing music at extreme volumes that damages your neighbors hearing, smoking near children, etc).
2. Should you be allowed to harm yourself and ONLY yourself? (drinking at home, smoking alone/with other smokers/playing loud music in a sound insulated environment (aka, inside home)/headphones).
2a. Should you be allowed to do so if the government pays for your treatments later.
3. Should the government pay for treatments for self inflicted (knowingly) harm?
4. Should addictive substances be regulated by the government.
5. Will banning a narcotic eliminate its use?
5a. Will banning a narcotic create crime. (smuggling, loss of respect to the law, etc)
My answers:
No.
Yes.
Yes. (I think it complicates matters if we try to take into account the health care issues.)
I don't see how we can let people die otherwise.
I don't even know how we could realistically force people to stop smoking when in government-paid treatment for cancer.
First, this is the US, not Canada, Ireland, Germany, etc, and we Americans are concerned about the behavior of OUR govt.
As opposed to the Canadians, the Irish, and the Germans?
Frankly I resent any law that treats adults like children.
And I resent any adults that behave like children. Personal responsibility does not end when it can only be enforced by governments, and arguments against government intervention do not convince me when the government only intervened because individuals keep refusing to act like responsible human beings.
Jill Id hug ya for finally seeing the real reason why smoking is the new deamon! Its not because they want to "help" others and live a healthier lifestyle... its just a front for the real reason WHY they are doing it which is... as you stated.... money. Its easy to make alot off taxes in the name of "better health"
That doesn't make sense.
Government either wants fewer people to smoke XOR make more money from people smoking.
A campaign to persuade people not to smoke is certainly not a part of a grand plan to make more money from smokers.
I think that some people just think until they arrive at the first scenario where government is the bad guy and then they call that the answer and feel proud that they looked through the matter while others are still ignorant.
You think that your insurance company is tough to deal with... wait till you have to deal with the gov for health care.
I have grown up in a country with socialised medicine and don't remember that particular problem.
As far as smoking in bars, etc goes, (public places but "private" businesses) why not let the market place set the rules.
If we let the "market" set the rules for harmful actions you will quickly notice that people will murder each other because the market fails to come up with an incentive for violent people not to murder.
That has nothing to do with damaging the neighbors' hearing. The noise laws in existence are there because of 'annoyance' issues, not health issues, with the exception of occupational noise exposure regulations.
People voluntarily go to concerts where the volume is ridiculously high, though. And use mp3 players at high volume. And do a variety of other things without ear protection. Should the feds step in and set federally mandated decibel limits for concerts & mp3 players, and create yet another federal department to enforce them? We're getting close to the point where there will be more regulators than regulated as it is.
I am sure that smoking in public is the same as murder in most people's minds. Just like comparing smoking around children to shooting them or running them over with your car. Man, talk about comparing apples to oranges.
America USED to be a democracy. However, we seem to be taking the lead from Socialist nations. Creating more bans and social regulations just pushes us further into socialism. Where does it end? EVERY regulation of this type is harmful in a free economy. The more you regulate business in any way, the more harm is done.
I think not. People willing to commit murder will do so when it suits them. Besides, the laws are in place to render justice (such as it is here), not prevent murder.
"As opposed to the Canadians, the Iirish, and the Germans?" Sorry, I'm new to this and don't know how to do the quotes.
Actually, what I meant was that as Canadians, Irish, Germans, Americans, etc, we all worry about the behavior of our OWN governments. Furthermore, if the US government continues with it's policies that intrude more and more into the private lives of it's citizens, we Americans are stuck with the consequences, not the Canadians, Irish, Germans, etc.
"If we let the "market" set the rules for harmful actions you will quickly notice that people will murder each other because the market fails to come up with an incentive for violent people not to murder."
Are we on the same subject? I was talking about smoking in private business establishments, a behavior that may be offensive to many (including myself) but is not illegal. The market will indeed reward the business owner who creates an environment that pleases the majority of his customers. So if most of us want a smoke free atmosphere we'll flock to the bar that provides this. As far as the market and murder go, I don't know what to say. Murder is against the law and here we depend on our government for protection but until smoking is declared illegal I, for one, prefer to protect myself.
The examples are merely used to represent other actions that harm people. Generally the question is whether it is OK to harm others without their consent or not.
Excuse me, but what exactly is "socialist" about banning smoking? I don't see how it has anything to do with socialism. Banning murder is not more "socialist" than not banning murder. And banning smoking is not more "socialist" than not banning smoking.
EVERY regulation is not harmful. Making murder illegal is not "harmful". And I find the excuse that prohibiting harming other people is some sort of regulation of business and "socialism" quite laughable. It's avoiding the issue. If you have a point against banning smoking in the presence of others, bring it on. But screaming "socialism" when the subject has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism is not a point.
I am sure the laws exist to prevent murder.
And I agree that people willing to commit murder will do so when it suits them. Just like smokers will smoke when it suits them. That's why I don't believe that the market can regulate these issues.
Harming other people without their consent is wrong and government should enforce that fact. It's not a question of what economic system we emply, it's a question of whether we believe that government should enforce individual rights EVEN when smokers want to violate them or not.
I'm aware of this. So why isn't it illegal in bars?
Are we on the same subject? I was talking about smoking in private business establishments, a behavior that may be offensive to many (including myself) but is not illegal.
I think you missed the beginning of the discussion.
The subject was whether it should be illegal.
My opinion is that actions that harm others against their will, whether it is murder or smoking in their presence should not be allowed, even in private businesses.
A law prohibiting smoking in privarte businesses is in place in Ireland (but not in Germany) and, apparently, in some US states.
I don't believe that anybody, including smokers, has a right to do harm to others, even if the business owner refuses to prohibit such actions.
Murder is against the law and here we depend on our government for protection but until smoking is declared illegal I, for one, prefer to protect myself.
I feel that smoking in the presense of others who don't agree with the harm done to them by that action should also be illegal. And that's exactly what many European countries are now implementing.
I fully agree with your sentiment, Karma, but the US has never been a democracy. Rather a representative republic which, at one time, anyway, actually represented us. Our government now exists to sustain and enlarge itself rather than represent us, I'm afraid. Why we keep electing such goons is beyond me.
I think we have been there before.
I know plenty of pubs in my area that play loud music. And I know plenty of pubs that don't.
But before the smoking ban I didn't know of a single pub that was smoke-free.
Note that it is not customers who play loud music in those pubs, it is the pubs themselves offering such an "entertainment".
Whether this is acceptable for people who work in the bars is for the legislative to decide, I suppose. I am not very interested in the issue because I am not as bothered by loud music as I am by smoke. It is also quite possible for people to work in another pub if they don't like the loud music. As I said, there are lots of pubs that don't play loud music.
(And whoever insists on working in a smoke environment is free to look for a job in a private smoking club.)
I fully agree with your sentiment, Karma, but the US has never been a democracy. Rather a representative republic which, at one time, anyway, actually represented us.
A representative republic is a type of democracy. In fact all democracies (except for a few cantons in Switzerland I suppose, which are direct democracies) are representative. (The third type is the council democracy.)
You guys have given me a lot to think about. I'm really impressed by the debate here. I've really enjoyed this debate because I have no emotional attachment to the issue of smoking. I do feel strongly about personal rights and am opposed to a government bent on protecting us form ourselves.
I appreciate that even though one person said that something I said was stupid, noone actually called anyone stupid or any other name. This is the kind of debate we need more of!
I agree but if you enter a private establishment, you consent to be exposed to any LEGAL activity within.
Our government is already so bloated and inefficient. Who is going to enforce the ban? Who is going to be in charge of cigarette regulation?
We have so many problems and expenses in our government already! We already agree that smoking in PUBLIC and GOVERNMENT locations is wrong and I haven't heard anyone have a problem with that. We are talking about the rights of privately owned establishments. That is my big issue here.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
