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.
See, you're making the same argument it's just you don't mind the loud music. The thing is, currently, smokers and non smokers have the same rights. Both are behaving in legal ways. If you say people can find a job in another pub if they don't like loud music, why doesn't that work for those who don't like smoke? If the pub owner likes to smoke and has friends who smoke an likes people who smoke, why shouldn't he be able to allow smoking in his pub? He owns it right? He can post a sign warning that if you don't like smoke, go somewhere else.
That's your own anecdotal experience in your own little region of the world. I know plenty of places in our area that aren't smokey. I'd never go to a bar otherwise.
That is a whole different debate that our country has been struggling with for some time. I will just say this since you keep insisting on comparing the US to other governments, as a parent I know that what works with one child may not work for the next. I feel the same applies to governments. You can't compare what works for one little country the size of one of our small states to what would work for the entire US.
I agree but if you enter a private establishment, you consent to be exposed to any LEGAL activity within.
Yes, I agree.
But I don't think smoking next to other people (unless they agree with it) should be legal, because it is an action that harms others.
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?
Here in Ireland it is business owners who are in charge of the ban. Try to smoke in a pub and the land lord will tell you something about it.
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.
If those privately owned establishments are open to tbe public or have employees, I feel that safety regulations should apply, EVEN IF they might impact smokers.
What I don't get is this general belief that so many seem to have that smokers are (or should be) a class above and beyond other people, a class of people whose right to harm others should not be questioned per se.
Forget about it being smoking and think of any other activity that is as harmful to other people.
Most of those other activities would be illegal of course, since people who pursue those are not, like smokers, above the law.
I'd rather lose 2 euros per hour than breath second-hande smoke. Of course, stealing 2 euros from me every hour is illegal, even in private businesses where I might be employed.
And that's the point. Even though the one harms me MORE than the other, the one is not illegal because the smoker is considered to be above the law, while the 2 euros per hour thief is not.
What else is harmful to other people and legal? I can now only think of smoking. And if it is only smoking, it means that smokers are currently a privileged class as the only people who can legally harm others.
See, you're making the same argument it's just you don't mind the loud music.
No, I am not making the same argument. I am just saying that _I_ don't care about loud music, and there is no need for me to be an activist of some sort in areas that don't interest me just because I have an opinion in another area.
If you are convinced by my argument about smoking you can tell me that it also applies to loud music and I would probably agree. But I really don't care about the music subject.
See, you're making the same argument it's just you don't mind the loud music. The thing is, currently, smokers and non smokers have the same rights.
No. Currently smokers have the right to harm non-smokers but not vice versa. I, a non-smoker, am NOT allowed to steal 2 euros per hour from smokers (and burn the money). But they are allowed to cause me an equivalent amount of harm. That's NOT the same rights.
You can argue that I have the right to harm them as well, using that legal method of theirs; but then the entire thing becomes a farce. I assume from the beginning that NOBODY has a right to harm others, not that we need to find an equilibrium of methods.
If you say people can find a job in another pub if they don't like loud music, why doesn't that work for those who don't like smoke?
I told you. There are two reasons, possibly related.
One is that while there are many pubs without loud music, there were, before the law here in Ireland, no pubs without smoke.
The other is that going into a pub and making loud music is already illegal. Only the land lord himself can play loud music. Hence the number of pubs where that happens is much smaller as the land lord has direct control and does not lose customers by not playing loud music at any given moment.
I am convinced that it wouldn't.
But that doesn't mean that I have to accept as gospel whatever some American says about socialised medicine when I know from experience that it is wrong.
Sorry for raising a semantic point. I agree ours is a highly modified form of democratic government, at least in the common use of the term.
I agree ours is a highly modified form of democratic government, at least in the common use of the term.
It's an interesting subject.
The US are more democratic than the UK. In the US both the executive branch and the legislative branch (both houses) are elected. In the UK the executive branch is not elected (although its cabinet usually, but not necessarily, relies on a majority in the legislative) and only one house of the legislative is elected.
Wow, am impressed this argument is still going. 2 different points of view both with valid points. I guess it all boils down to the % of people who believe in one over the other. Can't always win them all, right Leauki?
The legally required cameras in your bathroom are for your own protection... not from muggers, we took care of that by implanting tracking chips in people... from yourself, in case you wish to commit suicide.
Having a quick glance around here's one study relating to that: http://www.dbtechno.com/health/2009/02/05/children-more-likely-to-smoke-if-parents-light-up-cigarettes/
Here's the relevant extract:
It makes logical sense as well - if you're growing up in a house filled with smoke, you're going to suffer some second hand smoke, which just by itself would make you more likely to want to smoke I'd have thought, even before factoring in that you may look up to your parents and view it as more acceptable behaviour to smoke if they do.
Playing music so load that it damages the hearing of anyone nearby should be illegal in the case of an individual. Obviously it should be legal if for a business/venue where the sole purpose of that place is to play loud music, since people will come there for the music - a bit like people go to the pub to drink (which will harm them, but should still be legal). As for playing loud music that damages the hearing of people in a pub, I don't know of any pubs that allow their customers to do this (while pubs that provide such music are doing it as part of their 'services', which is a critical difference). I also wouldn't want to have my hearing damaged by a neighbours loud music - once the noise reaches excessive levels, there is a strong case for making it illegal since then it isn't just impacting on the person with the loud noise, but also on all their neighbours, and a line has to be drawn somewhere (it shouldn't be legal to make a constant noise so loud that you can't hear yourself think let alone speak if within 1 mile of the vicinity in a residential area, for example, and I don't think anyone could argue otherwise).
Easy - at the most basic level you can have the punishment as a fine, allow anyone to report an offending pub/other public place, and then enforcement officers can respond, level the fine if needed, and cover the costs of the whole enforcement system. Assuming that the fine is enforced, that then means that the business owners look to prevent it to avoid receiving the fine.
Good 'un.
The original focus of this blog was whether our government should be able to prohibit smoking, a legal activity, in private business establishments. It now appears to have evolved into, or is being confused with, a discussion about whether smoking should be criminalized. These are 2 very different issues. I'm not arguing that smoking should be legal, I don't smoke, hate 2nd hand smoke, and avoid restaurants and bars where smoking is allowed. But, at this point, smoking IS legal in the US and I'm arguing that, as long as it IS legal, our government should stay out of our private lives. And since my private business is an extension of my private life I don't want Uncle Sam telling me how I, or my guests (customers) should behave in my domain. If somebody doesn't like my habits they are free to leave my property. Just my opinion as an American.
Well said namgreb!
What's childish is going into a place that you know full well permits smoking and then whining about the smoking.
Responsible adults make their own choices about what businesses they choose to enter.
Amen to that!
Sorry to nit pick but: Unless that place happens to be somewhere you have to go to and not a social club you choose to attend. Bars aren't the only business in question.
So don't go to them. Money talks.
read that again... when you are not CHOOSING to go there... ex: school, government offices, etc... its not your choice, you must attend.
It now appears to have evolved into, or is being confused with, a discussion about whether smoking should be criminalized.
Some people keep confusing the issue of not being allowed to do harm to others with the more general issue of not being allowed to do anything at all.
I thought it was an attempt to create a strawman.
"Some people keep confusing the issue of not being allowed to do harm to others with the more general issue of not being allowed to do anything at all."
But I'm not one of them, I'm only concerned with allowing the US government to get involved in the private lives of it's citizens who are engaging in legal behavior. And at this time smoking IS legal. If enough scientific data exists showing a link between second hand or slipstream smoke and serious health issues then our government needs to do what we pay it for and pass a law criminalizing this behavior. That would protect the true victims of smokers, children in homes and cars with the doors and windows shut! Unlike consenting adults in smoky bars and restaurants they have no choice! Now what do you think the chances are of that ever happening
But I'm not one of them, I'm only concerned with allowing the US government to get involved in the private lives of it's citizens who are engaging in legal behavior.
That doesn't mean anything.
It's a redundant or tautological statement. "Government should not interfere with legal behaviour." Grand.
We ALL agree with that. The question remains, which behaviour should be considered legal?
Unlike consenting adults in smoky bars and restaurants they have no choice!
I assure you that while I consent to hearing loud music when I enter a bar that plays loud music, I do NOT ever consent to OTHER people smoking next to me.
Now what do you think the chances are of that ever happening
Very high. It happened in the UK and Ireland.
Throwing a bottle at someone is assault. Actually hitting them is battery. Both of which are crimes. Smoking is legal therefore simply lighting up is NOT forbidden. Now if you want the government to declare smoking illegal, fine, but that is not what is being discussed here, we are talking about banning smoking in privately owned buildings.
You seem to be misunderstanding everything that I have said. I too am talking about personal responsibility. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions, even victims in some situations. If you knowingly put yourself in harms way then you share some of the blame if you are hurt. If you go skydiving and end up getting killed who is to blame? You have to accept the risk when you go up in the plane. If you enter a bank that is being robbed then you are partly to blame if you get shot because you should have waited until the robbery was over.
But you chose to enter the bar. You could have just stayed home if you didn't want to be around the cigarettes. I'm not saying that there are no benefits to a smoke-free environment, I don't smoke and I prefer to be in places that don't allow smoking but that should the choice of the owner of the establishment NOT the government.
"That doesn't mean anything."
Maybe not to you but it does to me.
"I assure you that while I consent to hearing loud music when I enter a bar that plays loud music, I do NOT ever consent to OTHER people smoking next to me."
Then stay out of the smokey bar! I avoid both smokey AND noisy bars (and I don't begrudge others the enjoyment they get from such an atmosphere)
"Very high. It happened in the UK and Ireland."
That's just the point, this is America, not the UK or Ireland. Smoking, however abhorrent, is legal here and some of us are fighting to assure that our federal government stays out of the lives of private citizens engaging in legal behavior in their PRIVATE establishments. If smoking ever becomes legal then this will all be another issue.
You just said "smoking is legal therefore it should be legal, assult is illigal therefore it should be illigal"
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
