Smoking bans: a CONSERVATIVE idea?

[Watcher]

We've recently passed a smoking ban in my city, making it illegal to light up in any public place. Some businesses will not be affected; a few may prosper; some, such as popular downtown bars, will suffer hardship as a result of the actions of government.

What is puzzling to me is the fact that local "Conservatives" strongly support this law. I always thought that Conservatives tried to preach the mantra of unfettered capitalism, allowing the free market to determine whether a smoke-free or a smoke-filled business was more profitable.

So my question is - why would a conservative support this law?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Where I live we have had that law in effect now for over 1 year. At first the establishments that saw their customer base reduce now see a healthy and robust business, actually better than before. It just took awhile to let the smoke settle, if it were, and now the owners are very pleased for the most part. The law affects only where food and liquer were sold not at just bars that serve drinks.

 

[DCLXVI]

I like the law, I wish it were passed here as well.

I hate coming home from a night at the bar smelling like an ashtray. The only place you can go for a drink around here without being smothered in smoke are private homes. The smoke also gives me hangovers.

 

[Watcher]

OK fine... but the question was why a Conservative, who supposedly wants the "free market" to determine the course of events, would want Big Government to institute yet another law? It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

As far as my opinion on the law - it doesn't matter enormously to me. I don't go into bars often enough to worry about it. I'm more curious about tbe logic that Conservative supporters of this law must utilize.

 

[Neildo]

People should be free to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't unwillingly affect another person. Unfortunately, smoke breaks that rule.

- N

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

People should be free to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't unwillingly affect another person. Unfortunately, smoke breaks that rule.

Millions of people smoke. It shouldn't be that difficult to create places where they can be together and smoke without making it difficult for the rest of us to find places where we can get together and not breathe smoke. Private clubs with a ridiculously low membership fee should be a workable idea.

I don't want Big Nanny trying to "reform" me out of my bad habits and I would like to extend others the same courtesy.

There has never been a human activity in the history of the planet that has caused more death and misery for non-participants than religion, yet we absolutely pander to it, give it tax breaks, and let it dictate some of our holidays. The least we can do for tobacco users is make it possible for them to gather in places where they won't bother us.

 

[Neildo]

But there are places where people can smoke together. Smoking in public is only banned when it's in the public public where all types of people may be gathered. Smoking-only rooms exist for those that want to smoke. It's just that the main room that is considered public public is off-limits to smoking. And for those places that don't have a room like this, go ahead and mention it to them.

- N

 

[JustARide]

I just finished producing a series of news reports on our city's new smoking ban (I'm a radio reporter). It involved interviewing people on all sides of the issue. I didn't run into many conservatives that supported the ordinance, but the few that did seemed to fall into the look-at-me-I'm-a-do-gooder, Christian Right, media-is-corrupting-our-children sector of conservatism.

Opponents of the law fell into almost every political category: liberal, conservative, libertarian, etc. But I live in a state with a largely tobacco-driven economy and that's what made our ban so unexpected.

If I had to guess, I would say it's the "family values" conservatives that generally support anti-smoking legislation. Of course, the party of "smaller government" is currently supporting a president who has created massive debt and practically driven us into imperial mode as a nation -- not exactly a hands-off guy (unless you count corporate deregulation). Meanwhile it's the Democrats of all people arguing for fiscal responsibility. So, the definition of "conservative" may have changed somewhat over recent years...

Josh

 

[Asguard]

when talking about smoking bans has anyone here ever thought not about the consumers but about the WORKERS?

I work in hospitality and NOW we have laws that say no smoking alowed when serving food but i was going for an interview at a place the other day and i walked out and couldnt stop coughing because of the cigar smoke

consumers can chose to go elsewhere, Workers dont have that choice. When you are starting out you basically have to work wherever you can get a job and if that means that you breath in smoke like a compression sesion tough

I do smoke about one smoke every so often when i feel like i need it but that doesnt mean i want to come to work and breath it in all day and i feel REALLY sorry for those people who dont smoke at all but have to work like that

it actually doesnt hurt the hospitality industry at all to have smoking bans. If people want to smoke they can go outside or get an out door table and to be honest who smokes WHILE they are eating?

 

[cosmictraveler]

More people DO NOT SMOKE in the USA than those who choose to. If we live in a true democracy then the majority should have its way, unless the minority cheats.

 

[JustARide]

More people DO NOT SMOKE in the USA than those who choose to. If we live in a true democracy then the majority should have its way, unless the minority cheats.

I don't believe the simple premise of our democracy is "majority rule." Otherwise, there would be no walkways for the handicapped, welfare for the poor, etc. The rights of the minority must also be protected to some extent if we are to be considered truly democratic.

The two arguments for a smoking ban are as follows: 1) The government is caretaking the health of the community, and 2) Second hand smoke affects those in the immediate area of a smoker.

So, perhaps we should also outlaw Twinkies. Here's my reasoning. 1) Twinkies are bad for people's health. It's a proven fact. And obesity is soon to be become the number one killer in the US. 2) If someone eats too many Twinkies and becomes fat, that person may clog an exit during a fire in my building and that could be a health hazard to the rest of us.

Josh

 

[Asguard]

twinkies dont kill (or even just make cough, sick) everyone in the area

 

[JustARide]

twinkies dont kill (or even just make cough, sick) everyone in the area

But I can argue they result in a health hazard -- namely, fat people and their fatness clogging my exit in the event of emergency. Would you rather be behind a row of skinny folk filing out of a burning building or the Three Tenors? Also, I might question whether people should be able to drink in public as well, since this means they will likely need to drive in order to get home. And there is even more proof that a swerving SUV going 90 mph can kill than second-hand smoke...

By the way, it's a bit over-the-top to imply that smoking "kill(s) everyone in the area." Sure, the possibility of negative effects exists, but guess what... there are negative effects to living in Los Angeles because of smog. Should we outlaw LA? (Hey, that actually sounds like a good idea.) Or maybe tell the smog-producing corporations to stop? Well, no chance of that under this president.

Another one to ponder: should children who grow up in houses with parents who smoke be able to sue their guardians later in life? After all, the children had no choice but to breath the smoke, right? Perhaps suits should be filed against pet owners who smoke as well because they are negatively impacting their pets' health too, and poor Rover has no say in the matter.

The problem with smoking is that the effects are so variable. Depending on the person, smoking could either produce lung cancer or just relatively minor inconvenience. You might kick off early... or you might be George Burns. If smoking immediately caused cancer in anyone who came in contact with it, the case would be much simpler.

It's like when health nuts try to inflict some dietary regimen on the rest of the world -- they usually miss one thing. Immortality, as it stands, is impossible. Even if you eat tofu, spinach, and rice cakes your entire life, jog 10 miles every morning, and shit tree bark, you're still going to die. As soon as someone comes up with an immortality diet/health plan, I'm there. But until that day, I'm going to continue balancing quantity of life with <i>quality</i>. I'd rather live 34 Bill Hicks years than 900 Laura Bush years. It isn't all about living as long as you can -- it's about living as much as you can too. And I think any plan to healthify the entire country is bound to fail because Americans, like most, enjoy some activities that happen to be harmful to their health. And this is coming from a guy who has never smoked a cigarette in his life.

 

[Asguard]

quality

thats the whole point. I can garentiee that i dont want to breath in cigar smoke everytime i go to work all day for 60hrs a week

but because i need a job and my qualifications are in cooking i might not get a say. SURE you can say find another industry but why shouldnt i be able to cook and breath at the same time. Dont i have that right?

YES i do

thank you goverment that i do

 

[StarOfEight]

quality

thats the whole point. I can garentiee that i dont want to breath in cigar smoke everytime i go to work all day for 60hrs a week

but because i need a job and my qualifications are in cooking i might not get a say. SURE you can say find another industry but why shouldnt i be able to cook and breath at the same time. Dont i have that right?

YES i do

thank you goverment that i do

What you want is irrelevant. If second hand smoking is shown to be dangerous, then ban it by all means, but if everything that inconvenienced somebody was outlawed, what would be left?

 

[Asguard]

actually its not

see THATS where the rights of the majority come in

what YOU want is irralevent if your actions impact on ME
thats why there are achole laws banning someone under the infulance being on licence premise thats why there are laws baning smoking in ALL work places

it only seems to be the US where the rights of the one out way the rights of the many

 

[JustARide]

what YOU want is irralevent if your actions impact on ME
thats why there are achole laws banning someone under the infulance being on licence premise thats why there are laws baning smoking in ALL work places

I think what you're trying to articulate there is the famous Oliver Wendel Holmes axiom: "My right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." That's a sentiment I generally agree with and I believe is one of the founding principles of our society, though it's not as simple as weighing in on the side of the majority in all cases. The majority isn't handicapped, but we still force public establishments to be handicap accessible, don't we? And who pays for it? Not just handicapped people.

The civil rights issue is as two-way street. Consider the bar owner's dilemma (I've interviewed many of them in town). Their customers generally want to smoke and drink. Today they are not allowed -- <i>no one</i> is allowed, not even cigar bars. Now, should that business owner have the right to allow customers to use a <i>legal</i> product in the confines of his own business? Just as you have no right to demand that a business give you a job, do you also not have the right to demand what legal substances are smoked within the walls of that establishment? Did you not enter the profession of cook knowing full well what the implications were?

it only seems to be the US where the rights of the one out way the rights of the many

That's a pretty big blanket statement there. What about people who cannot help being in the minority? Blacks? Gays? Should they just be ignored because there are fewer of them? That would be fascism of the majority. The trick is striking a balance between the two, where the majority has its say, but minorities are not left entirely in the cold.

Josh

 

[Asguard]

no

i entred the profession knowing it would mean long hrs, hard work, shit pay and little job satifaction for a long time

i did NOT enter knowing that everyday i would walk out coughing

just for your infomation since smoking bans restraunts are getting MORE coustmers not less. It hasnt hurt the industry at all and it made it much safer and more plesant for staff.

Happier staff means friendlier service means better relations with coustomers means more money

that doesnt include all the non smokers, asmatics ect who want to go eat and couldnt because of the smoke

better all around

 

[JustARide]

no

i entred the profession knowing it would mean long hrs, hard work, shit pay and little job satifaction for a long time

i did NOT enter knowing that everyday i would walk out coughing

Had you never been to restaurants before? How could you be unaware that smoking occurs there? That's like taking a job at the library and complaining that it's so quiet.

just for your infomation since smoking bans restraunts are getting MORE coustmers not less. It hasnt hurt the industry at all and it made it much safer and more plesant for staff.

Depends entirely on whom you talk with. I'm a reporter, so let's say I've talked with a few. Business is doing fine, as far as restaurants are concerned, but any establishment that depends on bar money is feeling the heat -- big time. Bar business has taken a nosedive since the ban was implemented and it's forcing several local pubs out of business. That's a fact.

Now, I'm not arguing against all smoking bans; I'm just being the devil's advocate here. I don't frequent bars or taverns myself, but I do wonder how the government can tell owners what <i>legal</i> activities their patrons can and cannot engage in while inside a business.

If you want to outlaw cigarettes altogether, that's one thing, but as long as we're going to confine smoking to basically people's private residences and continue to tighten the noose around smokers until they're huddled under the kitchen table smoking under a blanket, why not legalize marijuana too and slap just as many restrictions on it? OK, that one is just a pet peeve.

I don't know why I keep presenting these hypotheticals. You never answer the questions I ask anyway.

Josh

 

[zanket]

OK fine... but the question was why a Conservative, who supposedly wants the "free market" to determine the course of events, would want Big Government to institute yet another law?

Conservatives are not for free markets per se. They are for more money for themselves. They would like a smoking ban if they thought it would improve profits. Conservatives like tariffs for the same reason.