Why I am against smoking bans in bars
Jun. 16th, 2006 12:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cryowizardA long one re: this, so I decided to post it out separately.
FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A CHOICE.
THAT INCLUDES A CHOICE TO CONSUME A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE AND SLOWLY KILL ONE'S SELF.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A CHOICE OF BEING OR NOT BEING NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO IS CONSUMING A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE, WITH ALL THE HEALTH RISKS CONTAINED THEREIN.
AN ABSENCE OF EITHER CHOICES IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHICH LEADS TO TYRANNY.
Now, to the details.
Anti-smoking campaign started with putting hazmat labels on cigarette packs.
And that was reasonable -- it only affects smokers and is suggestive, not forceful. The smokers had a choice of ignoring the labels (which they en masse did).
Then they moved on to having non-smoking sections in restaurants and non-smoking rooms in hotels.
And that was reasonable. It kept the choice there -- those who cared for not having the smoke around simply asked for non-smoking sections or rooms.
Then they banned smoking on airplanes.
And that was reasonable, because a smoker in the close confines of a plane took away the choice of not smoking from fellow-passengers, plus an open flame is hazardous to the plane itself.
But then they started banning smoking in bars. Not introducing non-smoking sections -- banning.
And that's when 'reasonable' went out the window. That infringes on other people's liberty to smoke if they so wish. Why? Because tobacco is not a controlled substance, no matter how hazardous it is to ones health. And its consumption is a personal choice, and should not be regulated by the government. Banning takes the choice away from both smokers and bar owners. Bar owners who would want to have their establishments smoke-free, could have simply said so: NO SMOKING HERE. Those who CHOSE to smoke anyway, would have CHOSEN another establishment. So would the bartenders and bar staff who preferred to work in a smoke-free environment. But those who for whatever reasons didn't care or were the smokers themselves would have stayed in smoking bars -- BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. And if they get lung cancer and die -- they do so at they own will, cz these days everyone with half a brain knows that cigarettes are harmful. There's no law against killing yourself, is there.
There is no doubt that smoking slowly kills you. No sane person would dispute that. Yet tobacco is legal, and thus the government should keep its big fat nose out of what people do with it, bar a few very well defined cases.
Government defining what people do with themselves is a slippery slope to 1984.
And for dessert:
Alcohol kills a shit load of people every year. In 2003, 17013 people died in alcohol related driving accidents alone. Drunk drivers kill kids, alcohol abuse leads to broken homes, child abuse, violence, murder, prison, hunger, homelessness and death.
Should we ban drinking, too? Oh wait! They tried that already once. Do a bit of research into the history of Prohibition and find how, as a "do-goodie" social experiment, it was a dismal failure.
Never trust "The Government" or bleeding hearts who think they know better than the rest of us what we should do with ourselves!
FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT HAVING A CHOICE.
THAT INCLUDES A CHOICE TO CONSUME A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE AND SLOWLY KILL ONE'S SELF.
IT ALSO INCLUDES A CHOICE OF BEING OR NOT BEING NEXT TO SOMEONE WHO IS CONSUMING A CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCE, WITH ALL THE HEALTH RISKS CONTAINED THEREIN.
AN ABSENCE OF EITHER CHOICES IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHICH LEADS TO TYRANNY.
Now, to the details.
Anti-smoking campaign started with putting hazmat labels on cigarette packs.
And that was reasonable -- it only affects smokers and is suggestive, not forceful. The smokers had a choice of ignoring the labels (which they en masse did).
Then they moved on to having non-smoking sections in restaurants and non-smoking rooms in hotels.
And that was reasonable. It kept the choice there -- those who cared for not having the smoke around simply asked for non-smoking sections or rooms.
Then they banned smoking on airplanes.
And that was reasonable, because a smoker in the close confines of a plane took away the choice of not smoking from fellow-passengers, plus an open flame is hazardous to the plane itself.
But then they started banning smoking in bars. Not introducing non-smoking sections -- banning.
And that's when 'reasonable' went out the window. That infringes on other people's liberty to smoke if they so wish. Why? Because tobacco is not a controlled substance, no matter how hazardous it is to ones health. And its consumption is a personal choice, and should not be regulated by the government. Banning takes the choice away from both smokers and bar owners. Bar owners who would want to have their establishments smoke-free, could have simply said so: NO SMOKING HERE. Those who CHOSE to smoke anyway, would have CHOSEN another establishment. So would the bartenders and bar staff who preferred to work in a smoke-free environment. But those who for whatever reasons didn't care or were the smokers themselves would have stayed in smoking bars -- BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. And if they get lung cancer and die -- they do so at they own will, cz these days everyone with half a brain knows that cigarettes are harmful. There's no law against killing yourself, is there.
There is no doubt that smoking slowly kills you. No sane person would dispute that. Yet tobacco is legal, and thus the government should keep its big fat nose out of what people do with it, bar a few very well defined cases.
Government defining what people do with themselves is a slippery slope to 1984.
And for dessert:
Alcohol kills a shit load of people every year. In 2003, 17013 people died in alcohol related driving accidents alone. Drunk drivers kill kids, alcohol abuse leads to broken homes, child abuse, violence, murder, prison, hunger, homelessness and death.
Should we ban drinking, too? Oh wait! They tried that already once. Do a bit of research into the history of Prohibition and find how, as a "do-goodie" social experiment, it was a dismal failure.
Never trust "The Government" or bleeding hearts who think they know better than the rest of us what we should do with ourselves!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 12:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 02:16 pm (UTC)It is the "bleeding heart" liberals, who -- in the name of public good, as usual -- want to ban smoking everywhere.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 03:57 pm (UTC)Smoking should be allowed in the privacy of your own home, if whoever is sharing the home with you doesn't mind. And no place else.
It's got nothing to do with being liberal and everything with your freedom ending where my nose begins.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 03:58 pm (UTC)And lost a few words in the quote too: "your freedom to swing your fists".
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 04:21 pm (UTC)wrong.
your freedom not to smoke is not less valuable than any smoker's freedom to smoke.
if you dont want to inhale smoke -- go to a non-smoking bar.
if someone wants to smoke -- they will go to a smoking bar.
everyone happy.
give us a choice and people will do the rest.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 04:45 pm (UTC)I do, however, very much mind smokers camping outside near building entrances, and in parks, and those idiots who smoke while walking, leaving a plume of smoke trailing in their wake and swinging their cigarett-holding hands like nobody else exists. I got burnt by one such moron.
So, let them smoke. In isolated, closed off spaces. Far away from other people.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 05:24 pm (UTC)you are scaring me. we should prohibit anything that annoys you personally?
a park is a public space. I understand that you are irritated by smokers, but he has as much right to be in the park as you do. you dont like it -- move farther away. I am irritated by loud music on the beach. In fact, I can't stand that shit. But do I tell them to fuck off just because I dont like it? No -- I move farther away because beach is a public space.
Same goes for walking -- gimme a break, ok? I understand some dumbass burned you but that is an isolated incident and again -- sidewalk is public space and he's not doing anything illegal. You dont like it -- cross the street. Or make him cross the street.
This should be the norm unless they outlaw tobacco in this country, which is unlikely.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 06:55 pm (UTC)As for smoking in bars, once I had to leave completely empty tiny bar because physicly could not stay there: my throat, nose, eyes started to hurt. So, they lost me and whoever-he-was as customers.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 07:16 pm (UTC)Being nice and polite should be the norm regardless. That guy knew that since he didn't have any other space to sit he would bother you with his smoke. He therefore was polite and asked permission -- he knew he would be invading your space. If he had other benches to sit on -- he would have.
However! What we're talking about is LEGISLATING a ban on something legal that irritates other people. That can't happen. Some people are irritated by cats. Some by dogs. Some can't stand fur. Some hate people who wear gold chains. This list goes on and on. There's no way any of this should be legislated. As long as both sides have a choice of not being in each other's company -- it's all good.
As to the bar -- you only reinforce my view. You had a CHOICE of going to another place. The bar owner knows that non-smokers wont come -- and decides not to care. That was his CHOICE as a business man.
Both of you are happy. And so it should be.
well, another point of view
Date: 2006-06-16 07:59 pm (UTC)when smoking was allowed in every bar i rarely visited the bars (even durinig my smoking years!). seriously. i was inviting people to drink at my place, so my underwear and my hair don't smell like an ash tray. strange to hear it from a former chain smoker like me, right? :)
i just look at it this way: people don't fart in public, right? (well, at least they try not to, cz most others don't necessarily want to smell that aroma.) if you love to fart you fart in the bathroom. period. so, if you want to smoke, why not do it a the specifically designated place where you won't bother other people?
i think that the problem with the smoking ban is that they kicked the smokers out completely, without making the slightest effort to accommodate them: designated areas for smokers, "smoker bars", etc.
Re: well, another point of view
Date: 2006-06-16 08:24 pm (UTC)You are right. But only partially. May I remind you that a bar IS that "designated place". It has been for over 200 years. It is the non-smoker who is an alien there. It's completely unfair to rip the bars from under the smokers feet, especially the way it was done -- a tiny lobby convinced the mayor to backdoor a legislation like that without ever asking the public. I dont remember a poll on this. Do you??
Instead of kicking the smokers out of the bars which were theirs in the first place, there should have been a campaign to create the non-smoking bars. You know, the good old-fashioned "win the public opinion" thing. It should have become "chic" and "pc" and "cool" to go to a non-smoking bar. Then bar owners would start leaning more towards the non-smoking crowd, automatically banning smoking cz the majority of people would actually want to go to a non-smoking bar, bringing the revenue there. Then a natural separation would have occurred -- the die-hard old-fashioned smoking bars and the new and improved "healthy" bars where people still drink themselves stupid. And everyone happy, everyone has what they want.
But no -- they just had to jump out and do this nasty trick with an outright ban out of the blue, "in the interest of public health".
Re: well, another point of view
Date: 2006-06-19 04:39 pm (UTC)not really. for the most part, the bar is usually a part of the restaurant, and it is not segregated enough to prevent the public eating at the restaurant from inhaling smoke. smoking and non-smoking cars in the european trains is a different story. but smoking and non-smoking sections at the restaurants do not work that well.
also, the bar owners might not give a damn because they are not there all the time breathing the stuff. i totally agree with the comment below that if your habit affects others it shouldn't be exercised at public places.
You are right. But only partially.
nobody is right and nobody is wrong here, imho. it is just a bunch of opinions and some of them work better for some of us then the others ;)
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 09:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 08:23 pm (UTC)And, btw, they are not allowed to play loud music in public spaces, so you had every right to complain and call the police if you wanted to.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 08:39 pm (UTC)If there is no way you can get out of inhaling much smoke, he should not be smoking (airplane, for example).
If there is a way for you to coexist (separate bars, separate sides of the street), no way should his smoking be banned (unless tobacco itself is banned).
That's all.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 02:39 am (UTC)Yes there is. In most states it's illegal.
I am a libertarian verging on anarchist, but the smoking ban in cafes and restaurants is one I will support wholeheartedly.
It is not as simple as you put it. I can't choose to not be around a smoker in a cafe or restaurant. What if I was there first and I'm in the middle of eating? What if I'm having a business meeting there? The separation between smoking an non-smoking areas were a joke. The smoke from the cigaretes couldn't read those signs.
The people who work in cafes and restaurants, can't just "choose" not to work there. It's not fair to them. There's no smoking allowed in my office, why should smoking be allowed in theirs?
Saying that if you don't like smoking you can just choose to avoid it is dismissive. Smoking is not a self-contained act. How far should I move away from the smoker? 10m-20m? But there's another one standing there.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 06:05 am (UTC)Give me a link proving that. I am not talking assisted suicide, I am talking living a lifestyle that kills you. Show me a functioning law prohibiting that.
Lena, come on, you know what I am talking about. Even without looking up legal references on suicide -- if I am an alcoholic slowly drinking myself do death through cirrosis, nobody is going to arrest me. Or charge me with 'killing myself'. Or do anything else besides picking up my lifeless corpse. Same goes for a smoker who ends up getting lung cancer. Do they go to jail?? I dont think so.
>> I can't choose to not be around a smoker in a cafe or restaurant.
I dont mind complete separation of restaurants and bars into smoking and non-smoking, which would give both sides a choice of a venue, as dictated by the market. NO GOVERNMENT BANS. Not because the government says so but because such is the disire of the public that, through trendsetting and competition (i.e. market forces), shifts the emphasis and therefore revenue to the non-smoking bars. As long as BOTH sides are given a choice, I'd be fine with that, as I said already in this (http://cryowizard.livejournal.com/107778.html?thread=164354#t164354) reply.
>> The people who work in cafes and restaurants, can't just "choose" not to work there. It's not fair to them.
You are wrong. It's not fair for you to make a choice for them "for their own good". They are not little children and are well aware, through constant ads and campaigns, of dangers of smoking or being in a smoke-filled environment. I dont remember there being a city-wide campaign of bar employees lobbying the Mayor to ban smoking in bars. Do you?
In other words, bar employees can choose and do. You presume, because you dont like smoking and know smoking is harmful, to know better than they do what's good and bad for them, or what is an acceptable level of danger to THEM. It is an arrogant and selfish position. Besides, there is such a thing as an occupational hazard. As long as a person is aware of the hazard, it is his/her choice to accept or not to accept it, and not anyone else's. Case in point -- coal miners. Coal mining is very dangerous. You have cave-ins, gas explosions, black lung desease. Hundreds of miners die every year. They all know it. Yet there is no shortage of miners anywhere. They accept it. It's a lifestyle. And if they do, without coersion, so should you, without presuming you know better than they do simply because it's dangerous to their health.
>> Smoking is not a self-contained act.
Looping again. In private venues it can be made self-contained, if you give smokers a choice to go to a smoking bar and non-smokers - a choice to go to a non-smoking one. This can be done without government involvment. Again, see my comment on trendsetting (http://cryowizard.livejournal.com/107778.html?thread=164354#t164354) above. Their right to kill themselves is as important as your right not to. As to people smoking in the street -- give me a break. Just because something you pass on the street stinks, doesn't mean it has to be banned by the Mayor. You inhale car and bust exhaust, construction dust and god knows what else. Banning them too? And these you are inhaling no matter what side of the street you're on. With smokers, who have the right to be on the street as you do, you at least have a choice of moving away.
Like I said before -- being a non-smoker myself, I object to forceful banning of a legally acceptable practice of smoking on the grounds of "public health" when there are viable non-governmental non-legal market choice-based alternatives to it. It is the liberal lobby, which always assumes it knows better what's good for the rest of us than we do, that is pushing for legislation on this, not the people they are supposedly 'helping'.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 03:09 pm (UTC)But answer me this: how do you feel about the smoking ban in office buildings? How would you feel if smoking was allowed? Not just in designated areas in the office, but right in your own cubicle?
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 05:02 pm (UTC)I would object to someone smoking next to where I work. For two reasons. First, I dont want to sit in smoke all day. Second, someone smoking next to me when I have a permanent seat takes away my freedom of not smoking. It's the same reasoning as it is on airplanes.
That's why I would support dedicated small well-ventilated smoking rooms in businesses (there used to be ones!) so that smokers a) dont bother anyone else and b) dont have to be miserable downstairs stanidng out in the rain or snow freezing their asses off while they puff.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-17 09:20 pm (UTC)Note, I have not stated how I personally feel about smoking. And I am not some bleeding heart who's trying to do what is best for poor waitresses and bartenders. I am putting my lawyer hat on, and trying to argue purely on logic.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-19 04:16 pm (UTC)Это 5 баллов :)))
rkatsyv