Smoking Bans for Businesses

Published on May 9, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

The city of Amarillo, for now, at least, does not have a public smoking ban.

There are probably those who wonder why I should care since a) I don't smoke; I don't live in Amarillo.

It's simple really. You see, an indoor smoking ban is a pretty egregious infringement on the rights of business owners. Not only does it affect consumers,most of whom, in my experience, at least, are polite enough to head outside, but it affects the owners by dictating to them what they can and cannot allow within their business establishments.

A ban is the ultimate insult to the intelligence of Americans. It says, in effect, "you are too STUPID to make this decision, so I will make it for you". Bans differ from laws in that they revolve around individual choices, and thus are anathema to liberty. Laws, in theory, at least, protect the common interest.

We are beginning to see more and more Americans rebel against the concept of overgovernment. While Libertarians aren't being embraced wholesale, the same cannot be said of the causes we have long championed. Smoking bans, once a given when put before voters are being challenged by people who realize that it's simply not ABOUT smoking: It's about individual rights and responsibilities.

Comments

Dr Guy

on May 09, 2005

Most of the nany laws are saying that. You are too STUPID to decide for yourself. Long an exclusive domain of Liberals, it is now not uncommon for conservatives (or at least Republicans) to do the same thing.

Who is doing it is irrelevant. It is always wrong.

Eastern Diamondback

on May 09, 2005

I wrote an article about this in January (click here for link).

Hey Gideon, how did you get a wikipedia entry?

MasonM

on May 09, 2005

a pretty egregious infringement on the rights of business owners.

Not only violates the rights of the business owner, but may well put him/her out of business in many cases. I was talking to a guy a while back who owned a bar in Boston. After Boston had passed their ban on any indoor smoking, it didn't take too long before he wasn't able to remain in business as he had lost most of his regular patrons. This is not only wrong, but defies common sense as the majority of people who go to bars on a regular basis also smoke.

Here in Florida there is also such a ban, but there are some exceptions. If the bar doesn't serve food, smoking is permitted. I know several places that closed their kitchen due to this. Also bad as it cut into their profits, but which were partially made up by an increase of business.

I also know of a few who simply pay the "smoking fines" so as to maintain what their customers want and consider it the price of doing business. Where's the right in that?

Personally I feel it should be left up to the business owner. If they want to permit smoking they can simply post a warning on the entrance to that effect.

Reiki-House

on May 09, 2005

Smoking is a good example of government policies (for the supposed good of the people) run amuck. We need to ask ourselves how this all came to pass, that smoking is now considered the evil of today, second after terrorism. It's interesting to note that according to some high echelon scientists no one has been able to give a lab rat lung cancer by the effects of smoke. Apparently, not once have they been able to do so. If that's true, then a whole new avenue of thought is opened up. If it's true. Also, it's been stated in the Congressional record that while not only has lung cancer been able to given to a rat through the effects of cigarette smoke, smoking has shown signs of carcinogenic effects towards the effects of cancer-inducing radioactive particles . Apparently, and I say that this with some misgivings though this can actually be checked up ourselves if we wish to do some exhaustive searches, lab rats who were used in the smoking tests (up to an equivalent 200 cigarettes a day) were then used * in the radioactive particle tests, and many of the lab rats (the report said 60%) of the rats failed to get the lung cancer they were prescribed. That hinted that the cigarette smoke somehow offered some sort of protection to the smoke-filled lungs from inhaling and ingesting the cancer-giving radiated particle. There was an apparently credible study done by a professor at Simon Fraser University which theorizes that cigarette smoke in a mammals' lungs creates a mucus-type coating which is what aparently accounts for the ingested radiated particle being unable to root itself deep inside a mammal's lungs in 40% of the tests. Interesting if true.

* As we all should know, for any scientific theory to be scientifically accepted, first it has to be first proven in accordance with rigorous universally-agreed requirements. First the suspect radioactive agent(radioactive particle) must be isolated in a scientific laboratory, then used in properly controlled laboratory experiments to produce the claimed result (lung cancer). Scientists have done experiments in which every single lab rat exposed to the radioactive particle contracts lung cancer. And we all would agree on that. With a half-life of 50,000 years, it isn't safe stuff and it's not going anywhere. Once any lab rat is used in an experiment, it is euthanized in order to ensure it won't cross-contaminate any other experiments. For this article to be completely 100% credible, we need to ask why these smoke-experimented rats were able to be used in another experiment. If they were used deliberately, then this is the biggest social bombshell in the world's history, and obviously no one wants to be on that side of the fence, or even consider it. It would prove the test was done deliberately and that result covered over just as deliberately. If it was an honest mistake or oversight on some scientists' part, it's no problem to gloss the results over. Bumblers are everywhere, and the halls of science are no exception. Any way we look at it, if it IS true that no scientist has been able to give rats lung cancer from cigarette smoke, then something is wrong and we need to seek the answers. I think a hint to the answer lies in one statement from a credible association. In1957, a British Medical Research Council report stated that "global deaths from lung cancer have more than doubled during the period 1945 to 1955”. They offered no suggestions as to why that was so. In addition, it was said that "during the same ten-year period, cancer deaths in the immediate proximity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up threefold". Finally, at the end of the official governmental atmospheric testing in 1963, the incidence of lung cancer in the Pacific Islands had increased fivefold since 1945. The world deserves answers to these smoking anomalies. By the way, these same words can be seen in official congressional committee testimony concerning smoking, circa 1982. "Professor Schrauzer, President of the International Association of Bio-inorganic Chemists, testified before a U.S. congressional committee in 1982 that it had long been well known to scientists that certain constituents of tobacco smoke act as anti-carcinogens [anti-cancer agents] in test animals. He continued that when known carcinogens [cancer causing substances] are applied to the animals, the application of constituents of cigarette smoke counter them."

just john

on May 09, 2005

I live in Shreveport, LA and our smoking ban goes into effect tomorrow. There were heated debates over just what was and was not to be included in the ban. If a business sells alcohol they allow smoking. That will include most of the nice restaurants. It cuts out McDonalds and the like but most of them were already smoke free. All public parks are now banned. You can't even smoke outside ... what is that. The largest debate was over allowing smoking in the festival plaza area. We have several large outdoor festivals each year. All of which the city depends on for revenue. (Some of these festivals last two weeks) The city only gave in to allow smoking after the food vendors for these festivals stood up and said, if they were going to cut the attendance of the festival were they barely break even, they would not participate. Well if there isn't any food ... So, the city said that they would allow smoking in festival plaza because they serve alcohol.

The rule is ... Ban smoking unless it costs the city money. Screw the small business owner who can't get a liquor license.

Gideon MacLeish

on May 10, 2005

When I lived in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, one proposed ban would affect all businesses who served a certain percentage of food, even taverns. There were two restaurants near us, one known for their pizza, the other for their chicken. Because both had a lot of carryout orders, they would be affected, even though they were primarily bars.

Go figure.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!