Freedom of choice.... Is this America?

[Christian Schnepf]

Yet another city here in Arizona imposed a ban on smoking in resturants/bars yesterday. These people that impose these rules say it is for public health safety....
When these small town of Tempe here imposed this ban, many of the bars lost lots of business. The patrons only have to drive a few more minutes into Scottsdale or Phoenix to go into a bar where they can smoke.
What about the freedom of choice for the owner? Can he not decide for himself whether or not his establishment will allow smoking? Can a person not choose for himself whether or not he will go into that resturant due to the ammount of smoke?
Any thing similar happening in your area?
[ April 25, 2003: Message edited by: Christian Schnepf ]

[Cindy Glass]

It is really no different than some counties and cities in America that are Dry. They forbid the sale of alcohol by liquor stores or restaurants. The restaurant owner doesn't get to decide.
As long as the majority of the voters think that this is the way the matter should be handled, then it gets made into law.

[Gail Schlentz]

San Diego county has been like that for several years. When I go out of the county now, & encounter indoor smoking, I'm really shocked. The way San Diego is layed out, smokers really don't have a big choice about going somewhere they can smoke. I never thought of how effective the law would be in an area where other counties are so close by. Seems like it should be a law at the state level, at least, huh?

[Joel McNary]

Deleware has enancted this law at the state level; there have been suggestions made to relax it for bars that do not server food and smoking clubs, but those suggestions were recently tabled pending further investigation.
Still, Deleware is not exactly that large a state...

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Elaine Micheals:
Seems like it should be a law at the state level, at least, huh?

Instead of legislating property rights away, why not let people choose? When a person owns a business, it is that person's property to do with as the owner thinks. As long as the person does not invade the rights of others.
As a patron of the business it is your privilege to use, or not to use, the services of that business.

[Gail Schlentz]

I recently went into a store in a strip mall that was right next to a cigar shop. The store I was in reeked of cigar smoke. Sure, that store owner could choose to move, but then you get into an argument of "whose rights are more important". It's not like there is some benefit to smoking... (ok - other than to the tobacco farmers) How far does it go?

[John Smith]

Instead of legislating property rights away, why not let people choose? When a person owns a business, it is that person's property to do with as the owner thinks.

I couldn't agree more. If I am a restaurant owner, I should have the right to set its policy. Anything goes, including "No one under 35 or over 45 admitted", "No non-smokers", "No smokers", "No blonds", "No Russians". If you don't like it, go someplace else.
Notice that there is a big difference between discriminating by the government and discriminating by the private enterprize. The tendency is to equate the two, and if the things progress the way they are, you will end up on an airplane where you you will be greeted by a 62-year-old ugly and overweight stuardess. She may also chose to model for the Victoria Secret, -- the company would not have the right to decline her.
Eugene.

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Elaine Micheals:
I recently went into a store in a strip mall that was right next to a cigar shop. The store I was in reeked of cigar smoke. Sure, that store owner could choose to move, but then you get into an argument of "whose rights are more important". It's not like there is some benefit to smoking... (ok - other than to the tobacco farmers) How far does it go?

This is a fine example of where one person exercising property rights invades the rights of another person. I would have no problem with a law that states the owner of the cigar shop needs to take measures to prevent the smell of cigar smoke passing to the neighboring stores. It is up to the owner of the cigar shop as to what measures to take.

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:

What about the freedom of choice for the owner? Can he not decide for himself whether or not his establishment will allow smoking? Can a person not choose for himself whether or not he will go into that resturant due to the ammount of smoke?
Any thing similar happening in your area?

It's difficult for an owner to enforce smoking rules. Do you think that a theater owner really wants to interrupt a movie by disciplining smokers?
Cleaning up after smokers and maintaining ashtrays in restaurants and theaters is a problem that owners don't need. I'm sure that the majority of them are very happy that business becomes a lot easier when smoking isn't permitted.
I agree that smoking laws enforced at the local level are a problem because some people will drive to other cities where they can smoke indoors. A better solution is to enforce the laws at the state level.
Smoking is not permitted indoors here in California and I think its great. When the law initially went into effect a lot of smokers were unhappy but I don't hear anyone complaining now. That's not to say that everyone is happy. I just don't hear the complaints.
Smoking is permitted in Nevada and I know that a lot of Californians are really shocked by the filth that they have to tolerate when visiting Nevada. I suppose that the filth becomes acceptable to those that are accustomed to living in it but those that don't realize that better living conditions are available in non-smoking states.

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
I couldn't agree more. If I am a restaurant owner, I should have the right to set its policy.

Not if your policy is against the law, like in Arizona.
Heck, not even if your policy is against city code.
Heck not even if your policy is against zoning laws.
Society has all SORTS of restrictions on what folks can and can not do in their private businesses and HOMES.
For instance - I am not allowed to have any farm animals on my land except horses. It is a restriction placed by other land owners around me to keep the property values up. Just because I disagree will not keep me out of trouble if I break the rules.
Without restrictions on businesses we would end up with the infamous strip clubs next door to elementary schools. Society makes decisions on what they do and do not want in certain places, and it is the will of the majority that makes those decisions.

[John Smith]

Society has all SORTS of restrictions on what folks can and can not do in their private businesses and HOMES.
Right, and that's exactly what we are discussing here, -- to what extend should the society have the restrictions on what folks can and can not do in their private businesses and homes.
My point is that we already have enough ridiculous restrictions, -- it's illegal to smoke grass in your home, and it's illegal to perform oral sex with your wife in Texas. Apply a few more restrictions, and you end up with a dictatorship and a totalitarian state where the good of society is above the individual freedom.
Eugene.

[Cindy Glass]

The difference is that in a dictatorship and a totalitarian state the rules are made without the consent of the governed.
In Arizona the folks WANTED those rules.

[Christian Schnepf]

Cleaning up after smokers and maintaining ashtrays in restaurants and theaters is a problem that owners don't need. I'm sure that the majority of them are very happy that business becomes a lot easier when smoking isn't permitted.

Incorrect. Many businesses in Tempe have taken quite a hit in customers (especially bars since this happens to be a college town) because the customers aren't allowed to smoke in bars. Some have even had to close. Not only is this bad for the business owners, but now all that tax revenue that Tempe wants, is down the street in Scottsdale. What about the waiters/waitresses/hostesses that now no longer have a job because the resturant/bar couldn't get any customers to come to tempe, because they wanted to smoke?

Seems like it should be a law at the state level, at least, huh?

How is this the answer? Wouldn't it be more simplistic for the customer that doesn't want to be in a smokey resturant to just stay home? Or go to a resturant (there are plenty) that don't allow smoking? Isn't this free enterprise? I am sure if an entrepenur saw a great demand for a completely non-smoking bar, there would be TONS... where are they then?

For instance - I am not allowed to have any farm animals on my land except horses. It is a restriction placed by other land owners around me to keep the property values up. Just because I disagree will not keep me out of trouble if I break the rules.

This brings up a good point... Where do we draw the line?

Apply a few more restrictions, and you end up with a dictatorship and a totalitarian state where the good of society is above the individual freedom.

I completely agree. Call me crazy, but it is only a matter of time before the system gets even more rediculous.
Besides, wasn't something similar tried with liquor before? Must not have been that great of an idea since it is no longer in existence....

[John Smith]

In Arizona the folks WANTED those rules.
Understood. And my proposed amendment to the US constitution is that the good people of Arizona or its government should have no say in how I run my own business in respect to its admittance policies.
Eugene.
[ April 25, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Christian Schnepf]

In Arizona the folks WANTED those rules.

Why should we let people, who don't go to bars, tell the bar owner he can't have smokers inside decide this? If a majority of the population doesn't like condoms should we pass a law so that retailers cannot sell them? If such a law is passed does it enfringe upon the rights of a condom user?
[ April 25, 2003: Message edited by: Christian Schnepf ]

[Thomas Paul]

The name of the game is "second hand smoke". In NY, it was an employee health issue. Employees have the right to a safe workplace and a workplace filled with smoke is unsafe (if you believe second hand smoke is a carcinogen). Your employer does not have the right to make your workplace unsafe and then tell you if you don't want to work there then quit.

[Christian Schnepf]

The name of the game is "second hand smoke". In NY, it was an employee health issue. Employees have the right to a safe workplace and a workplace filled with smoke is unsafe (if you believe second hand smoke is a carcinogen). Your employer does not have the right to make your workplace unsafe and then tell you if you don't want to work there then quit.

I have yet to hear this arguement in this state (I am surprised it hasn't come up yet too).

[Jim Yingst]

I have yet to hear this arguement in this state (I am surprised it hasn't come up yet too).
Really? It wasn't difficult for me to google a site that makes this case:
http://www.smokefreetempe.com/
[CG]: In Arizona the folks WANTED those rules.
[EK]: Understood. And my proposed amendment to the US constitution is that the good people of Arizona or its government should have no say in how I run my own business in respect to its admittance policies.
And just to be clear again, it's not Arizona that's enacted the law, it's the city of Tempe (near Phoenix). Most other cities here don't have such an absolute ban, though some may be close. Here in Tucson the law seems to be that restaurants can�t have smoking sections unless they have separate ventilation systems, or if the restaurant can prove that its business decreased at least 15 percent because of the ventilation rule. I doubt many restaurants here have separate ventilation systems, though some may have been able to invoke the 15% clause. I don't remember the last time I noticed smoking in a restaurant, though in bars the situation may be different (I'm not much of a bar person.)
Here's a list of US cities which may be of interest:
http://www.smokersclub.com/donotgo.htm
Dunno how accurate it is in all details, but it's something.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Understood. And my proposed amendment to the US constitution is that the good people of Arizona or its government should have no say in how I run my own business in respect to its admittance policies.

The goal of a good conservative should be to have less federal government intervention in local affairs and not more! I can just see the justice department getting involved in every petty dispute between a locality and some business.

[John Smith]

The goal of a good conservative should be to have less federal government intervention in local affairs and not more! I can just see the justice department getting involved in every petty dispute between a locality and some business.
Well, under the amendment, no government (including the federal, state, or local) and no damn comunity of any kind can dictate the business any admittance policy. I guess I was not clear on that.
Eugene.

[Thomas Paul]

So every time a city does something that annoys a business, the business will sue the city in federal court on the grounds that it interferes with whatever the ammendment says the city can't interfere with. As I said, every petty dispute between a business and a municipality will become a federal affair. Is this what you want? More power to the federal courts? Aren't federal judges making enough laws as it is?

[Mapraputa Is]

Smoking is good. In my family nobody smoked. I could only breath in smoke when it was a holiday (1 May - the day for working-class solidarity, November 7 - the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution) and we had guests. Since then cigarette smoke is associated with holiday and it always brings me in excited state of spirit. Too bad there aren't too many places around where one can inhale some good fresh smoke.
[ April 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[John Smith]

November 7 - the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution
Homework assignment for you guys: "Why is the Great October Socialist Revolution celebrated in November?".

[Dan Chisholm]

Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:
Incorrect. Many businesses in Tempe have taken quite a hit in customers (especially bars since this happens to be a college town) because the customers aren't allowed to smoke in bars. Some have even had to close. Not only is this bad for the business owners, but now all that tax revenue that Tempe wants, is down the street in Scottsdale. What about the waiters/waitresses/hostesses that now no longer have a job because the resturant/bar couldn't get any customers to come to tempe, because they wanted to smoke?

Here in California the anti-smoking rules were voted into law with a direct ballot measure. Smoking is no longer permitted in public because the majority of the people don't want smoking in public indoor areas.
Many of the supporters of the ballot measures were waiters/waitresses/hostesses because they were concerned with the health problems associated with long term exposure to second hand smoke.
If the anti-smoking laws were enforced at the state level then people would have no reason to drive out of Tempe to Scottsdale because the laws would be the same in both cities.

Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:

Wouldn't it be more simplistic for the customer that doesn't want to be in a smokey resturant to just stay home?

Non-smokers are the majority of the population. Do you want the majority of the population to stay home?

Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:

I am sure if an entrepenur saw a great demand for a completely non-smoking bar, there would be TONS... where are they then?

California is now full of them.

Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:

Call me crazy, but it is only a matter of time before the system gets even more rediculous.

If the anti-whatever rules are voted into law by direct ballot measure then the system gets only as crazy as the citizens desire.

Originally posted by Christian Schnepf:

Besides, wasn't something similar tried with liquor before? Must not have been that great of an idea since it is no longer in existence.

Although smoking is not permitted in public indoor areas such as a bar smoking is permitted outside of the bar. During prohibition were people allowed to drink outside of the bar?

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
November 7 - the day of the Great October Socialist Revolution
Homework assignment for you guys: "Why is the Great October Socialist Revolution celebrated in November?".

Because the communists loved me and wanted to have a party on my birthday.
Actually, the old calendar put the date in October when all us modern-folks put it on November 7th.

[Matthew Phillips]

I don't agree with the concept of a Constitutional amendment on this issue. The most appropriate amendment for the issue is already in the Constitution, the 10th.
As to the health concerns of workers, you do not have a right to a job. If an employer feels that the most productive work force is a smoking work force (as far fetched as that sounds), then why shouldn't the employer be allowed to do that? If you don't smoke and don't want to work in that environment, then quit the job and find one better suited to you.
A line does have to be drawn at where the rights of one person end and the rights of another person begin. In the case of the farm animals, someone's rights will be infringed no matter what the decision. At that point a local majority deciding the issue may be the only solution to determining who loses their rights.
In the case of smoking in public places, free standing building are not affecting another persons rights. In a strip mall situation, where the rights of other business owners are affected then it can be handled by the most local level of government: an association of business owners in that strip mall.

[John Smith]

TP: Actually, the old calendar put the date in October when all us modern-folks put it on November 7th.
Thomas gets the Java book for the first right answer!
MP: I don't agree with the concept of a Constitutional amendment on this issue. The most appropriate amendment for the issue is already in the Constitution, the 10th.
Here is the 10th: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So if people of Arizona apply their power, they can pass a law that will require a local business not to hire, say, white males, or not to be open on Tuesdays. But you seem to be against the society imposing their will on the individuals. So, how do you reconcile it with the 10th? That's where my amendment kicks in.
Eugene.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
As to the health concerns of workers, you do not have a right to a job. If an employer feels that the most productive work force is a smoking work force (as far fetched as that sounds), then why shouldn't the employer be allowed to do that? If you don't smoke and don't want to work in that environment, then quit the job and find one better suited to you.

While it is true that people do not have rights to jobs, employers by law must provide safe working conditions. There are plenty of things that could make a work force potentially more productive, such as say construction workers not having to wear helmets, eye-protection, and safety-toed boots, yet these safety regulations must still be followed. Health and safety laws are a protection extended to workers for a very good reason. Knowing that second hand smoke is a health hazard, it would seem logical that workers be extended full protection under the law.
[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[John Smith]

While it is true that people do not have rights to jobs, employers by law must provide safe working conditions.
We know the laws, the question is, should these laws exist, and if yes, to what extend they should interfere with the right of the business owner to run his business? Our team works with the software from a German vendor, and when one of their architect came to visit us in US, he told us that in Germany, the government officials come to the companies to check the refresh rate on the employees' computers. If it is set below 80Hz, the business is shut down.
There is an unfortunate trend in the US towards more rights for the employees and less rights for the employer, and if we simply say "Well, it's the law, and the businessmen should comply", we will end up with a German highly regulated and buerocratic model, if not something much worse.
Eugene.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
[QBshould these laws exist, and if yes, to what extend they should interfere with the right of the business owner to run his business?[/QB]

Yes these laws should exist. They should interfere with the priveledge to do business to the extent that workers are reasonably protected from scientifically accepted health hazards, or these hazards are mitigated as much as reasonably possible. Health hazards would be I think a working condition with the capacity to cause injury or cause an employee to suffer serious long term health problems. Second hand smoke would fall into the latter category.
As smoking is rarely required to facilitate the business, for example banning smoking in a restaurant does not prevent the restaurant from serving food, banning it from work environments generally has little impact on the ability of a business to provide their service or product. This is a case where the right of employees to a safe working environment is of greater concern since there is little justifiable hindrance to the business by banning smoking.

[John Smith]

Yes these laws should exist. They should interfere with the priveledge to do business to the extent that workers are reasonably protected from scientifically accepted health hazards
Ok, let's take a case of McDonalds, and extend your case of protection of workers to protection of customers. It is scientifically accepted that high cholesterol and fat are health hazards. Now, can the concerned people of Arizona or its government interfere with the McDonalds menu, legislatively? The new law "No Big Macs" will protect the state population from the heart deseases, loss of productivity, and will dramatically lower the medical costs to treat them. It is therefore obvious that shutting down McDonalds or forcing them to serve only vegetarian burgers will benefit the entire community and save a lot of money for the state budget, right?
Isn't it much more intuitive, simple, and democratic to leave the choice to employers, workers and consumers? If you don't like your employer's unsafe practicies, quit your job. Eventually, when enough qualified workers quit, your employer will be driven out by the competion. And if you are a consumer, and you think that the Phillip Morris and McDonalds products are unsafe, do not consume them.
Eugene.
[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Ok, let's take a case of McDonalds, and extend your case of protection of workers to protection of customers.

We're talking about safe working environments. Extending the argument to things that are generally unhealthy is not really related. More importantly, there is nothing inherently wrong with the food McDonald's serves when eaten in moderation, and nobody is placing customers in an environment where they are exposed consistently with any unsafe substances. Additionally, there are no laws concerning the food McDonald's sells. But as I said, it is a completely different and unrelated argument it would seem.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
Ok, let's take a case of McDonalds, and extend your case of protection of workers to protection of customers.

Only if customers were required to eat McDonald's hamburgers. For example, supoose your local sewage company decided that they could save a lot of money just by pumping the sewage back into the fresh water supply. Should the company be protected from government regulation that might try to stop them?

[Michael Morris]

For example, supoose your local sewage company decided that they could save a lot of money just by pumping the sewage back into the fresh water supply.

Of course the government has the right to control behavior that would result in widespread illness and death. I have never seen any study that indicates that second-hand smoke results in the sort of health issue that that would cause. If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar he should be allowed to do so. You don't have to work there. What gets me about all this anti-tobacco sentiment is the schizophrenia with which politicians treat it. On the one hand they want to ban it everywhere, while counting their money all the way to the bank from the revenues it brings in. There is a simple solution: make tobacco products illegal. As long as tobacco is the cash cow it is now, don't hold your breath.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Morris:
I have never seen any study that indicates that second-hand smoke results in the sort of health issue that that would cause.

RESPIRATORY HEALTH EFFECTS OF PASSIVE SMOKING: LUNG CANCER AND OTHER DISORDERS

In 1992, the EPA completed its risk assessment on The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders and concluded that the widespread exposure to ETS in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. More specifically, EPA concluded that ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers. Furthermore, infants and young children are especially sensitive to ETS. In children, ETS exposure is causally associated with: 1) an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. (EPA estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to ETS.), 2) an increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and 3) additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. (EPA estimates that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.) ETS exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.

If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his bar he should be allowed to do so. You don't have to work there.

Using the same logic, if that same bar owner wants to use asbestos insulation in his business I suppose he should be allowed to do that as well.
However, since the scientific body of evidence has already determined that second hand smoke is a significant health hazard, I would direct your attention towards the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 for any clarifications on what the government can and can't do regarding workplace safety, and what an employers responsibilities under the law are.
While I do not believe second hand smoke is covered under this regulation as of yet, the logic seems to hold regarding the law requiring an employer to provide a safe working environment.

Each employer --

(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;

(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this Act.

[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Michael Morris]

Ok Jason, but what I was refuting was the influence of raw sewage back into the local water supply which would result in the immediate outbreak of cholera in the community resulting in immediate death and illness. Certainly you are not attempting to equate second-hand smoke to that? Once again, your asbestos argument is specious because its use is outlawed outright and would certainly not benefit anyone involved, only a moron with a death wish would even consider risking his livelihood thus. As I said the solution is to outlaw tobacco and there will be no argument. You don't have to go into a bar that allows smoking, you don't have to take your asthmatic children there either and by all means you don't have to work there. The great thing about this country is that we all have the right to make choices. I gave up a job in the Dallas area a couple of years ago that would have given me a salary increase of nearly 75% with an even greater increase in benefits and perks. Why? Because I want to do with my house and my land what I want to do. If I want to grow a garden, I can grow a garden, if I want to raise pigs, I can raise pigs. If I want to paint my house purple with pink stripes I can do that. I feared living in a city with zoning restrictions, etc. would have been something I and my family just couldn't live with. Every time one of these laws gets passed, that's just a little more freedom gone. The next radical movement may want to restrict something you enjoy, that some scientific study says is risky. Think about it.

[Donald R. Cossitt]

Will Rogers once said something like: The Congress is in session; nobody's safe! What needs to happen is place a ban on legislators! Like they can only meet every fifty years, have their three martini lunch, decide which laws they will eliminate and go home - pro bono. I have seen little in my 52 years on earth that legislation has accomplished in a positive way except to allow lawyers to run amuck unchecked (71 years of liberal nonsense)!

[Michael Morris]

I have seen little in my 52 years on earth
Wow, I'm actually younger than one of the JavaRanchers. Does this mean I have to say yes sir and no sir when addressing you doco?

[Donald R. Cossitt]

Does this mean I have to say yes sir and no sir when addressing you doco?

'Mr.' Cossitt died in 1988; doco will do just fine. In reality, you can call me anything but late for supper.
[ April 27, 2003: Message edited by: Donald R. Cossitt ]

[Matthew Phillips]

People have to take responsibility for their actions. Freedom takes a great amount of responsibility. Dumping raw sewage into a public water supply and smoking in a private business are two different things.
There should be laws on the books to protect employees, but I don't like the laws we have. It's common sense that you should wear a hard hat and boots to a construction site. The injuries of someone not doing that should not be the responsibility of the employer. The employers responsibility should end when the potential employee is made aware of the dangers involved in working for the employer. It is then the potential employees responsibility to negotiate how to avoid the dangers and what type of compensation arises from injury resuting from the dangers.
Second hand smoke does not cause immediate death. If you go to work somewhere and the employer allows smoking, then you can leave and your health will not be harmed to any significant degree. If you choose to stay, then you are taking responsibility for your health.
As to the damage anti-smoking laws cause, I strongly disagree that they do not affect businesses. There is a reason that non-smoking bars do not exist outside of smoke free towns. Its because most people who go to bars also smoke. A non-smoking bar cannot compete for customers with a smoking bar. It would seem that laws banning smoking entirely would allow non-smoking bars to compete on a level playing field with formerly smoking bars, but this is not the case. In fact the number of consumers goes down and both businesses suffer because of the law.